Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Human Rights First: Wrong about Abigail Esman’s Assessment of HRC 16/18

Having presented a link to the article, I will post only a few paragraphs that bear directly on the issue. Links in the quotes are original, the highlighting is mine.

In the first paragraph, the author suggests that “incitement to imminent violence” – an act that the resolution recommends be criminalized – could mean anything. This is a harmful misconception that serves as a crux of the opposition to this resolution.

The author doesn’t directly dispute a quote from a recent Human Rights First blog on Myth vs. Reality on US Engagement with Islamic States that “the only limitation on speech that is in the operative part of the resolution is incitement to ‘imminent violence,’ which is in accordance with US law.” Yet at the same time the author states that opponents of the resolution “rightly find [this measure] distressing.” How could one be distressed by a provision that recommends the criminalization of only those instances of incitement that are considered criminal under the U.S. Constitution, the highest standard of free speech in the world?

As the UN documents are fond of saying, read “inter alia”. HRC RES 16/18 is based on UN standards, not Constitutional standards.  “Incitement to imminent violence” means what they want it to mean, not what we want it to mean. Islam practices Orwellian double speak.

Through her examples, the author seems to indicate that speech could be considered “incitement to imminent violence” simply because an individual or group of individuals react violently to it. This is an incorrect understanding of the legal concept of “incitement” as it is used in U.S. law, the standard on which this part of the resolution was based.

Where in the resolution does it explicitly define the meaning of incitement?  Nowhere!!  The definition is found elsewhere, in the expressions of the Secretary General of the OIC and the Secretary General of the United Nations.

2. Expresses its concern that incidents of religious intolerance, discrimination
and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of individuals on the basis of
religion or belief, continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any
advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, as set forth
in the present resolution, consistent with their obligations under international human rights
law, to address and combat such incidents;

3. Condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audio-visual or
electronic media or any other means;

5. Notes the speech given by Secretary-General of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference at the fifteenth session of the Human Rights Council, and draws on his
call on States to take the following actions to foster a domestic environment of religious
tolerance, peace and respect, by:
(f) Adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on
religion or belief; []

In the first page of Ishanoglu’s address to the HRC, we discover something important: his definition of incitement to violence includes announcing intent to burn the Koran.

     The new session of Council is also coincident with regrettable events that are deliberately meant to defame religions as well incite hatred, xenophobia, discrimination and violence against religions, in particular, Islam.  The increasing incidents of violence and discrimination on the basis of religion must not be ignored.  We hope  that this and other related issues remain an important priority in the work of  the Council.

The most recent and unfortunate in the series of  such events was the announcement pertaining to Burn a Koran Day.

On the next page, Ishanoglu lists campaigns that incite hatred,  including Burn a Koran Day, and informs us that they threaten global peace & security.  In the short form:  they incite violence.

In this regard all xenophobic campaigns of fear mongering and discriminatory
measures – both in policy md practice – which restrict, prohibit or discriminate against of any
religion such as ban on the construction of minarets, organization of events that incite hatred
like Burn a Koran Day, and other discriminatory measures must be strongly condemned by
the international community. A recurrence of such events substantiate OIC’s call for a
normative approach to deal with this menace that continues to pose a clear ‘and present danger
to peace, security ‘and stability in the regional as well as the global context.

Lets clarify the issue of “clear and present danger to peace”; in essence: violence, by breaking down the conjunctive clause.

  • Incitement to violence:
    • fear mongering
    • discriminatory
    • ban minarets
    • incite hatred
    • Burn a koran Day
  • other discriminatory measures

Now that it is clear that discrimination is equated with incitement, lets zero in on that last clause: other discriminatory measures: what, exactly, does this category include?  To find out, we turn to the most recent annual Islamophobia Report.

Other instances of Islamophobia in the US recorded in the report include the agenda of the Tea
Party Movement, which openly advocated hatred against Muslims, the proposed “ban on Sharia”
which succeeded within the State of Oklahoma, and the congressional hearings on the
“radicalization of the American Muslim Community” initiated by Rep. Peter King, Chairman of
the US House Committee on Homeland Security. The hearings launched a debate built on
prejudiced and biased premises that Muslims were potential terrorists who, in his opinion,
ostensibly refused to cooperate with the Nation’s “war on terror”. Such a debate, regardless of
the outcome, would contribute to a climate of fear and distrust towards the Muslim community.

The United States of America – a country long admired for its embracement of diversity –
recorded the highest intensity of hostility and prejudice towards Muslims during the period
under review. The infamous “Burn A Quran Day” by a hitherto non-entity Florida Pastor Terry
Jones and his subsequent actions at hate mongering, the Congressional hearings by the
Chairman of the US House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security on the
“radicalization of American Muslims” in Washington DC on March 11, 2011 and his statement
that “We (the US) are under siege by Muslim terrorists”1 along with other anti Muslim events,
were ominous signs of Islamophobia taking roots in the USA. The fact that such incidents cast a
shadow on the US image of tolerance frustrating the optimism generated, throughout the Muslim
world, by President Obama’s speech in Cairo in June 2009, may not be discounted.
  • Tea Party Platform
  • Qur’an burning
  • Radicalization Hearings

Lets gild the lilly by bringing in two more important sources which confirm the obvious, from the initial meeting of the Istanbul Process .

OIC Journal June-August ’11
Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, US Representative to the Human Rights Council,

In response to OIC Journal query on defining what would
constitute incitement to hate, she clarified that in the US there
is a single case where freedom of expression can be restricted
or prohibited by the State, and that is when “incitement to
eminent violence”.

In this context, she pointed out that the President, the
Secretary of State and several public officials went out on a
limb to publically condemn ‘Burn the Quran Day’ to show
that such abominable acts are not accepted. “When you have
the President, the Secretary of State and public figures jointly
condemning that, it will be more effective than throwing
that pastor in jail. I believe the same is true for the hateful
cartoons (of the Prophet). We should all be joining together
in conveying our disgust with such intolerance.”

Ambassador Zamir Akram, Permanent Representative
of Pakistan on behalf of the OIC at the HRC, told the OIC
Journal that both sides – the OIC countries and the western
countries – made important concessions to each other to
reach a compromise on the resolution. What is important for
the OIC point of view is that it would not compromise on
three things: anything against the Quran, anything against the
Prophet (PBUH), and anything against Muslim community
in terms of discrimination.

According to our HRC Ambassador, Burn the Qur’an Day was abominable intolerance.   According to Pakistan’s Ambassador, the OIC will not compromise on anything against the Qur’an or Moe.

Now it is time to go right to the top, to obtain the working definition of incitement to violence from  the Secretary General of the United Nations.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

According to Ban, the short documentary by Geert Wilders, combining verses from the Qur’an & hadith with sermons from Friday prayers and images of the ensuing violence, is incitement to violence.  In reality, Fitna exposes incitement, it does not constitute incitement.  Having examined the operative definition of incitement, lets take a look at the Islamic law behind the whole operation.

What Moe preached is law, what he practiced is exemplary, together, his preaching and practice form the basis of Islamic law.  Moe had critics murdered.  Because of that exemplary conduct, the penalty for criticizing Islam is death.

  • 08.1 When a person who has reached puberty
    and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he
    deserves to be killed.
  • 08.7 (0: Among the things that entail apostasy
    from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

    • (4) to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah
      bless him and give him peace);
    • (5) to deny the existence of Allah, His beginningless
      eternality, His endless eternaIity, or to
      deny any of His attributes which the consensus of
      Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: vI);
    • (6) to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His
      command, His interdiction, His promise, or His
    • (7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything
      which by scholarly consensus (def: b7)
    • (15) to hold that any of Allah’s messengers
      or prophets are liars, or to deny their bcing sent;
      (n: ‘Ala’ ai-Din ‘Abidin adds the following:
    • (16) to revile the religion of Islam;
      (17) to believe that things in themselves or
      by their own nature have any causal influence
      independent of the will of Allah;
    • (18) to deny the existence of angels or jinn
      (def: w22), or the heavens;
    • (19) to be sarcastic about any ruling of the
      Sacred Law;
      (20) or to deny that Allah intended the
      Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him
      peace) to be the religion followed by the entire
      world (dis: w4.3–4) (al-Hadiyya al-‘Ala’iyya (y4),
  • 011. IO The agreement is also violated (A: with
    respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated
    that any of the following things break it, and
    one of the suhjects does so anyway. though if the
    state has not stipulated that these break the agreement,
    then they do not; namely, if one of the subject

    • (5) or mentions something impermissible
      about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and
      give him peace), or Islam.
  • 011.11 When a subject’s agreement with the state
    has been viOlated, the caliph chooses between the
    four alternatives mentioned above in connection
    with prisoners of war (09.14).
  • O9.14  When an adult male is taken captive, the
    caliph (def: 025) considers the interests (0: of
    Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the
    prisoner’s death, slavery, release without paying
    anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for
    money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.
    If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (0: before
    the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives)
    then he may not be killed, and one of the other
    three alternatives is chosen.

The OIC seeks to prevent & punish every negative utterance about Islam. Their current tactic is to conflate criticism with incitement, proscribing the latter.
The fourth Islamophobia Report hints at the next step.

The restraint was short lived and on 20 March 2011 the controversial Florida Pastor Terry
Jones oversaw24 the burning of a copy of the Koran, carried out by Pastor Wayne Sapp, in his
small church. The incident was presented as a trial of the book in which the Koran was found
“guilty” and “executed”. The event was open to the public. Fewer than 30 people attended but
widespread media coverage attracted by the event somewhat served the nefarious designs and
the extremist philosophy behind the outrageous act.

After the unfortunate incident, the OIC Secretary General issued a statement expressing his deep
disappointment, and warned against unforeseen and volatile consequences of such outrageous
and irresponsible acts that could hurt the deep seated religious sentiments of over 1.5 billion
Muslims around the world. He characterized the unfortunate incident as “the worst example of
extremism” that the international community had been consistent in condemning.

Approaches like applying the ‘test of consequences’ were useful and would have to be
explored/refined further in an objective fashion towards evolving a consensus with
regard to effectively addressing the matter; and

 As regards the issue of freedom of opinion and expression, the OIC could with the views
of Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and expression with regard to making “very
few exceptions” but the contours of such exceptions would have to be identified. OIC
believed that unfortunate and outrageous episodes like the caricatures and the burning of
holy Quran merited the grant of such exceptions;

For those too stupid or indolent to connect the dots: if the resolution had been implemented a year ago, Pastors Jones & Sapp would be  persecuted criminally & sued civil court for the “consequences” of their trial and execution of the Qur’an.  Holding them responsible for the acts of a Muslim rabble roused by kutbah at Jumah Salat is not just, nor is it rational.  Jones & Sapp did not incite anyone to violence. Asian Imams did.

It becomes obvious that the plan is to compel self-censorship through legal intimidation.  It is equally obvious that Human Rights first is so heavily invested in the Istanbul Process that they are blinded to objective factual reality.

January 11, 2012 Posted by | free speech, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , | 2 Comments

Big Lie: “UN drops call to outlaw ‘defamation of religions’

There is a sucker born every minute, because if we did not suck, we would not survive. Unfortunately, there is a surplus of adult bottom feeders who will cheerfully take and run with any bait.  A Google search for UN + “Defamation of Religions” turned up several news articles in addition to those in yesterday’s alert.

  • The US Is Not Opening The Door To Limiting Freedom of Speech

    Human Rights First – ‎5 hours ago‎
    Human Rights First has worked for years to reverse the tide of defamation of religions at the UN , and has welcomed HRC resolution 16/18 as well as this most recent General Assembly resolution. We believe it is important for governments to now
  • Turkey and America

    The Cutting Edge – ‎Dec 18, 2011‎
    [will] help in enacting domestic laws for the countries involved in the issue, as well as formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions.” It unfairly held up the American experience for 
  • Free speech is in the cross hairs

    Prospectus – ‎Dec 18, 2011‎
    Although the latest resolution refers to “incitement” rather than “defamation” of religion (which appeared in the 2005 resolution), it continues the disingenuous effort to justify crackdowns on religious critics in the name of human rights law. 
  • Speak Not of Evil

    Canada Free Press – ‎Dec 19, 2011‎
    The Obama administration started down this ill-advised road by cosponsoring in 2009 an OIC-drafted resolution in the UNHuman Rights Council that condemned “defamation of religion” – read, Islam. That initiative helped advance the Islamists’ 


UN drops call to outlaw ‘defamation of religions
AP The call on countries to prohibit “defamation” had been included in a decisive break from the polarizing focus in the past on defamation of religions.”
UN General Assembly Abandons Dangerous “Defamation of Religion
Human Rights First
“Today’s unanimous vote marks a decisive break from the polarizing focus in the past on defamation of religions.” said Human Rights First’s Tad Stahnke.
UN condemns religious intolerance, drops ‘defamation
Reuters Africa
religious intolerance without urging states to outlaw “defamation of religions,” an appeal critics said opened the door to abusive “blasphemy” laws.
UN condemns religious intolerance, drops ‘defamation
Reuters India
L had won majority approval in UN rights bodies in Geneva and at the UN General Assembly for annual resolutions on “combating defamation of religions.


Blogs 1 new result for “Defamation of Religions”
UN condemns religious intolerance, drops ‘defamation’ line for first
By Louis Charbonneau
For the first time in more than a decade, the U.N. General Assembly on Monday condemned religious intolerance without urging states to outlaw defamation of religions, an appeal critics said opened the door to abusive blasphemy laws.


Web 3 new results for “Defamation of Religions”
UN drops call to outlaw ‘defamation of religions‘ – Beverly Hills
Teen BHEF met Tuesday to approve their revised by-laws and present awards of appreciation to Sandy West of The Beverly Hilton and Corrine Verdery of Oasis…/83854
UN drops call to outlaw ‘defamation of religions‘ – TODAY News
The U.N. General Assembly on Monday condemned religious intolerance without urging states to outlaw “defamation of religions.”
UN drops call to outlaw ‘defamation of religions‘ – Newsvine
‘Governments should now focus on concrete measures to fight religiously motivated violence … while recognizing the importance of freedom of expression,’…/9561504-un-drops-call-to…

Only two out of twelve articles reflect objective factual reality, the rest swallow the bait.  That is not a good sign.  Lets sneak around the gate of the defamation meme and examine the core issue. Words have meanings, but Muslims assign their own meanings to common words.We must not assume that those words mean what they say when spoken by Muslims.

The opening of the 15th session of the Human Rights Council was marked by an address from Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the OIC.

The new session of the Council is also coincides with  with regrettable events that are
deliberately meant to defame religions as well incite hatred, xenophobia, discrimination and
violence against religions, in particular Islam. The increasing incidents of violence and
discrimination on the basis of religion must not be ignored. We hope that this and other
related  issues remain an important priority in the work of the Council.

The most recent and unfortunate in the series of such events was the announcement
pertaining to Bum a Koran Day. It was highly provocative towards the religious sentiments
of Muslims everywhere in the world and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
On August 24,2010 I issued a cautionary statement on the plan to burn the Holy Qur’an and
urged the American people as a whole as well as the world community to reject the call of the
Gainesville Church pastor[….]

In this regard all xenophobic campaigns of fear mongering and discriminatory
measures – both in policy and practice – which restrict, prohibit or discriminate against of any
religion such as ban on the constriction of minarets, organization of events that incite hatred
like Burn a Koran Day, and other discriminatory measures must be strongly condemned by
the international community. A recurrence of such events substantiate OIC’s call for a
normative approach to deal with this menace that continues to pose a clear ‘and present danger
to peace, security ‘and stability in the regional as well as the global context. Such acts fuel
discrimination, extremism and mis-perception leading to polarization and fragmentation with
dangerous unintendecl ancl unforeseen consequences.[…]

[…]such events which endanger peaceful coexistence
between nations and create an environment conducive to violence

The first three sentences quoted above are loaded with meaning which must be dissected and examined.

regrettable events

In this case, one event: International Burn The Qur’an Day, which was scheduled for 09/11/10 to commemorate  the accursed abomination by highlighting the Qur’an verses which inspired it.  The event was called off under intense government pressure.

deliberately meant to

How does anyone know the intention of the event unless it is clearly stated? The stated purpose of the event was to foster awareness of Islamic doctrines and their real world consequences. But Ihsanoglu assigns other intentions which he projects onto the event from afar.

defame religions

Defamation is false and malicious.  What is false about connecting the dots; Allah’s sanctification of terror, his casting terror resulting in death, captivity & dispossession, Moe’s bragging about terror making him victorious and the abominable act motivated by Allah’s imperative, threat and promise?


Pastor Jones was not inciting anyone to do anything more than incinerate the book which inspired the “Magnificent 19”. Nothing was to be said, implied or illustrate to incite anyone to assault Muslims. He issued no war cry or call to arms and implied none.


It is only natural for a nation under attack and threat of attack to hate its attackers and the damnable doctrines which motivate them and inspire them to attempt genocide & politicide.  No incitement is needed to make intelligent and informed Americans hate Islam.


People naturally make choices. If we choose to avoid association with and proximity to persons made inimical to us by their ideology, that is discrimination, but it is not evil.

Hating a man for his skin pigment is evil. Hating a man because he adheres to an ideology which enjoins him to kill or enslave you is not evil, it is common sense.  Warning people about that ideology and its consequences is not inciting hatred.  Hatred is incited by the ideology and the acts it inspires.


When Pastor Jones tried and burned a Qur’an in March of 2011, rioting broke out in Pakistan.  The riots were not incited by anything in Gainesville, they were incited by what was preached in the mosques at Jumah Salat.  The politicians and media dare not make the connection between the riots and the end of Friday afternoon sermons.  Instead, they prefer to blame an unrelated event separated by thousands of miles and several days.

events that incite hatred

Beirut Embassy bombing

USS Cole bombing



Beslan Massacre

Mumbai Massacre

London subway bombing

Madrid rail bombing

endanger peaceful coexistence

Trying and burning a Qur’an did not start a war; what did?  have you forgotten? When such a threat is issued, why do we lift Satan’s tail and pucker up?

Defamation, while prominently cited, is not the issue. Examine this transcript of remarks by Pakistan’s Ambassador at the 16th session of the HRC.

Pakistan (on behalf of
the OIC)
Mr. Zamir Akram

Thank you Mr. President. On behalf of the OIC countries, I have the
honor to introduce the draft resolution entitled “combating
intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of and
discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons
based on religion or belief contained in document L.38.

Mr. President: this resolution addresses a number of
issues over which the OIC has been expressing concern over the years.
having said  that, I wish to state categorically that this
resolution does not replace earlier resolutions on combating
defamation.  which were adopted by the Human Rights Council  and
remain valid.  This resolution L.38  is an attempt on the
part of the oic to build consensus on an issue of vital importance
not only to Muslims but to people of all religions  and beliefs by
identifying  ways and means to deal with the growing problems of
religious incitement and discrimination and incitement to hatred and violence based on
religion or belief.

At the heart of this resolution are a series of practical steps
which need to be taken by states in order to address
this problem. This resolution addresses the core issues in a manner
that is acceptable to all including in  a legal sense, thus
seeking to bring all stake holders on board.  The OIC has gone
the extra mile to maintain a spirit of constructive engagement with all
partners during this process of consultation.

Our primary objective is to ensure that this text,
which will hopefully be adopted by consensus, will bind us all to the
commitments contained therein and oblige us all to ensure compliance
with its decisions.

Mr. President: Muslims around the world continue to be confronted
with ever increasing instances of intolerance, negative stereotyping,
stigmatization, discrimination  and violence on the basis of their religion; Islam.
Objective academic studies reveal that following the end of the cold war, the
pernicious doctrine of a clash of civilizations signaled the start of a narrative that required
the construction of a new enemy  to replace the global threat of
Communism with the so-called menace of Islam.

The reprehensible acts of terrorism on September 11,
2001 provided the trigger to unleash the clash of civilizations to the
forefront of global politics.  In the general Western view, no
distinction was made between a handful of extremists and terrorists  and
the overwhelming majority of peaceful and law abiding Muslims
living around the world. To make matters worse, against the backdrop of
the recent global economic crisis, these fears of Islam and Muslims are
now being manipulated by irresponsible and bigoted Western politicians
to gain political mileage  in their countries, unfortunately, with
remarkable success.

Terms such as Islamofascists have become common.
Even the Qur’an has not been spared;  it has been compared to Hitler’s
Mein Kampf. More recently, it was tried for religious crimes and
burnt.  Minarets at mosques deliberately depicted on posters
as missiles, have been banned. There have even been restrictions on
shops selling halal food, while no such restrictions exist on kosher
food outlets which are similar.

There is also increasing discrimination against Muslims in various
parts of the world.  They are being subjected to racial profiling
which confronts them with intractable problems at every border where
they are checked and re-checked.  Their businesses are repeatedly
scrutinized and their places of worship disallowed or desecrated.
They are made to feel unwelcome in societies where they live as

One prominent politician has recently organized
hearings that seek to put on trial the entire Muslim community and are
obviously designed to stoke fears against Muslims in that

Mr. President, the efforts by the oic to defend
our religion, our holy book and our prophet  and our people have
often been misrepresented as being contrary to international human
rights principles and laws, and in particular, rejected as undermining
the freedom of expression or opinion. The reality is different.
It is therefore appropriate in such a position, for us to try and
explain our faith and our principles. I hope, Mr. President, you will
give me a bit of extra time to do so.

Mr.  President: the Qur’an lays great emphasis on the
need for religious tolerance  as well as freedom of thought and
opinion.  In chapter 2, verse 256, the Qur’an states there is no
compulsion in religion.  In chapter 18, verse 29, the Qur’an
maintains that truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe
and him who please disbelieve.  As regards freedom of
thought and opinion in Islam, the Qur’an states, in chapter 16, in verse 125 invite
all to the way of your creator with wisdom and arguments that are the
best and most gracious.  The Qur’an and the traditions of the holy
prophet also lay emphasis on the treatment of non-Muslims.
According to Prophet Muhammad, (PBUH), he who hurts a non-Muslim
citizen of a Muslim state I am his adversary and I shall be his
adversary on the day of  judgment.

Mr. President: it is also instructive for us to know
that we Muslims are not only bound by temporal laws to respect human
rights but by divine enjunctions contained in the Qur’an.  The
basic human rights as ordained in the Qur’an  include the
rights to life,  individual freedom, justice, equality, privacy, association
and basic necessities of life or minimum standard of living. These
obligations also include respect for women,  equality among human
beings, freedom of expression, protection from arbitrary imprisonment
and the right to oppose tyranny and injustice.  the last sermon of
the prophet (PBUH) is, in itself, a comprehensive charter of human
rights.  Islam has even established a complete code for the right
of combatants in war. Measures for the protection of all combatants as
well as homes and property belonging to them.

Mr. President: I have dwelt at length on these characteristics of Islam
because I want to underscore the common principles that underlie our
faith and the requirements of international law including international
human rights and humanitarian law.  Indeed, given the tremendous
contributions by Islam in various fields of human activity over
the  years, these principles have contributed to the evolution of
the very principles that we are trying to uphold today.

Mr. President, we sincerely believe that that irrespective of our
different cultural backgrounds and traditions, there is a shared
interest for all of us to show respect for each other’s religions and
beliefs  as well as to prevent any advocacy of religious hatred and
intolerance, discrimination and incitement  on the basis of religion or

The resolution under consideration seeks to achieve
these laudable objectives through a range of actions by states
including administrative steps, measures to criminalize imminent
violence, training and awareness programs, promotion of dialogue and
understanding at all levels.   The resolution also calls for
a global dialogue for the promotion of a culture of tolerance and peace
and in this context it decides to convene a panel discussion in the
Human Rights Council.  We hope that this resolution will be
adopted by consensus.  Before concluding, Mr. President, I would
like to place on record my appreciation for the support and cooperation
of all my colleagues in the oic  and in particular, members of
the core group of ambassadors that we set up to work out this
resolution.  I have truly benefited from the wisdom and advice and
without their support this text would not have been possible.  I
would also like to thank the Secretary General of the oic whose
support and guidance made this resolution possible.  In addition I
would like to express my appreciation — my sincere appreciation to all
our partners in the various groups, especially the ambassadors of the
U.S. and the U.K. on behalf of the European Union for their cooperative
and constructive approach.  Let me also thank the ambassadors from
the African group, grulac and Croatia for their cooperation and
engagement in this effort. I am glad that this oic initiative has
met with broad cross regional support which will send out a strong
message of unity from this council. Finally I would  like to thank
the experts from Pakistan, the U.S., the U.K. and other countries for
their tireless efforts to work out the text of this resolution. I thank
you Mr. president.

Akram’s screed contains numerous lies, which have been dissected in another blog post.

number of issues

To see what Akram was talking about, read the Islamophobia Report for April ’11.  The three principal exemplars are the Motoons, Fitna and the above mentioned Qur’an burning.


The ostensible objection to depicting Moe is idolatry. There are two problems with that. First, Moe ain’t supposed to be the deity, Allah is. Second, nobody would possibly make those cartoons an object of idolatry.  The real reason for objecting to their publication is their depicting Moe as a terrorist.

Moe could not have possessed a bomb because he died prior to the invention of gunpowder.  Moe cast terror by a series of barbarian attacks, deliberately building a reputation for barbarian repine, so that he was more feared than Allah.  Moe bragged about being made victorious by awe & terror. What more do you need to know to make a judgment?


The 15 minute documentary juxtaposes Qur’an verses and ahadith with the rabid rants of Imams at Jumah Salat and resulting acts of terror and rioting. Fitna does not incite violence, it exposes incitement. Fitna: Supporting Documentation 03/27/08  documents the ayat quoted in the documentary. Though words have meanings, we must be aware of the meanings intended by Muslims.  HRC 16/18 & Draft resolution XVII appear to concentrate on incitement.

Condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audiovisual
or electronic media or any other means;
(e) Speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred
that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence;
(0 Adopting measures to criminalize the incitement to imminent violence
based on religion or belief;



What is it? Am I inciting hatred and violence by exposing the damnable doctrines of Islam which inculcate hatred and incite violence?  There is only one way to know the meaning: we must examine recent exemplary statements. This one, by Secretary Ban Ki-moon is dispositive.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

According to the Secretary General, Fitna constitutes hate speech & incitement not protected by freedom of expression.  From that statement, it is clear tha the intention of HRC 16/18 and Draft resolution XVII is to criminalize all criticism of Islam.

negative stereotyping

What is the difference between stereotyping and defamation?  Because Moe was a terrorist, who commanded Muslims to emulate himself, and because Allah commanded terrorism, Muslims are commanded to obey Allah and because selectivity is prohibited, all Muslims are potential terrorists.  To the extent that they are believers in Allah, his promise and his threat, they will eventually participate in an attack.  If it were not true, this paragraph would be defamatory. Even though it is true, it is negative and it is stereotyping, condemned by the resolutions.  In any case,


Islam is terrorism!  Allah sanctified it & engaged in it. Moe bragged about being made victorious by it.  To those bigots who who deny the obvious facts previously documented by reference to the Qur’an & hadth, this is defamatory. Previous resolutions condemned associating Islam with terrorism. These resolutions omit that meme, so, has the UN abandoned the defamation meme?  HELL NO!!!  And I will prove it.  Draft resolution XVII ain’t the only resolution passed by acclamation Dec. 19. I know something you don’t know but are about to find out.

Also emphasizes that no religion should be equated with terrorism, as this
may have adverse consequences on the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion
or belief of all members of the religious communities concerned;

¶10, on page 3 of Draft resolution XVIII,  emphasizes that Islam must not be equated with terrorism, which it is by the testimony of its own deity & founder previously cited.  Equation with terrorism fits the defamation meme, and it has not been dropped or abandoned by the UN, it lives on in a concurrent resolution. The suckers have swallowed the bait, hook, line and sinker.

¶12(j), on page 4, belies the assertion that freedom of expression is not threatened.

To take all necessary and appropriate action, in conformity with
international standards of human rights, to combat hatred, discrimination,
intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance
based on religion or belief, as well as incitement to hostility and violence, with
particular regard to members of religious minorities in all parts of the world;

For the Morons among my readers, “all necessary and appropriate action” means legislation to combat “incitement to hostility and violence”, which means: Fitna, the Motoons and this blog post.

No doubt the Moronic chorus will begin chanting: “that ain’t in the resolution under discussion”. To which I gleefully reply:  Ye Suckers!!! Assumptions make asses of you!

Adopting measures to criminalize the incitement to imminent violence
based on religion or belief;

¶5(f) on page 5 of Draft resolution XVII, proves you wrong. “Adopting measures to criminalize” is a code phrase for legislation. They are demanding passage & enforcement to establish criminal punishment for publications such as Fitna, the Motoons and this blog post. Remember, Ban Ki-Moon defined the terms for us.

“U.N. Tackles Religious Intolerance without Limiting Free Speech

Legislation to criminalize the publication of Fitna, the Motoons and this blog post will not limit free speech.  Yeah, right ;=(

December 21, 2011 Posted by | Freedom Of Speech, Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


%d bloggers like this: