On October 27, '11, the United Arab Emirates, acting on behalf of the OIC, submitted a draft resolution entitled "Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief".
With the exception of one additional conjunction and preposition, the title is identical to that of
A/HRC/RES/16/18 passed this spring.
A/C.3/66/L.47, currently in the 3
rd Committee, is two pages longer and has one more enumerated paragraph.
There are major problems in the list of affirmations.
Reaffirming also the obligation of States to prohibit discrimination on the basis
of religion or belief and to implement measures to guarantee the equal and effective
protection of the law,
The OIC is not acting in good faith; they can not simultaneously base their domestic legislation on Shari'ah and reaffirm the obligation to guarantee equal protection of the law because Shari'ah:
- Subjects indigenous Jews & Christians to a punitive, humiliating tax called jizya. Reliance of the Traveller, Book O11.4
- Disqualifies Jews & Christians from testifying against Muslims. O24.2(c)
- Prohibits construction & maintenance of churches. O11.5-7
- Prohibits public manifestation of non-Muslim religions. O11.5-6
- Sets the indemnity for wrongful death of a non-Muslim as a fraction that paid for a Muslim. O4.2
- Prohibits a divorced non-Muslim woman from obtaining child custody if her children are Muslims because their father was. M13.2(c).
Reaffirming further that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated,
The right to life is primary, without it, all other rights are null and void.
Islam implicitly denies the right to life: "And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter,
then their blood and property will be sacred to us"
Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387. Islamic law explicitly permits killing non-Muslim men taken captive.
O9.14 On page 218 of
al-Hedaya, Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1, we find the clearest statement of the fatal fact of Islam. "Secondly, capitation-tax is a
substitute for destruction in respect to the infidels,".
My First Amendment right of free speech which prohibits the government from criminalizing the truthful declarations made above, does not in any way or to any extent detract from a Muslims 'right' to 'practice his religion'. Free speech does not prevent or impair Iman, Salat, Saum, Hajj or Zakat. It simply permits uttering & publishing truthful statements about an institution inimical to our lives & liberties.
The problem is that the practice of Islam entails jihad, which is defined as "
to war against non-Muslims"
O9.0. "Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, "
9:123. Islam is all or nothing, inseverable "
Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment."
2:85. Jihad is a communal obligation binding on all eligible adult male Muslims and must be performed in every year.
O9.1 Islam can not be practiced in obedience to Allah and in emulation of Moe without voiding the human rights of kuffar. It is therefore impossible that a right to practice Islam can exist. Stating this fatal fact is not defamatory neither is it negative stereotyping nor is it inciting violence. It is a simple statement of fact, which, if acknowledged by the legislative and executive branches of our government,
must result in removal of the umbrella of First Amendment protection from Islam.
Reaffirming the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in strengthening democracy and combating religious intolerance,
I hope that I am not the only one who perceives the irony in that sentence. The authors intend that sentence to mean what it says in the Orwellian sense, they do not intend it to have the meaning the words denote. To the authors of the resolution, "
combating religious intolerance" means
combating resistance to Islam.
If religious intolerance is to be combated then it is necessary that Islam be combated, because Islam is so extremely intolerant that it mandates perpetual war to establish a global monopoly for itself in
8:39. The Qur'an refers to Jews & Christians as the "worst of living creatures" in
98:6, and curses us in
9:30. Since the Qur'an is perfected
5:3 & immutable
10:64, Islam can not be reformed, it must be eliminated.
Underlining the importance of education in the promotion of tolerance, which involves the acceptance by the public of and its respect for religious and cultural diversity, including with regard to religious expression, and underlining also the fact that education, in particular at school, should contribute in a meaningful way to promoting tolerance and the elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief,
Look below the surface of that run on sentence, to the embedded false premise: promotion of tolerance of Islam. Text books used in schools throughout Arabia quote
3:85 and the infamous genocide hadith
Sahih Bukhari 4.53.177. They demand that we convert our schools into Islamic indoctrination centers.
1. Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious groups, in particular when condoned by Governments;
To discover the real meaning of that run on sentence, read this annual Islamophobia report published by the OIC:
4th OIC observatory report on Islamophobia (May 2010 to April 2011) . See what they complain about most in their monthly reports. Note the prominent mention of anti-Islamic political parties in Europe.
2. Expresses concern that the number of incidents of religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of individuals on the basis of religion or belief, continues to rise around the world, 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 and consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents;
"
Advocacy of religious hatred..incitement to... violence" describes the Qur'an, as anyone knows who has read Surahs Al Fatiha, Al-Ma'idah , Al-Anfal and At-Taubah. Does anyone believe that Islam seeks to enforce Article 4 of ICERD against itself?
Adopting measures to criminalize the incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief;
Is the prima facie meaning of that sentence valid? Only if the organ of cognition is the anus, not the brain! U.N. documents favor the term "inter alia", meaning between the words. In this case, it is necessary to refer to previous statements. Ban Ki-moon's statement about the short documentary by Geert Wilders speaks volumes.
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, Fitna is "hate speech" and "incitement to violence". The hate speech displayed in Fitna has three sources: the Qur'an, hadith & raving Imams. The violence displayed in Fitna is Islamic violence. At no point does Wilders express hatred or incite violence in his documentary.
On March 1 of '11, Ekmeleddin Ishanoglu, Secretary General of the OIC, addressed the HRC. I will add emphasis to make a few significant phrases stand out.
OIC has a principled position against
defamation of any religion, dehumanization of the followers or denigration of symbols sacred to all religions. The developments
including the ban of construction of minarets, the attempts
towards
burning of Quran and the use of
Islamophobia as an instrument of electoral politics are ominous. There is an
urgent need to initiate and sustain what I would like to term
as 'preventive cultural diplomacy'. We need to move
beyond event based calls for action to create spaces for
structured engagement. The Human Rights framework
provides with a concrete basis for this engagement. We
believe that the workshops on incitement to hatred under
the Durban mandate constitute and important avenue for a
synthesis aimed at bridging the divergence of views. I
reiterate my call, during the 15th Session of the Council,
for establishing an Observatory at the Office of the High
Commissioner to monitor acts of defamation of all religions
or incitement to hatred or violence on religious grounds as
a first step towards concerted action at the international
level. Let me also recall that
I had outlined eight areas of action for consideration by states, at both the national and international level, with a view to dealing with defamation issue. I am pleased to note that the proposal has found some resonance. The OIC has shown flexibility in negotiations with our
partners over the past couple of years and we would now
expect some reciprocity.
The perception that supporting the resolution would throttle one's right to freedom expression is only a myth. Freedom of expression will
always be upheld but i
t cannot be allowed to be a tool to use for inciting fear and hate. I would like to take this opportunity to say that I felt
encouraged by some positive and constructive proposals in
finding a way forward on the text of the Resolution. If there
is a genuine political will on the part of all to address the
issue of incitement of hatred against religions in earnest, I
am confident that we can achieve a consensus.
Another speech to the HRC, by Pakistan's Ambassador, reveals even more, with greater clarity. I reproduce it here, from an
earlier blog post in which I took it on point by point.
Pakistan (on behalf of
the OIC)
Mr. Zamir Akram
03/24/11
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
minorities.
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
country.
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 belief. 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.
Burning a Qur'an after a mock trial is not hate speech, neither is it incitement to violence. Congressional hearings on "radicalization" are not hate speech, neither are they incitement to violence.
This blog post is not hate speech, neither is it incitement to violence. It is a warning to American citizens about a clear, proximate and persistent threat to our right of free speech. The OIC, acting through the United Nations, seeks to impose its blasphemy law on the entire human race. Reliance of the Traveller, Book
O8.7 lists 20 "acts that entail" Apostasy. Any and all criticism and questioning of Allah, Moe & Islam is prohibited under penalty of death.
Previous resolutions expressly condemned association of Islam with "terrorism and human rights violations". But Allah said that he
would and did
cast terror and Moe said that he was "
made victorious with terror". The expressions have changed, the agenda has not. We have won no victory, we have misinterpreted a defeat.
Please visit
http://wwwcongress.org/ and send a message to Obamination, your Representative & Senator demanding a NO! vote on this vile resolution.
Related blog posts:
