Defamation Meme: Shifted and Substituted, Not Removed!

 Article 19 tells us that states should support the draft resolution against belief based discrimination. I quote one of their arguments.

ARTICLE 19 welcomes the draft resolution’s complete omission of the ambiguous “defamation of religions” – a term incompatible with international human rights standards on the right to freedom of expression - and the focus on combating discrimination against persons. The draft is in line with General Comment No 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee of July 2011 that states that “prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant”.

    Note the citation of General Comment No. 34; the next paragraph contains a significant contradiction.

However, ARTICLE 19 suggests that the title and subject of the draft resolution should be shortened by omitting the vague terms of “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization”. The resolution should simply concern “combating discrimination, violence and incitement to violence against persons based on religion or belief”.  Notwithstanding this weakness, states should support the draft resolution

    After stating that the draft resolution omits the "defamation of religions" meme, they complain of the inclusion of "negative stereotyping".   What significant difference is there between the two expressions?

    Whereas Article 19 is half way rational, Human Rights First steps in the steaming pile with their headline: "U.N. Third Committee Makes Decisive Break from “Defamation of Religion” ".

“If this text is adopted by the full General Assembly, it would mark a decisive break from the polarizing focus in the past on defamation of religions.” said Human Rights First’s Tad Stahnke. “Governments should now focus on concrete measures to fight religiously-motivated violence, discrimination, and other forms of intolerance, while recognizing the importance of freedom of expression.”   

    A "decisive break"?  Sorry, suckers. Evidently you did not read the next draft resolution in sequence.  The NGOs want us to believe that the OIC and UN have abandoned the "defamation of Islam" meme which was introduced in 1999 through the Human Rights Commission.

    At the opening of the HRC session in March of '11, Pakistan's Ambassador made it clear that the defamation meme has not been abandoned. The HRC ratified that fact by adopting the resolution without a vote.

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

    The new resolutions merely rope in votes by shifting an objectionable paragraph out of the draft while including it by reference to past resolutions.  Flip the calendar back one year.

A/C.3/65/L.46 Combating defamation of religions

Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of religions and
manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still
evident in the world;

[...]

Stressing that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity
leading to the illicit restriction of the freedom of religion of their adherents and
incitement to religious hatred and violence,

Stressing also the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, and
incitement to religious hatred in general,
[...]
Noting with concern that defamation of religions, and incitement to religious
hatred in general, could lead to social disharmony and violations of human rights,
and alarmed at the inaction of some States to combat this burgeoning trend and the
resulting discriminatory practices against adherents of certain religions,

    Exactly how is Islam defamed?  The obvious answer is found in ¶7 on page 4 of the resolution.

Expresses deep concern, in this respect, that Islam is frequently and
wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;

    While that concept is missing from A/C.3/66/L.47,  it  is  included in  A/C.3/66/L.48 titled "Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief". It is in ¶10 on page 3, slightly disguised.

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;

    Is Islam wrongly associated with terrorism, or do the two go together hand in glove?  Perhaps you should decide after reading the most relevant ayat & ahadith. Or maybe there is one more piece of evidence you should consider in your deliberations.

3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).
8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."

8:57. If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.

8:60. Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

9:120.  It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allâh's Messenger (Muhammad  when fighting in Allâh's Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allâh, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness. Surely, Allâh wastes not the reward of the Muhsinûn.9:120.  It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allâh's Messenger (Muhammad  when fighting in Allâh's Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allâh, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness. Surely, Allâh wastes not the reward of the Muhsinûn.

33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.

33:27. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.

59:2. He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Banî An-Nadîr) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allâh! But Allâh's (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).

59:13. Verily ye [are] stronger [than they], by reason of the terror [cast] into their breasts from God. This, because they [are] not people of prudence.

  Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.
1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.
3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.
4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).
5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
 Narrated Abu Huraira:

    Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

    Of course those are old, musty books with no modern relevance, right?  But during the regime of Zia ul-Haq  in Pakistan, Brigadier S.K. Malik wrote a strategy manual for Pakistan's Army. The Qur'anic Concept of War is modern, relevant and based on Islam's canon. Pay close attention. The source is page 59 of the text, page 50 of the pdf.

Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself.  Once a condition of terror into the opponent's heat is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved.  It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge.  Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him. [Emphasis original.]

    Malik's book confirmed what we already knew: terrorism is an intrinsic tactic of Islam. The association is well founded, not false; exposing it is not defamatory because it is true. 

    In the weeks before the General Assembly's adoption of these resolutions, NGOs, politicians and experts will chortle with glee about the "great victory for free speech"  now that the  "defamation of  religions" concept is eliminated.  But we have no victory, we are suffering defeat, our liberty is being eroded  and we are being told to celebrate and embrace it. 

    Instead of being eliminated, the defamation meme, while relocated to another resolution, remains in the guise of  "negative stereotyping".

Ongoing Serious Implications of Islamophobia

A/HRC/15/53, "Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of  racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Githu Muigai, on the manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the ongoing serious implications of Islamophobia, for the enjoyment of all rights by their followers."

    The report, issued 07/12/'10,  is in the form of a 19 page pdf file. It consists of an enumerated list of 91 paragraphs. Yesterday I wrote a post about the Rapporteur's statement introducing the report to the HRC. In this post I will deal with what I consider to be the most important segments of the report.

    The report is a reference to five classes of cases "pertaining to Human Rights Council resolution 13/16".  The cases are classified as follows.

• acts of violence or discrimination, or incitement thereto, against individuals on the basis of their religion or belief
• attacks on religious sites
• religious and ethnic profiling
• religious symbols
• negative stereotyping of religions, their followers and sacred persons

    Physical assaults and vandalism are covered under domestic laws.  I see no need to get excited about the rare instances. The perpetrators should be found out, prosecuted and punished under existing statutes.

    When most criminal acts of a certain type are perpetrated by members of a known set, common sense directs law enforcement's attention to members of that set.  Most acts of Islamic terrorism are perpetrated by Muslim men between the ages of 17 and 40.  Only a Muslim, a damned fool or a traitor would object to giving extra scrutiny to members of that class when screening for security risks in transportation.

    Questions concerning religious symbols are raised in  ¶87 on page 18.  "The Special Rapporteur takes the view that the following questions should be kept in mind when assessing the legality of such bans or restrictions:"

• is the construction, use or display of certain religious symbols constitutive of the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief?

A search of the Qur'an, hadith & Reliance of the Traveller turned up a few mentions of minarets in Ibn Kathir's Tafsir and hadth; they related to the descent of Jesus. I found no legal requirement for the construction of minarets.  There is blessed good reason for banning them. Dr. Andrew Bostom explains in Europe News.

The venerable Brill Encyclopedia of Islam (EOI) entry on minarets makes plain that minarets are a political statement of Islamic supremacism. Interestingly, given current Turkish Erdogan’s provocative statement while mayor of Istanbul -- (the full statement was quoted in a NY Times story by Stephen Kinzer from 2/16/1998: "The mosques are our barracks, the domes are our helmets, the minarets are our swords, and the faithful are our army”), cited by opponents of minaret construction in Switzerland — the observations from the Brill EOI about the Ottoman perspective on minarets are of particular interest.

Refer to Islamic Architecture: Form, Function, and Meaning  By Robert Hillenbrand.  See also Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam Pg. 227.
The concept of minarets function as a symbol of supremacism is reinforced by the requirement that dhimmis not build as high as Islamic structures. [Reliance of the Traveller, o11.5(5).]

    I know of no good cause why the citizens of Switzerland should be compelled to allow the Muslims to lord it over them with minarets as symbols of power and supremacy.  If you  click the link to Reliance o11.5 and read the sixth item, you will discover that where Allah's writ runs, Christians are prohibited from displaying  crosses and ringing bells.  Reciprocity anyone?

• Is the ban or restriction discriminatory (in a direct or indirect manner) vis-à-vis specific groups of  the population?    

Who else builds minarets?  Are they really analogous to steeples?

• Is the ban or restriction on the display of religious symbols proportionate to the necessity for security measures by the State concerned?

My view is that this question  applies principally to the issue of banning the niqab.  The impossibility of identifying the wearer creates a security risk in that terrorists and robbers could gain a degree of impunity by cross dressing.  There have been law suits over ID photos taken wearing the niqab.  In that case, the insult to sanity is so obvious as to require no elaboration.

• Is the ban or restriction on the display of religious symbols necessary to uphold the principle  of equality of men and women?

If that is what you are about, you'd better outlaw Islam altogether because the Qur'an clearly states the superiority of men in 4:34 and made women chattel  in 2:223.  Female inferiority is reinforced in  Sahih Bukhari 1.6.301 (deficient in intelligence & religion)..

• Does the ban or restriction take into account the individual freedom to wear or not to wear religious symbols?

If a Muslima wants to wear a hijab, big deal. I see no reason to prohibit it; it does no harm, and, like a skunk's stripes, it serves as a visible warning sign.  The S.R. thinks that  "such questions should be provided by an independent and impartial judiciary and in light of the specific circumstances of each case under
consideration."

    In ¶88, also on pg. 18, the S..R. gets down to the important stuff.

The Special Rapporteur regrets reports of stereotyping which do not contribute to the creation of an environment conducive to constructive and peaceful dialogue among communities. Nonetheless, he recalls that peaceful expressions of opinions and ideas should always be tolerated, as long as they do not fall under the restrictions in articles 19, paragraph 3, and 20¹ of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

• regrets reports of stereotyping

Is it the reports or the stereotyping he regrets?  Presumably its the latter.

• which do not contribute to the creation of an environment conducive to constructive and peaceful dialogue 
• among communities

Conversations take place between individuals, not communities.  We ought to be one community, not Balkanized  enclaves. How could there be a constructive and peaceful dialogue when Islam has declared  and is prosecuting war against us?  Has the S.R. bothered to read the Qur'an & hadith?  [Fight those who... until...]

    Of course, those banners reading "Freedom Go to Hell",  "Islam Will Dominate The World" and "Behead Those Who Insult Islam" contribute greatly to "constructive and peaceful dialogue".  Yeah, right.

    We find ¶89 on page 19 of the report.

The Special Rapporteur distinguishes between stereotyping of religions on one hand and of religious followers or sacred persons on the other. With regard to stereotyping of religious followers and of sacred persons, the Special Rapporteur
recalls that the right to freedom of expression may be restricted in order to protect, inter alia, the rights or reputations of others. However, in accordance with articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, any restrictions on the right to freedom of expressions must be established in law; they must pursue a legitimate aim; and they must be proportional to the aim sought to be achieved. As a result, the Special Rapporteur believes that a very high threshold should be met and that the defamatory expressions targeting individuals must have been proven false before they warrant restrictions and sanctions thereon. Moreover, he recommends that sanctions be of a civil nature only and that fines arising from civil defamation procedures respect the principle of proportionality in order not to have a long-lasting and chilling effect on the right to freedom of expression.

• stereotyping of religious followers

Are they Muslims or ain't they?  Muslims are commanded to obey Allah and his messenger. If they do that, then Allah's imperatives and Moe's sunnah must describe their attitude & conduct.

• in order to protect, inter alia, the rights

Exactly what right would be protected by prohibiting criticism of Islam?  What right is violated when we reveal the fact that Islam is a predator preying on the human race?  What right do we violate when we expose its mercenary mission and martial method?  Would writing about prostitution, drug & bootlegging rackets violate some right of Mafiosi?

• a very high threshold should be met
• defamatory expressions targeting individuals must have been proven false

Should those restrictions apply to the case of Geeert Wilders?  Why was that not mentioned in this report?  Truth is not listed as a possible defense in the Dutch law under which Wilders is being persecuted.

    The issue of stereotyping religions comes up in ¶90.

With regard to stereotyping of religions, he recalls that vigorously interrogating and criticizing religious doctrines and their teachings is thoroughly legitimate and constitutes a significant part of the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion or expression. Therefore, the Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate that domestic blasphemy laws aiming to protect religions per se can prove counterproductive since they could result in de facto censure of robust examination of
religious doctrines and teachings and of inter- and intra-religious criticism. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur received reports that many of these laws afford different levels of protection to different religions and have often proved to be applied in a discriminatory manner. He was informed of numerous examples of persecution of religious minorities or dissenting believers, but also of atheists and non-theists, as a result of legislation on religious offences or overzealous application of laws that may be fairly neutral on the face of it. Consequently, the Special Rapporteur encourages States to move away from the notion of defamation of religions towards the legal concept of advocacy of racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence in order to anchor the debate in the relevant existing international legal framework, and in particular that provided in the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

• vigorously interrogating ... religious doctrines constitutes a significant part of the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion or expression.

Where does he recall that from?  Is it not self-evident?

• persecution of religious minorities or dissenting believers,

Such as the persecutions in Indonesia & Pakistan?

• advocacy of racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence

Precisely how will you define and measure that abstract concept?  Self-appointed arbiters such as the Secretary General and the HRC² assert that Fitna and the Motoons fit that concept.   In fact, Fitna and the Motoons describe incitement, they do not constitute it.

    ¶91 illustrates the insanity of the basic concept.

Advocacy of racial or religious hatred is a symptom, the external manifestation of something much more profound which is intolerance and bigotry. Intolerance against individuals based on their religion or belief unfortunately continues to be  manifested in different ways. It is therefore critical that States find the most effective ways through which to protect individuals from advocacy of hatred and violence by others. While legislative responses have often been relied on by States to respond to  these phenomena, they are far from being sufficient to bring about real changes in mindsets, perceptions and discourse. Indeed, tackling the root causes of manifestations of religious intolerance affecting individual’s human rights requires a much broader set of policy measures, for example in the areas of education, awareness-raising and interreligious and intercultural dialogue. The Special Rapporteur therefore strongly recommends that States put a strong emphasis on a  broad range of preventive measures which aim at fostering a peaceful society where, inter alia, freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief may be fully exercised by all individuals.

• Advocacy of racial or religious hatred is a symptom, the external manifestation of something much more profound which is intolerance and bigotry.

The Preface to the  Second Edition of the Calcutta Qur'an Petition  lists the numerous ayat which inspire hatred of non-Muslims. Faithful Muslims who go to the Mosque to pray curse us  17 times each day.  That is what they are doing when they recite the first Surah of the Qur'an, they are reminding Allah why he wants to burn us who "earned his wrath" and  "went astray".

• advocacy of hatred and violence

    Get a clue, for Chrissake!!! "Fight them", Fight those who" and "  9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2). are the real incitement to violence.  Moe gave the believers an example to emulate: "I am  ordered to fight".

• a peaceful society where ... freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief may be fully exercised by all individuals

The S.R. just described a world without Islam.  Sorry, sucker, there is no religious freedom in Islam.  The penalty for apostasy is death!

08.0 APOSTASY FROM ISLAM (RIDDA)
(0: Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief
(kufr) and the worst. It may come about
through sarcasm, as when someone is told, "Trim
your nails, it is sunna," and he replies, "I would
not do it even if it were," as opposed to when some
circumstance exists which exonerates him of having
committed apostasy, such as when his tongue
runs away with him, or when he is quoting someone,
or says it out of fear.)
08.1 When a person who has reached puberty
and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he
deserves to be killed.
08.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the
caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to
repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is
accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is
immediately killed.

   
    To comprehend the full enormity of that which the OIC seeks to impose upon us through the HRC & GA resolutions which they are seeking to insert into ICERD through a binding protocol, you need to delve further into Shari'ah.  O8.7  contains a list of 20 acts and attitudes which entail apostasy. Any negative statement about  Allah or Moe; any reviling or expression of doubt about Islam or denial of any part of the Qur'an gets a Muslim killed.  

    That same list of prohibitions is applied to dhimmis by extension. O11.5 lists legal and social restrictions on dhimmis.    O11.10 lists acts which violate the treaty of protection, subjecting the dhimmi who commits them to immediate execution.  Pay special attention to the fifth item in the list: :"(5) or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam. ".

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
people:
(1) commits adultery with a Muslim woman
or marries her:
(2) conceals spies of hostile forces;
(3) leads a Muslim away from Islam;
(4) kills a Muslim;
(5) or mentions something impermissible
about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and
give him peace), or Islam.

    Because it inculcates hatred & incites violence, the intolerant war cult can not be tolerated.  Nor can we tolerate having its blasphemy laws imposed upon us.  We must rise up and raise  loud objections while we are still able to do so without being fined and imprisoned for  defending our lives and  liberty.  For this reason I exhort all lovers of life and liberty to sign the  International Qur'an Petition, copy it, paste it into an email and send it to everyone you can hope to influence with an exhortation to sign and forward it.

---

1. 
   

Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of
public health or morals.

Article 20
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law..

2.   7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly
   associated with human rights violations and terrorism and, in this regard, regrets the laws or
   administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities,
   thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination they experience;  [¶'5-7 of the pdf. The reference to the Motoons is obvious!]