Brief comments on the last day of the Sixth Session of the Human Rights Council by David G. Littman, NGO Representative of Association for World Education (AWE) and World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ) to the UN Office in Geneva.
In the last hour of the 6th session of the Human Rights Council (December 14), a nine-page resolution was passed – L.15/Rev.1: Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief. Sponsored by 57 States, of which 16 were Members of the Council and 41 were non-Member States, only two members of the 56 countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) co-sponsored it: Albania and Turkey, both non-Members.The vote of the 47 Member State Council was, Yes: 29; No: 0; Abstention: 18. All the 15 OIC Member States of the Council, abstained – as did China, South Africa and Sri Lanka. Of those who provided an “explanation” of their vote, the delegate of Saudi Arabia insisted that shari’a law should not be criticized and declared that Islam was a religion of fraternity, tolerance and equality, without discrimination whatsoever. (UN interpretation from the Arabic)
No link.
Universal charity and benevolence, and the absence of discrimination--for and among Muslims.
Not a single Chief of State in the West informs the citizenry about this event and all that it implies.
"Interpretation?" As opposed to "translation?" Curious.
"Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief."
-- from the Resolution of the UN Human Rights Council
Muslims discriminate against others on the basis of the religions of those others -- all those religions that are called something other than "Islam." But Islam itself is much more than a religion, and one is perfectly entitled to be opposed to Islam, not as a religion, but as a Total System. The Resolution is badly worded, and may come back to haunt those who think one should be entitled to be intolerant of certain beliefs. Why should one be tolerant, and not discriminate against adherents of, Islam?
the delegate of Saudi Arabia insisted that shari’a law should not be criticized and declared that Islam was a religion of fraternity, tolerance and equality, without discrimination whatsoever.
from the article
If that's true, then what religion are the Saudis following, and what religion is being preached in all the Saudi-funded mosques around the world? By their own admission, it's not Islam.
the delegate of Saudi Arabia insisted that shari’a law should not be criticized and declared that Islam was a religion of fraternity, tolerance and equality, without discrimination whatsoever.
from the article
If that's true, then what religion are the Saudis following, and what religion is being preached in all the Saudi-funded mosques around the world? By their own admission, it's not Islam.
The OIC should be renamed the Organization of Islamic Nutjobs Conference. The new acronymn would be a misspelling, but somewhat more apt in describing its members.
Saudi Arabia should get a special Dhimmi type award-"Most Delusional Nation" for constantly spouting how tolerant and peaceful Islamania is. I doubt any other member of the ummah endlessly states this like Saudi Arabia does-must be because they are the keepers of the unholy cities.
This is a nightmare. The Sowdi's are perverting everything our forefathers fought for.
All the traitors who go along with this deserve to hang, publicly!
"All the 15 OIC Member States of the Council, abstained."
Shocking??
Hardly.
Wow,
A comment of mine calling Bush a traitor deleted.
Curious, indeed.
Say it isn't so Marisol. Hugh, I can understand, though not agree with.
You called for Bush to hang.
Calls for the death of a current or former President of the US make for very messy legal territory. That's why it had to go.
Marisol,
I was merely calling out Bush for the traitor he is to the US and the West. I am all but sure that you agree.
The call to hang was a "quotational" reference by the Sheik's comment, not mine:
"All the traitors who go along with this deserve to hang, publicly!"
Of course, I understand and support your position. Protect JW/DW and Robert at all costs, and based on that, I stand properly corrected. Its been awhile since I had a post modified....err deleted, since I loathe Bush almost as much as the Saudis...I guess I felt I was due.
Thanks for your prompt response.
Regards,
awake
awake: Calling for the death of anyone is abhorrent. One cannot assume the moral high ground over the Musselman when you stoop to use the same practises as he advocates. We have due process in the West and a legal system that may be painfully slow but is sure. If your President deserves the death penalty, and I say 'if', then you can be sure that the systems we have in place today will catch up with him and deliver such justice - based on proof and fair trial and due process. If he does not deserve the ultimate penalty then our systems will deliver verdicts appropriate and penalties proportionate.
Writing as a jihadist would do does not further our cause nor does it paint a picture of the civilised West that most of us wish to have shown. Temperance of emotion, as I very recently had to re-learn, is the mark of a civilised person; the exercise of the combined artillery of reason and intellect and rational argument will always buy us the superior position and the ultimate victory in the argument.
Marshall your words, and the emotions and reasons contained in them, much as a Sandhurst (or USMA West Point) trained officer would marshall his troops - in orderly fashion, ready for losses but expecting victory by superiority.
Ahem, ah, Mr Saudi ... I don't recall Sharia being mentioned...
Could it be that you took
as a cirticism of Shari'a?
Amazing, isn't it, how they are ready to connect the dots for us.
Reminds me of the Bill Cosby monologue about the kid in his shop class who put a bullet in the furnace; when it went off, the teacher tried to get the kids to say who did it but nobody was talking. So he used psychology: "You know, for someone to put a bullet in the furnace...you musta had a real awful mother. She'd have to be real bad." The kid pipes up "...I did not put a bullet in the fu'nace, and stop talkin' 'bout my muthah!"
awake:
MarisolJW:
'to be hanged' would, grammatically, be more correct than the simply 'to hang' which implies on ongoing state with no resolution. For how long would he hang there (wherever)?
Then, when did anybody on the Web ever bother with precise English!
It's been known to happen.
A bit off subject but I just read this UK news;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/18/ngang118.xml
I’m not making this crime any less a crime,
But I do want to point out how the head line reads.
“Muslim teenager stabbed to death by white gang”
Why wasn’t it titled as follows?
“Asian teenager stabbed to death by gang of youths”.
And the first sentence read;
A MUSLIM teenager described as a model sixth-form pupil died after being stabbed in the back by a group of white youths at a train station.
Should not it have read?
An Asian teenager described as a model sixth-form pupil died after being stabbed in the back by a group of youths at a train station.
Just wondering..
Joe Schmoe; good point, however it fails in it's reverse usage. There's an excellent chance that the victim wasn't "Asian". He may well have been N. African, Balkan, or possibly even caucasian.
I hate the pc usage of the expression as much as you do, mostly for what it says about the author, but also for the slur it casts on every Asian of non-violent inclination (eg Buddhists, Christians, etc.), and there's millions of THEM.
Saudi Arabia insisted that shari’a law should not be criticized and declared that Islam was a religion of fraternity, tolerance and equality, without discrimination whatsoever.
I wonder how twisted a tongue Saudi Arabia delegate has and their right sharia law dhould never be criticized as long as you're a Muslim or a dhimmi but if you're not it should be criticized long and loud and as for Islam being a religion of fraternity, tolerance and equality, without discrimination whatsoever.
as long as you're a Muslim is all the above but if you're not a Muslim is one of the most intolerant unequal and discriminatory pseudo-religions in existence all we have to do is look how women are treated under Islam we can look at how other religions are treated in Saudi Arabia where they are not allowed to build a church or temple and at the tolerance or rather the lack of tolerance in the Islamic countries were women are kidnapped raped and forced to convert to Islam all is legal under sharia lawwe should give the Saudi ambassador to the UN human rights Council a liar of the year award
Source of the article:
http://tinyurl.com/2efl2n
scroll down to
"Action on Resolution on Mandate of Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief"
"ABDULLAH ABBAS RASHWAN (Saudi Arabia), speaking in explanation of the vote before the vote, commented that the draft resolution did not include certain essential points relating to certain religions. A resolution that went against the Sharia law could not be accepted by Saudi Arabia. Those who had submitted the resolution should consider the tenets of some religions that were not compatible with the existing text. "
... which admits Islam discriminates.
Then, when did anybody on the Web ever bother with precise English!
Posted by: OliverPCamford at December 18, 2007 12:25 AM
Ollie,
Does spelling count?
Joe Schmoe USA, this is typical of the uk bias. when a muslim is a victim he is identified as a muslim, not as asian not a african or any other nationality. now when it's these muslims who are the perps they are identified as asians or africans etc. but not as muslims. the muslim council makes sure that the uk media sticks to these procedures.
Fine. Understandable. Agreeable. I'm all for it as long as this follows in the next sentence:
"Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based IN religion or belief."
Eliminate intolerance and discrimination that targets religious belief but also elimiate discrimation and intolerace that justifies itself in beliefs.
Include that sincerely and we'll have something to talk about. Until then we stand opposed. And now you're messing with a son-of-a-bitch because I've read your book, you magnificent bastards.
The Koran and Sharia are both religious and secular laws, but the Saudis don't want to go there. So they gloss over the 'secular' and focus on the 'religious' and claim intolerance and discrimination of anyone critizes their 'religion' of Allah, totally disregarding Mohammud's claims his is a Total System of law, both secular and religious. Secular Islamic law discriminates against those who don't buy their 'religion'.
These Saudi royals lie taqqiyally.
OliverPCamford wrote:
You consider the removal of a leader who shows generosity and compassion to enemies at the expense of his own people to be abhorrent?It is not enough for citizens to value law and order --- the leaders must uphold the law as well, and Bush has made a complete mockery of the concept of law and order, with respect to illegal immigration --- a subject which is intimately tied to the issues of global jihad, Muslim demography and terrorism.
The enemies from within are always far more dangerous than any external enemy. Unworthy, corrupt, misguided and evil leaders squander precious human and other resources of their people. They bring upon a nation a collective punishment/tragedy, and the most compassionate and least abhorrent act is the removal of such criminals before multitudes of innocents suffer.
In Littman's gobbledygook of numbers, members, and sponsors, here are the essentials, if I have understood him correctly:
Only 2 of the world's 56 or so Muslim nations sponsored (supported) the resolution for non-discrimination on the basis of religion. That's less than 4 percent of Muslim nations.
Out of the world's roughly 138 non-Muslim nations, 55 nations sponsored the resolution. So that's about 40 percent of the world's non-Muslim nations that supported the resolution.
The percentage of non-Muslim nations supporting non-discrimination on the basis of religion is thus ten times greater than the percentage of Muslim nations supporting non-discrimination on the basis of religion (4 percent vs. 40 percent).
Meanwhile, 15 Muslim nations were on the U.N. Human Rights Council and thus in a position not only to sponsor/not sponsor the resolution, but to vote on it as well. All 15 voted to abstain.
Those numbers are yet another indictment of the Muslim world's will to subjugate non-Muslims as legal and social inferiors, in accord with Qur'an Chapter 9, Verse 29, and the traditions of Muhammad.
And kindly don't tell me that Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation in the world, is a proof that Islam and democracy are compatible. Didn't Indonesia just sentence 41 Christians to five years in prison for the crime of proselytizing? And didn't Indonesia also recently compel a heretical Muslim to retract his heresies, on pain of a five-year prison sentence? Isn't Indonesia where hundreds of churches have been destroyed in recent years, and where hundreds died in the Bali jihad bombings, and where Christian schoolgirls on the way to school were beheaded by Muslims, and where the province of Aceh is ruled by sharia law? If Indonesia is the best the Muslim world has to offer in terms of civil liberties -- and is far, far better than most Muslim nations in that respect -- the Western world needs to call a moratorium on Muslim immigration. At least until more Muslim states respect religious freedom.
US_infidel: Calling for the death penalty without due proccess, out of hand, is what I consider to be wrong. You may call for anyone holding public office to be impeached but to assume that simply because you (and, if truth be known, I also) dislike and disagree with the policies exercised by such a person is a good enough reason to issue a warrant (note the lower case 'w') for the death of the said person is to do no more than call for this person's murder.
That is what the Moslem does. It is not our way. Truth may seem obvious to you and me but we are rational Western people and we must prove the 'truth of our truth' to our peers before demanding any penalty be placed upon those who dispute our viewpoints.
awake: Of course spelling doesn't count! We have to use a QWERTY keyboard at speed. Sppeling thearfor canot bee allloud to count.
The thought and the grammar is all - and the odd (preferably very odd) pun!
Hugh Fitzgerald:
"It's been known to happen."
Posted by: Hugh at December 18, 2007 12:37 AM
Yes it has, but we should remember the words of Bronson Alcott (one of your countrymen and the father of Louisa May Alcott if memory serves): "Devotees of grammatical studies have not been distinguished for any very remarkable felicities of expression."
awake: Wasn't it Andrew Jackson who said: "It's a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word." Alas, I cannot claim credit for remembering this quote. 'Twas my partner who did so just a few minutes ago. Nonetheless, apposite - I think.
awake: I've just remembered Twain on this - you know, he of the river that has had so many levees it's forever leaving its bed; he who plumbed and Marked our depths (and shallows).
"I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way", he said. Sensible man!
Ollie,
Most of your intended spelling errors in your previous posts are clever ruses, but certainly not all of them.
In the future, please refrain from correcting "my grammar", especially from comments where it was merely quoting another, hence the "'s.
If you had actually read the comments, you would already know that, and realized that your reply was utterly wasteful.
Regards,
awake
P.S. Properly placed commas are your "friend".
awake: What can I say! I think that I will leave it to others:
"A kiss can be a comma..." - Mistinguett.
"Give me the comma of imperfect striving,
thus to find zest in the immediate living.
Ever the reaching but never the gaining,
ever the climbing but never the attaining
of the mountain top".
- Winston Graham.
Finally (maybe not quite), to paraphrase Auster: "I have been responsible for every single thing on every page, every comma, every syllable is my work."
My use of commas is mine and mine alone - period. I'm English so I scatter them liberally and without regard to rules. That is what we do. Sorry if this cavalier approach offends, but Cavalier I am - Royalist to my back teeth.
And always the Vicar of Bray, Sir.
It's all in the timing, dontcherknow.
awake: "clever ruses". What a demeaning little word 'clever' is. 'Brilliant' I could have forgiven you for, 'witty' I could have pardoned. 'Clever' I can never forgive. The word smacks of mediocrity and insult. To be merely 'clever' is to be merely average - a trained monkey is clever, a sporting dolphin in an aquarium tank jumping for the disport of hoi polloi is clever. My dog doing parlour tricks for treats is clever. I, sir, am brilliant or a fool but never, ever, clever.
At dawn, sir. The choice of weapons is yours!
http://www.globalincidentmap.com/home.php
View Terrorism as it happens.
Posted by: ElizaDoolittle