Ban defamation of religions: UN General Assembly President

the question becomes: Is Islam a religion?...

Every time a Muslim claims Jesus will come back and kill every Christian and Jew in the end-time is a blasphemy.

Every time a Muslim claims Jesus tricked an innocent man into taking his place on the cross is a blasphemy.

These beliefs are central to the Islamic ideology.

I'd like to see the U.N. nail Muslims on these blasphemies, but somehow I don't see it happening.

Why not?

This provides President-elect Obama with the opportunity (now that the election campaign is over), to start indicating his administration's views on human rights and foreign affairs.

Will he state publicly that when he is President his administration will:
(a) Actively campaign against such a motion?
(b) Provide asylum for any person likely to suffer imprisonment or punishment as a result of laws against blasphemy or apostasy?
(c) Impose sanctions on any country imposing punishment on anyone convicted of blasphemy or apostasy?

The UN is the tool of choice for the OIC to impose its agenda on the world.

Whether such a ban becomes official or not, the effort to censure criticism of Islam becomes ever more apparent.

A co-worker of one of my children is a student taking a World Religions class at Marist College. This student is working on a paper about two of the worlds religions - with expressed instruction to exclude Islam to avoid controversy.

In a world where only one religion threatens security and social cohesion on every continent - at a time when Western societies are encouraging investment in shari'a compliant financial instruments under the false flag of 'security' - this educator is guilty of educational malpractice.

“We should respect all religions.”...

When many people hear the word "respect," their interpretation of the word is miles away from an Islamic interpretation. Just take a look at how hardline Islamic countries are so respectful of any ideology other than Islam. For example, in Saudi Arabia, even toting in a Bible or other Judeo-Christian material causes problems, often resulting in the confiscation of those materials.

Yet the Koran is for sale in nearly every bookstore in every Western nation. Won't find that in Islamic countries. Indeed, even books with illustrations of Piglet fire up the hardline Moslems.

The United Nations is playing into the hand of dhimmitude.

Isn't it time for the UN to move?

Why should they get to stay in a western playground when they are the mere pawns of dictators and sociopaths?

Move to a country more in line with their repressive mindset. I've got it! How about Saudi Arabia? No one will dare defame Islam there! I wish I could say the same about the other religions, but.......

Does this mean that the National Endowment for the Arts will no longer be subsidizing pictures of a crucifix submerged in urine, or statues of Mary (the mother of Christ) wearing elephant dung?

Yeah, I know. Whom am I trying to kid?

Remember those John Birch Society signs on country roads way back when? "U.S. out of U.N." ? Where can I get one?

The John Birch Society's crackpot conspiracy theories (Eisenhower was a secret communist) look so laughably lame now that we have the real thing.

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 12: United Nations General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann said ... we should respect all religions.”

Oh really? How about the Aztec religion? Or Baal-worship? Or Thuggee? Or other murder-cults, like one I could mention?

If any such resolution against defamation of religion is passed, it will be adopted by the Islamic countries in the same fashion that they adopted the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, i. e. with the provision "to the extent that it does not conflict with Sharia." In other words, they won't adopt it at all.

Here is the rest of the story from yesterday's National Post. The article carries this delicious piece of irony:

"King Abdullah focused on the need to combat terrorism as part of his efforts to improve the image of Wahhabism, the austere brand of Islam practised in the kingdom."

"We state with a unified voice that religions through which Almighty God sought to bring happiness to mankind should not be turned into instruments to cause misery," he said. "Terrorism and criminality are the enemies of every religion and every civilization. They would not have emerged except for the absence of the principle of tolerance."
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=954493

"Terrorism and criminality are the enemies of every religion and every civilization. They would not have emerged except for the absence of the principle of tolerance." -- King Abdullah

I don't know about "emerging", but certainly terrorism and criminality have been most fostered and encouraged in the Islamic countries where the principle of tolerance is most absent. The king's own Saudi Arabia is the prime example.

Terrorism and criminality are the enemies of every religion and every civilization. They would not have emerged except for the absence of the principle of tolerance." -- King Abdullah

Abdullah dude - what about that "smite the infidels" thing in the Qur'an? Maybe you could remove it from the Qur'an, since you are the Guardian of the Two Holy Sites. Doesn't that count for something?

My answers:

1) If the UN had the teeth to enforce this nonsense (it doesn't) it would have to shut down the media in most mohammedan countries, and probably a large part of their govt's as well.

2) Mohammedanism sucks.

Of course the Koranists want to ban defamation of religion. They believe theirs is a religion (it isn't) and they also know that unlike real ones theirs can't accept any criticism at all. That's why they go bananas everytime some triviality is deemed an insult. No true religion sees its members fly off the handle over nothing like Koranists do.

So does this mean the Quran will be purged of all passages which defame other religions?

More on Brockmann:

What if I told you that the new president of the United Nations General Assembly is a communist and a Catholic priest? Yet, it is true. The news comes like a strange blast from 1980s.

Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann is a retired member of the Maryknoll missionary order. He was foreign minister under the Sandinista government in Nicaragua from 1979-1980 and won the Lenin Peace Prize in 1985-86, which the old Soviet Union issued as a competitor to the Nobel Peace Prize. He remains a staunch defender of the Sandinistas and a dedicated partisan of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega. He is a staunch protagonist for "Liberation Theology".

In other words: 250 pounds of dreck.

http://sheikyermami.com/2008/11/14/the-un-wants-you-to-submit-to-islam/

Terrorism and criminality are the enemies of every religion and every civilization.

Ya got that right. And since terrorism and criminality are the crux of Islam, that explains why, under Islam, there is neither religion nor civilization, just fascism and barbarity.

None of this 'defamation of religion' stuff can actually ever be enacted in the Free World because Islam hinges upon just that. Sure, the UK can declare trash-talk about Muhammadans 'racism,' but Islam itself, well, it's an ideology. NO ideology should be above criticism, and even if it is, then other ideologies are too, which again screws Islam.

And Miira, tell your co-worker that her daughter can complain to Students for Academic Freedom, the FIRE, and Critical Mass. "Avoiding controversy" is not what education is about. Imagine if nobody ever questioned slavery in order to "avoid controversy." Oh wait, that's what they're doing, isn't it?

Are there any New York jihadwatchers brave enough to produce in poster form, and attach to suitable public places in the vicinity of UN HQ, or produce in pamphlet form, and scatter strategically in the same vicinity (e.g. accidentally-on-purpose left behind in cafes among the newspapers and magazines) any one or more of the following items?

1. the article by Robert Redeker, French schoolteacher, that, when published in Le Figaro, gained him a barrage of death threats from Muslims in France, and lost him his job?

2. a portrait of Theo Van Gogh and part of the script of 'Submission'

3. the Motoons and the information that Kurt Westergaard, 73, Danish citizen, must now live in hiding, and in fear of Muslim assassins, *on. Danish. sovereign. territory*.

4. Hugh Fitzgerald's 27 Deplorables (i.e. things about Islamic doctrine and practice, about sharia and Mohammed, that the intelligent and decent non-Muslim finds appalling, deplorable, or even nauseating)

http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009275.php

5. the front cover of Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, and a reproduction of the offending passage from the book, and the information that the (Muslim) Japanese translator of the book was murdered by a Muslim assassin, and that there was a murder attempt upon another translator

6. a portrait of Pope Benedict XVI, together with those passages of his Regensburg Address, that were greeted with paroxysms of 'Pope Rage', and the firebombing of churches and killing of Christians (list the churches and the murdered Catholic nun)

7. pithy one -to-two-paragraph statements by David Hume, John Quincy Adams, Winston Churchill and Jacques Ellul, concerning the amorality and aggression which are coded into the core texts and practice of Islam.

8. portraits of famous recent apostates - e.g. Lina Joy, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Magdi Cristiano Allam (his baptism photo), Mohammed Hegazy of Egypt, Mansuur Mohamed of Somalia (he of blessed memory) - together with the text from the Hadith concerning the sharia punishment for apostasy, 'If anyone changes his religion, kill him', and the information that all of these apostates have received explicit death threats from Muslims, which threats, in Mansuur's case, were publicly carried out.

Hunt around on this website or in Mr Spencer's books and find the details on what sharia does to 'blasphemers' and 'apostates' and include that on each pamphlet or poster.

What religion where the IRA Terrorist and what religion where the Orangeman terrorist and what religion where the england soldier that terrorise that land for centuries.

"UNITED NATIONS, Nov 12: United Nations General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann said on Tuesday that the world body should ban defamation of all religions...

Damn. No more Jehovah's Witnesses jokes.

A prelude to the upcoming Durban II, or Hatefest Revisited this spring in Geneva. The Islamic bloc is feeling its oats, taking over the Human Rights Council and passing this "defamation" resolution in the General Assembly. They can expand upon Durban I, which merely targeted Israel, to not only demand the boycott (and delegitimizing) of Israel by the world community, but to ban free speech itself in the name of hate crime and
racism (blasphemy laws for non-Muslims by any other name) and to interfere with counterterrorism and national security measures also in the name of hate crime and racist profiling and otherwise insulting Muslims en masse ("Islamophobia").

The fact they have successfully "banned" discussion of Shari'a in the UN as similar "defaming" means those Islamic countries who have Shari'a embedded in their laws, cannot be discussed either. Which is virtually all of them.

The inmates are running the asylum.

@defenderOfIslam

Pretending Islam has nothing to do with violence because there are non-muslims that are violent too is utterly stupid.

It would be like saying : Some non smokers do die of cancer, therefore smoking has nothing to do with cancer.

Just an other muslim easily defeated by common sense.

Smoking doesn't cause cancer as a matter of principle, although it does have a warning on the box along the lines of "I will strike cancer into the lungs of the user!" IRA terrorists directly violate Christian law. Islamic terrorists directly adhere to Islamic law. His argument was even more illogical than you made it out to be, Maxilo. The Tamil Tigers would have made a better tu quoque logical fallacy, but he doesn't know enough about current events to make that illogical argument.

"Defending Freedom of Expression at the U.N. Human Rights Council, Geneva»

Dear Madam / Sir,

I refer to a recent e-mail widely circulated, titled "Freedom of Expression at the UN Human Rights Commission at Geneva" . While in principle, I completely agree on this topic, I dare differ on the tactics of the IHEU Representative at Geneva which one could only call a dis-service to "Freedom of Expression" and to Liberalism/Secularism/Humanism.

Premises:

Personally, I have a lot of respect for Mr. Roy W Brown, IHEU representative at UN HR Commission at Geneva . He has done many favours on me, personally as well as on behalf of IHEU and its member organization. Similarly his associate at the UN Geneva is personally a hospitable Swiss who introduces himself as a Jew, has always been friendly and kind towards me.

However, in the interest of Humanism and Secularism and the "Freedom of Expression" - I do not support Mr. Brown's tactics. I had the opportunity to attend the UN HR Commission meetings at Geneva and hear Mr. Roy Brown's speeches as well as meet his associate Mr. David Littman, both of whom are not much respected by the Islamic delegates for their over-the-years persistent prejudice against anything Islamic, good or bad.

Mr. David Littman is genuinely concerned about the dangers of radical Islamism as I am too, however, Mr. David Littman and Mr. Roy Brown do a huge disservice to the genuine concept of "Freedom of Expression" and Humanism/secularism by wildly, blindly and ignorantly criticizing Islam and thus delibrately injuring the feelings of Muslim delegates in the session; and in this way provoking the Islamic countries into a reactive fundamentalist position and posture.

It is not only that Mr. Roy Brown knows nearly nothing about Islam or Islamic Shariah; he has never lived in any Islamic country; he has never seriously read Islam, yet he is megalomaniacs enough to bully all and sundry with his ignorance, and his baseless and prejudiced views. He criticizes the concepts and faith-articles of Islam he knows nothing about; he bullies everything Islamic with his loud voice full of hate and contempt rather than with any logic, any argument or in any tone of sympathy for the victims of Islamism.

I am a victim of Islamic Blasphemy law, an Ex-Muslim, I have lived under Islamic fascism for 45 years of my life; I oppose Islamism but I feel that one cannot and should not criticize Islam from the point of view of ignorance, limitless prejudice, inexperience of living under Islam and without learning about the basic tenants and articles of faith.

With this, I feel that Mr. Roy Brown is much to blame for his psychological aggression and manipulations, irresponsibility, ignorance and wild/brutal outbursts of anti-Islamic outbursts as well as for the Islamic reactive posture of ultra-defensive religious fundamentalism at the UN Human Rights Council at Geneva; although I fully oppose Islamic reactive posture of fundamentalism and their efforts at curtailment of Freedom of Expression.

I, therrefore, very sincerrely believe and communicate to you, Sir, that Mr. Roy W brown should not be allowed to destrtoy the world peace by his brutal psychological aggressions and manipulations at such high and sensitive world forum; and in the interest of the genuine and responsible "Freedom of Expression", he should not be allowed to speak at the HR Council meetings at Geneva.

Thanks much

A Humanist

---------

".......Some rich and conspiracy-minded Jesuits and their agents are known to have infiltrated different international forums like UN, Secular and Humanist/Ethical international and national organisations where they have grabbed high and decision-making positions which they abuse in the name of Humanism, for anti-Humanist activities; they particularly tend to use dinner-diplomacy to influence others, and directly or indirectly make every effort at propaganda in support of Homosexuality and Gay-marriage everywhere, ......." >>>>>….Read more >>>>> Follow the link:

"Defending Freedom of Expression at the U.N. Human Rights Council, Geneva»

Dear Madam / Sir,

I refer to a recent e-mail widely circulated, titled "Freedom of Expression at the UN Human Rights Commission at Geneva" . While in principle, I completely agree on this topic, I dare differ on the tactics of the IHEU Representative at Geneva which one could only call a dis-service to "Freedom of Expression" and to Liberalism/Secularism/Humanism.

Premises:

Personally, I have a lot of respect for Mr. Roy W Brown, IHEU representative at UN HR Commission at Geneva . He has done many favours on me, personally as well as on behalf of IHEU and its member organization. Similarly his associate at the UN Geneva is personally a hospitable Swiss who introduces himself as a Jew, has always been friendly and kind towards me.

However, in the interest of Humanism and Secularism and the "Freedom of Expression" - I do not support Mr. Brown's tactics. I had the opportunity to attend the UN HR Commission meetings at Geneva and hear Mr. Roy Brown's speeches as well as meet his associate Mr. David Littman, both of whom are not much respected by the Islamic delegates for their over-the-years persistent prejudice against anything Islamic, good or bad.

Mr. David Littman is genuinely concerned about the dangers of radical Islamism as I am too, however, Mr. David Littman and Mr. Roy Brown do a huge disservice to the genuine concept of "Freedom of Expression" and Humanism/secularism by wildly, blindly and ignorantly criticizing Islam and thus delibrately injuring the feelings of Muslim delegates in the session; and in this way provoking the Islamic countries into a reactive fundamentalist position and posture.

It is not only that Mr. Roy Brown knows nearly nothing about Islam or Islamic Shariah; he has never lived in any Islamic country; he has never seriously read Islam, yet he is megalomaniacs enough to bully all and sundry with his ignorance, and his baseless and prejudiced views. He criticizes the concepts and faith-articles of Islam he knows nothing about; he bullies everything Islamic with his loud voice full of hate and contempt rather than with any logic, any argument or in any tone of sympathy for the victims of Islamism.

I am a victim of Islamic Blasphemy law, an Ex-Muslim, I have lived under Islamic fascism for 45 years of my life; I oppose Islamism but I feel that one cannot and should not criticize Islam from the point of view of ignorance, limitless prejudice, inexperience of living under Islam and without learning about the basic tenants and articles of faith.

With this, I feel that Mr. Roy Brown is much to blame for his psychological aggression and manipulations, irresponsibility, ignorance and wild/brutal outbursts of anti-Islamic outbursts as well as for the Islamic reactive posture of ultra-defensive religious fundamentalism at the UN Human Rights Council at Geneva; although I fully oppose Islamic reactive posture of fundamentalism and their efforts at curtailment of Freedom of Expression.

I, therrefore, very sincerrely believe and communicate to you, Sir, that Mr. Roy W brown should not be allowed to destrtoy the world peace by his brutal psychological aggressions and manipulations at such high and sensitive world forum; and in the interest of the genuine and responsible "Freedom of Expression", he should not be allowed to speak at the HR Council meetings at Geneva.

Thanks much

A Humanist

---------

".......Some rich and conspiracy-minded Jesuits and their agents are known to have infiltrated different international forums like UN, Secular and Humanist/Ethical international and national organisations where they have grabbed high and decision-making positions which they abuse in the name of Humanism, for anti-Humanist activities; they particularly tend to use dinner-diplomacy to influence others, and directly or indirectly make every effort at propaganda in support of Homosexuality and Gay-marriage everywhere, ......." >>>>>….Read more >>>>> Follow the link:

"Mr. David Littman and Mr. Roy Brown do a huge disservice to the genuine concept of "Freedom of Expression" and Humanism/secularism by wildly, blindly and ignorantly criticizing Islam and thus delibrately injuring the feelings of Muslim delegates in the session; and in this way provoking the Islamic countries into a reactive fundamentalist position and posture."
--letter from a Muslim pretending to be an "ex-Muslim" (do explain why you left Islam) who lived under "Islamic fascism" for 45 years (where?) but ardently defends the Islamic totalitarians at the UN). The "humanist" would blame all the reactive Islamic hysteria at the UN on Mssrs Brown & Littman and their injuring the feelings of Muslims with their "wild & brutal" anti-Islamic outbursts, "endangering world peace", and no doubt forcing Muslims to enact laws against "Islamophobia" (well, these guys and the Jesuits)

an example?

At the UNCHR June 2008 session David Littman intends to read a statement protesting
the stoning to death of women and forced marriage of girls in countries under Shari'a law. For this wild brutal outburst intending to destroy world peace and injure the sensitive feelings of Muslims the world over, the delegates of Pakistan and Egypt shout him down.

"It is an insult to my people's faith to DISCUSS the Shari'a in this forum." said the Pakistani
envoy. "The Shari'a isn't a matter for discussion here" declared the Egyptian. The Council's Romanian President then cut off all further discussions of Islamic "law enforcement."

The 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam adopted by the OIC says Shari'a is the sole foundation for "human rights." But non-Muslims are not allowed to discuss it. Even though Shari'a repudiates everything the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (and therefore the UN) stands for (as put forth in that Declaration and the Vienna Declaration which reaffirmed it). Non-Muslims are not allowed to discuss it. And so Islam conquers the world (at the UN).

More on Brockmann

That should be "More on d'Escoto."

Brockmann is D'Escoto's "apellido materno", or "second last name," which tells us that his mother's maiden name was "Brockmann." His "apellido paterno," his father's family name, is "d'Escoto."

These same defenders of religion are only interested in defending Islam. When will they stop or demand that the Muslim press, mosque preachers, etc., stop their ugly attacks on Jews and Judaism, their repulsive anti-Israel, anti-Jewish cartoons??