UN committee approves law criminalizing "vilification of religions"

I wonder what they see as the vilification of other religions and the massacres of their followers by the likes of Pakistan and Iran? Probably all our fault for saying that Islam is violent and that it says that violence is acceptable and that their prophet married a nine year old girl.

Just another initiative of the morally bankrupt UN... Frankly, and sadly, nothing surprising with this headline.

I'm not holding my breath for a lessening of anti-semitic rhetoric from the Islamofascists. Or, for that matter, the precarious state of Christians in Egypt, Pakistan, and elsewhere. Pathetic.

Here’s the link to the UN Press Release, which includes a bunch of other agendas.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/gashc4001.doc.htm

Scroll down to:

Deeply alarmed at the rising trends towards discrimination based on religion or belief, including in some national policies, laws and administrative measures, the Committee also approved a draft resolution entitled combating defamation of religions by a recorded vote of 76 in favour to 64 against, with 42 abstentions.

By the draft, the General Assembly would note with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of vilification of religions and incitement to religious hatred. At the same time as the text was approved, the representatives of Brazil and Belgium noted that elements of the draft were at odds with international legislation and that, in the context of international human rights law, the concepts of defamation or vilification were not applicable.

--------

Global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/C.3/65/L.60),

Combating defamation of religions (document A/C.3/65/L.46/Rev.1)

Action on Draft Resolutions

--------

The Committee then took action on a draft resolution entitled combating defamation of religions (document A/C.3/65/L.46).

By its terms, the General Assembly would express 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. It would strongly deplore psychological and physical violence and assaults, and incitement thereto, against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, and such acts directed against their businesses, properties, cultural centres and places of worship, as well as the targeting and desecration of holy books, holy sites and religious symbols and venerated personalities of all religions. It would express deep concern at the programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at creating and perpetuating stereotypes about certain religions, in particular when condoned by Governments.

The Assembly would note with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001. It would express deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism, and reaffirm the obligation of all States to enact the legislation necessary to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. It would call upon all States to do their utmost to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols and venerated personalities are fully respected and protected. It would affirm that the Human Rights Council shall promote universal respect for all religious and cultural values and address instances of intolerance, discrimination and incitement of hatred against members of any community or adherents of any religion, as well as the means to consolidate international efforts in order to combat impunity for such deplorable acts.

The representative of Morocco, the main sponsor, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), together with Venezuela and Belarus, said the resolution dealt with the disturbing increase in violence related to the defamation of religion. Those trends had found their way into political circles. Discrimination based on religion had even found its way into national policies and measures that stigmatized groups belonging to certain beliefs, thereby legitimizing discrimination against them. Those groups did not enjoy freedom of thought, and their ability to observe and manifest religions freely and without coercion, violence or retaliation was impeded. OIC reiterated its belief that all rights were universal, indivisible and interrelated, as stated by the Vienna Declaration.

The importance of freedom of opinion was acknowledged, but it was also important to have a limitation of that right, he said. Freedom of expression was one of the pillars of democratic society, but the foundation of such a society could not be completed without respect for the balance among all human rights, bearing in mind their indivisible and independent nature. Respecting rights to non-discrimination on any basis was essential to building and maintaining a healthy and dynamic society. Democracy and racism were incompatible. Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights called upon States to prevent the targeting of different religions and cultures.

Based on the growing defamation of religion, OIC found it necessary to continue promoting the draft. Many United Nations reports, as well as other stakeholders, noted the need to combat the increasing trend and stop the rise in the number of incitements to religious hatred. Those acts were obstacles to human rights. In that regard, OIC had conducted three rounds of informal consultations, besides organizing meetings with partners and groups in transparency. The co-sponsors had carefully considered all proposals, and had hoped to create a constructive dialogue aiming at cooperation regarding that trend. They had not lost hope and would continue their endeavours. The resolution stressed that vilification of any religions was a serious affront to human dignity. It called for combating such deplorable acts against all religions, without exception. The fact that Islam was at the core did not preclude that other religions could not be targeted. It was worth recalling that all States had agreed that terrorism could not be associated with any religion, civilization or ethnic group. It was a sign of compromise and consensus that they had reduced the concept of “defamation” and replaced it with the term “vilification” to avoid any pretext and encourage all to reach an objective consensus. States should show a higher degree of sensitivity in addressing the abuse of freedom of expression and insulting religions.

The Chair of the Committee stated that a recorded vote had been requested. The representative of Morocco asked who requested the vote, to which the Chair replied that Belgium, on behalf of the European Union, had.

Explaining the vote before the vote, the representative of Belgium, on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union wished to reiterate its deepest commitment to tolerance, freedom of thought and freedom of religion and belief. The European Union was convinced that the ongoing dialogue on those issues would help to overcome existing differences. The European Union shared the concerns of the co-sponsors regarding all individuals worldwide who were victimized as a result of religion or belief. There should be enhanced efforts to eliminate religious intolerance, while ensuring that legal systems provided for adequate and effective guarantees and conscience for all without distinction.

However, the European Union did not agree with an approach that established a normative human rights concept aimed at religions in such concerns. The European Union believed that such a concept as defamation or vilification of religions was inconsistent with international human rights law. International human rights law protected individuals, and should not protect religions or belief systems. Neither should they be viewed as homogenous entities. Several Special Rapporteurs had addressed the need to address the problem within the international legal framework provided by the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. Changes in the text, replacing defamation of religions with vilification of religions, did not dispel concerns regarding the establishment of a human rights concept seeking to protect religions instead of individuals.

Further, he said the European Union was concerned that the concept of defamation risked limiting the rights to freedom of expression, as well as religion or belief, and put into question the concept of practicing faith without fear. Limitations inconsistent with Articles 19 and 20 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights regarding blasphemy laws would not address his concerns. The solution rested with the right to free speech and open discussion of issues. Incitement to religious hatred was dealt with in Article 20 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. The European Union recognized that there were legitimate concerns that the resolution sought to address, and publicly expressed its resolve to fight the phenomenon of intolerance of any individual on the grounds of belief, as well as invited everyone to show similar determination. Despite concerns, the European Union wished to express its sincere appreciation to Morocco and the coordinator of OIC. The European Union had taken note of the desire of the coordinator to look beyond the resolution and appreciated that. For that reasons noted, however, the European Union was calling for a vote and would vote against the draft resolution.

The representative of the United States said his delegation would be voting against. It had been participating for some time in discussions with a view to finding cross-regional solutions; finding common ground was always the goal. Changes to the resolution were appreciated, as was the openness to discussion, but it was disappointing to see that the text failed to bridge differences. The resolution still sought to curtail and penalize speech; it had negative implications for freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Human rights were held by individuals, not by government institutions or religions. Consensus had to be forged not by negotiations within one group, but between groups. The United States would continue to vote against a resolution that could be used to infringe on human rights under the guise of protecting human rights.

The representative of Switzerland said her delegation opposed the explicit definition of defamation as a modern form of discrimination. Doing so would add a religious element to racism. Human rights existed to protect individuals, not religions or other faith systems. Existing systems were sufficient, including articles 18, 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Changes made by OIC to the text did not ally the principled concerns of her delegation, which would vote against.

The draft was then approved by a recorded vote of 76 in favour to 64 against, with 42 abstentions.

In an explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Brazil acknowledged several positive aspects in the resolution, including recognition of the efforts made by the Alliance of Civilizations. However, elements at odds with international legislation remained in the draft, preventing his country from approving it. In the context of international human rights law, the concepts of defamation or vilification were not applicable. Individuals had the right to practice or not to practice a religion, or to convert. Brazil was proud of its cultural, racial and religious diversity, and while intolerance and incitement to hatred faced by Muslims in many parts of the world was regretted, those who adhered to other religions were similarly affected, including those in Islamic countries.

The representative of the United Kingdom, aligning his delegation with the statement made by Belgium on behalf of the European Union, expressed unease at the term “Judaephobia”. It marked a deviation from the term “anti-Semitism”. There had been insufficient time to consider a change in wording that could have undertones of discrimination.

The representative of Singapore said his delegation had voted in favour on the understanding that the resolution applied to all religions. Free speech could not be exercised at the expense of others, and intolerance and ignorance should be opposed.

The representative of Guatemala, referring to her country’s Constitution, condemned all acts of defamation, incitement and provocation which targeted any religion, including acts in democratic, economically advanced countries in the case of certain religious symbols. Curtailment of the freedom of expression would be a new evil, however. Her delegation chose to abstain.

In a general statement, the observer of the Holy See welcomed efforts to move away from an unclear legal definition of defamation. It was hoped that, in future, more efforts could be made to address the issues raised in the resolution in a consensual way.

The representative of Morocco welcomed the approval of the draft. The intensity of the debate was recognition of the reality of the phenomenon that the draft addressed. A fundamental difference in approaches was not minor, and those differences could not go away overnight; it was a long-term undertaking. Intolerance was the common theme, and respect for human rights, the shared parameter; that is what united people. There had been a shared conviction of all members of OIC to seek a compromise in order to reach consensus. The co-sponsors were determined to come back next year with the same spirit of willingness and determination to reach wording that could be consensual. It was hoped that next year, all minds would be disposed to do likewise.

----------

The Committee then turned to the draft resolution entitled global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/C.3/65/L.60).

By its terms, the General Assembly would express profound concern about, and its unequivocal condemnation of all forms of racism and racial discrimination, including related acts of racially motivated violence, xenophobia and intolerance, and re-emphasize that international cooperation is a key principle in achieving the goal of their total elimination. It would express grave concern that universal ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination has not yet been reached, despite commitments under the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. It would go on to recognize with deep concern the increase in anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and Islamophobia in various parts of the world, as well as the emergence of racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed against Arab, Christian, Jewish and Muslim communities, as well as all religious communities, communities of people of African descent, communities of people of Asian descent, communities of indigenous people and other Communities.

The draft would also have the Assembly decide to convene on 21 September 2011, a high-level meeting of the General Assembly to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, at the level of Heads of State and Government, in order to adopt a short and concise declaration aimed at mobilizing political will for the full and effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and the outcome of the 2009 Durban Review Conference. The Secretary General would be requested to establish a programme of outreach to appropriately commemorate the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Durban Declaration, while the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat to launch a public information campaign for the commemoration of the anniversary.

The representative of Yemen, the main sponsor, read a number of oral amendments, copies of which were distributed to delegations. Among the changes, the General Assembly would decide to hold a one-day high-level meeting of the General Assembly to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the Durban Declaration at the level of Heads of State and Government on the second day of the General Debate of the sixty-sixth session of the Assembly, under the theme “Victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerances: Recognition, Justice and Development”. That meeting would consist of an opening plenary, consecutive round tables/thematic panels and a closing plenary meeting. The President of the Assembly would be called upon to appoint co-facilitators to conduct consultations on the scope, modalities, format and organization of the Meeting.

The representative of Belgium asked for a 15-minute suspension of the meeting, given the number of oral amendments that had just been made. The Secretary, OTTO GUSTAFIK, said statements on programme budgetary implications relating to draft resolutions on programme of activities of the International Year for People of African Descent and global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

The Chair, Mr. TOMMO MONTHE, granted the suspension.

Upon the resumption of the meeting, the Secretary read a statement of programme budgetary implications arising from the draft resolution on programme of activities of the International Year for People of African Descent (document A/C.3/65/L.33/Rev.1) involving a total amount of $58,200.

The draft was then approved without a vote.

The representative of Belgium, on behalf of the European Union, said that despite its doubts about international years and days, the European Union was committed to the full enjoyment of human rights by persons of African descent. However, all victims of racism and discrimination deserved same protection; any suggestion of a hierarchy between such victims should be avoided, as it risked creating new forms of racism. Initiatives should not be restricted to one ethnic group. The revised text was a balanced one. It was deeply regretted that one delegation had tried to reopen the final compromise reached by proposing amendments that had already been thoroughly discussed. The European Union could live with the revised wording of operative paragraph 4, as funding would be drawn from existing resources. It was for those reasons, among others stated, that the European Union had joined consensus on the draft as orally revised by the main sponsor.

The representative of Costa Rica expressed satisfaction that the resolution had been approved by consensus. She thanked the main sponsor and facilitator, Colombia, and all those countries that had participated in consultations.

The representative of Brazil said it welcomed the resolution regarding the International Year for the Peoples of African Descent, which showed the political will of international community. Brazil attached special importance to this initiative and applauded the constructive approach of all those involved, particularly the African Group.

Moving back to draft resolution L.60, the Chair asked about the status of the validity of the amendments. The Chair asked the representatives of Belgium and Yemen whether they were ready to proceed, to which they both responded that they were.

The Secretary of the Committee stated that the budget division would need to provide an oral statement, so it would be necessary to come back tomorrow.

The Chair encouraged the Secretary to contact the budget division once again, given that the draft resolution would be voted a final time in the plenary. After making another phone call to the budget division, the Secretary said that L.60 had been revised, and he understood the pressure of time, but in view of the revisions, the budget division would need to review the draft and the statement, if any, would be made available and provided to everyone.

With that, the issue was left to the Committee. The Chair said that he did not think the situation was so complicated, and that everyone was in agreement regarding what they put in the draft. The final draft would be put forward in the plenary. It had happened on previous occasions, where it had been accepted that any budget implications would be put forward before the final vote taken at the plenary.

The representative of Belgium, on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union shared the concern that the objective to eradicate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance had not yet been achieved. The International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racism should remain the basis of all efforts to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The European Union shared the view that the General Assembly must play a role in tangible improvements on the ground. The implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action was an important element in the fight against racism, and many had used it as tool to protect those subject to racism. The European Union had engaged in good faith in the draft resolution, promoting amendments aimed at establishing a clear focus and avoiding any doubt regarding protecting individuals from racism. It regretted, however, that its concerns in that domain had not been addressed. That was not a positive sign for the future.

It was decided to convene a high-level meeting, and the European Union was of the view that the commemoration should not be merely celebratory, but should continue to advance their joint anti-racist agenda. It should not distract from the actual fight against racism, but there had been a lack of reassurance from the co-sponsors in that regard. The European Union also regretted the indication of the day and theme, as well as the reference to negotiations. It was not convinced that the resolution provided a solid basis for commemoration. Many paragraphs also dealt with the follow-up mechanism to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, but the European Union had requested that work not be prejudged. The European Union was also not yet convinced of any normative gap or need for international legal norms. It was of the view that the international community should focus on the implication of the existing legal framework. It was also concerned about the new operative paragraph 5, believing that the list of contemporary forms was not based on legal grounds. The European Union could not agree with operative paragraphs 9 and 12, as racism and its related challenges needed to be fought while respecting other freedoms.

Further, he said the resolution failed to refer to States under international law, and did not recognize the positive role that freedom of expression could play in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The European Union regretted selective reference to groups and communities throughout text. All individuals should be protected against racism or discriminatory acts. The European Union recognized the efforts of the main sponsor to organize consultative meetings in a timely manner, but did not feel that it had the opportunity to engage in open and transparent discussions. Hardly any of the European Union’s concerns had been taken on board. Additionally, the financial implications of the new draft were unclear; it was assumed that the costs would be absorbed. The European Union was not in a position to support the resolution.

The Chair said a recorded vote had been requested. The representative of Yemen asked who, and was told that Israel had made the request.

The representative of Switzerland, also on behalf of Iceland, Liechtenstein, New Zealand and Norway, said racism was a global problem. They had participated in negotiations in good faith, but a lack of time had not allowed more common ground to be found. Issues of grave concern were still contained in the resolution, and the five delegation felt compelled to abstain. Parts of the draft were not consistent with international humanitarian law, including articles 18, 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. There would be no added value in the political declaration to be adopted at the High-Level Meeting, only a year after the Durban review conference outcome document. The draft also created a hierarchy between groups, when under international law it was individuals who held human rights. The lack of a clear focus on international legal obligations in the fight against racism was regretted. It was also regrettable that the international community had not yet been able to reach consensus and unity on the question of all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance.

The representative of Israel said her country had always been a strong advocate against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance. It had been willing to work with others to that end. Nine years ago, Israel had joined others in Durban only to see its hopes dashed in the face of unabashed hatred and hostility. Deviating from constructive and innovative solutions to racism, the conference was hijacked for the purpose of demonizing Israel. When it was decided by the General Assembly to convene a Durban review conference, Israel reserved judgement, but throughout the preparatory process it became clear to Israel and others that that conference would not renounce the poisonous rhetoric of the Durban conference. Elements in the resolution before the Committee had elements that would have been positive in their own right, but neither Israel nor the entire membership of the United Nations could forget what had happened before. The tenth anniversary of the Durban Declaration would be derailed for political purposes. It was for that reason that Israel had called for a vote, in which it would vote against.

The representative of the United States said the United Nations had to continue to address racism. His country remained deeply concerned by speech that encouraged national, racial and religious hatred. Based on its own experience, it was convinced that the best antidote to offensive speech was robust legal protection, proactive government outreach and a vigorous defence of freedom of expression. The draft resolution had elements that obliged the United States to vote no. In addition to concerns addressed by others, it was deeply troubled by the choice of time and venue. Just days earlier, the tenth anniversary of 9/11 would have been marked. That would be a sensitive time for the people of New York. It was a poor choice of time and venue, but it would place a premium on ensuring a focus on the substantive. Despite differences, it was important to focus on the future. Ten years after Durban, problems of racism and discrimination remained. The United States was deeply committed to thoughtful dialogue to combat racism.

The representative of the Netherlands said his delegation would vote against. He expressed amazement and dismay at the way in which, at the last minute, a whole series of substantive amendments had been introduced, in a way that represented a fundamental disrespect for other delegations based on the idea that “we have a majority, we can do whatever we want”. That was reason enough to vote against. The fight against discrimination was supported by the Netherlands, and its vote today would not change that commitment. The principle of non-discrimination was a cornerstone of the human right system; it was a principle enshrined in his country’s Constitution. The Netherlands had enacted a number of measures to combat racism, but it could not support any effort to redirect attention to other agendas.

The draft resolution was then approved by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 19 against, with 35 abstentions.

In a general statement after the vote, the representative of South Africa said that, contrary to what some delegations had said, attempts had been made on several occasions to try to accommodate the concerns of partners. For that reason, oral amendments had been circulated earlier in the day, almost all of which had been intended to accommodate their wills and wishes. That some partner would vote against the draft was known, but the fact was that the Group of 77 had tried to take on board all proposals. The Group of 77 was a willing partner in the fight against racism, and it would remain committed to that fight.

Concluding its consideration of the elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, the Committee took note of the report of the Secretary-General on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (document A/65/377) and the note by the Secretary-General transmitting the interim report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (document A/65/295).

Concluding its consideration of the promotion and protection of human rights, the Committee took note of 28 documents by the Secretary-General and others on the implementation of human rights instruments; human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms; human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives; and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.

The Committee then approved, without a vote, the tentative programme of work of the Third Committee for the sixty-sixth session of the General Assembly, submitted by the Chair of the Committee (document A/C.3/65/L.66), listing 11 agenda items that the Committee would address next year.

The Chair, Mr. TOMMO MONTHE (Cameroon), made a statement in which he noted that the Committee had completed its work on schedule. He congratulated delegations for their determination, their flexibility and the serene and civil manner in which they had debated sometimes passionate questions. The Secretariat, conference officers, press officers, interpreters, engineers and technicians had given the best of themselves. Fifty-two meetings of the Committee had been held, as well as 208 rounds of consultations. More than 500 statements, explanations of vote and introductions of draft resolutions had been heard. Fifty-eight resolutions had been approved, including 33 by consensus and 15 by recorded vote. A great number of those resolutions had been co-sponsored by a very large number of Member States, often surpassing 50 in number. On the day that the President of the General Assembly had visited the Committee, a draft on the Beijing Declaration and Programme of Action on women, introduced by the Chair, had been approved. In an increasingly interdependent world, the General Assembly and the Third Committee were a common home where beneficial decisions regarding social, cultural and humanitarian matters could be initiated in order to bring hope to humanity.

Declaring the meeting officially closed, the Committee heard statements from representatives of regional groups, as well as poems from the representatives of the United Kingdom and Egypt.

Of course, Muhammedanism is itself a vilification of all real religions. But there would be little point in simply declaring it illegal, even if the U.N. was a real world government, because Islam has already spread and established itself in the world. The international community could maybe build a fleet of large space vehicles to be used for transporting the ulema and their followers back to whatever galaxy they came from. Seriously.

When is the penny going to drop? It is the United Muslims and like The League of Nations it is time it expired. It is well past its expiry date. We have no need of it under any circumstances. It is a blight on the civilised world. It is, however, a useful tool for the muslim maniacs so long as daft dhimmies respect it.

If the FASCIST Nazi-like Islamic blasphemy bill get approved; I would suggests Western freedom-loving European countries, to get out the UN! That UN has been hijacked to force the non-Islamic world and non-Muslim 'infidels' to kneel to violent and primitive Arabic domination of the world and humanity since the Arabic Pedophile and mass murderer of the Jews, Mohammed created Islam to achieve such an evil goal! And yet, the Arabs and the Ottomans were among or main Hitler/Nazi's biggest collaborators or advisers! Such investigation need to be reopened! See: "...Hitler learned a good deal from the genocide of the Armenians because Germany was Turkey’s wartime ally, and there was a great deal of documentation from German foreign officers and other German personnel in Turkey at the time...." - at Europe News in http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/47798/state-of-denial/comment-page-2/#comment-225671
State of Denial
It’s time for Israel to rethink its rejection of the Armenian Genocide
By Peter Balakian | Oct 19, 2010 7:00 AM

What's next, heresy trials? I assume they are going to protect all religions, not just Islam? Stop laughing... (sarcasm)

Karl Marx was at least right about one thing:

"The criticism of religion is the premise of all criticism.”

Unfortunately Marx also said:

“The criticism of religion has been largely completed".

In the case of Islam criticism has not yet started in earnest. However, Marx´ only contribution to the critique of Islam demonstrate that he understood the malignity of Islam:

"Islam ostracizes the nation of the unbelievers and creates a state of permanent enemy-ship between the Moslems and the unbelievers."

And now his empty headed followers having lost faith in Marxism have become the useful idiots of Islam and once more gone to bed with the enemy of humanity.

The critique of Islam begins where Nietzsche finished his critique of Christianity:

“I condemn Islam; I bring against the the Islamic faith the most terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his mouth. It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption. Islam has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul. Let any one dare to speak to me of its "humanitarian" blessings! … I call Islam the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough, - I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race. . . . “

(Quoted from “The Antichrist”, 1888, by Friedrich Nietzsche, with the word “Christianity” replaced by “Islam”).

And this would end the phenomena of anti-Semitic propoganda in Islamic countries, right? RIGHT???

Islam cannot survive the truth, the facts, that's why they are pushing so hard to silence us.

"Vilification of other religions'' start with Muslim's holy book-Qur'an itself. In Qur'an,Allah says"do not be friends with Jews and Christians"...(Surah 5/51). In other place,the Qur'an says."Allah's curse be upon them(Jews and Christians);HOW THEY HAVE DELUDED FROM TRUTH" (Surah 9/30). There are many many more such 'curses' from Allah on Christians and Jews ,including the hell fire.Will the UN,if this resolution is passed ban the Qur'an?

I would be appalled by anything proposing to ban "vilification of religion" in any case.

But it is quite clear that this was nothing sought by Christians, or Hindus, or Wiccans.

This is an attempt to impose Shari'ah's bans on the criticism of Islam, and nothing else.

The cognitive dissonance of the United Nations is truly a farcical spectacle to behold. Once again, we see the body formulating resolutions that directly contradict the human rights covenants it is entrusted to uphold, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was ratified by the UN General Assembly and entered into force on March 2, 1976. Here a couple articles of the ICCPR that the proposed "blasphemy" resolution violates:

INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

Article 18

- Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

- No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

Article 19

- Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

- 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.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm

* Correction:
The ICCPR entered into force on March 23, 1976

So, why is the U.S. still a member of the U.N.? And isn't it unconstitutional to introduce foreign law into American jurisprudence? But, wait! Many of our jurists, such as federal judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange, say it's okay, and that any legal defense against Sharia, such as the Oklahoma referendum, is, well, not so much "unconstitutional," as "illegal."

Constitution? What Constitution? This is a "global society," don't you know, and we are bound to submit to its laws, even at the price of sacrificing such parochial notions such as freedom of speech. So, don't say anything nasty or critical about Islam or Muslims, or global prosecutors will come knocking on your door.

Let them come. I'm dying to clean some clocks.

Will this be used unilaterally to protect all religions? Of course, global jihadists don't "vilify" other religions, they just claim supremacy and domination.

Guard the Constitution of US. Do not let them in. Do not let the COMMUNIST have any foothold, because that is the wedge that the MUSLIMS are CURRENTLY using.

If this ever becomes part of the law of the United Kingdom I will be the first publicly announce my opposition to all religions and make it clear I consider Islam is a particulerly vile one. If fined I would refuse to pay and I would not be bound over to keep the peace..... it would have to be a 'not guilty' or I go to prison.