Iran: Obama can be sued in US courts under UN blasphemy law that he signed onto

Hoisted by his own anti-free speech petard. If they do this, we will see whether treaties that the U.S. has signed can supersede the First Amendment. “Obama can be sued over insulting film: Iran official,” from PressTV, September 16 (thanks to Benedict):

A complaint could be filed with US courts against Obama for his violation of articles 18 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) calling for respect of faiths.”

Javad Mohammadi, a deputy head of the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution (SCCR)
A senior Iranian official says US President Barack Obama could face legal action in connection with the production of an anti-Islam movie by an American Jew.

“A complaint could be filed with US courts against Obama for his violation of articles 18 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) calling for respect of faiths,” Javad Mohammadi, the deputy head of the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution (SCCR), said on Sunday.

Article 18 and 27 of the ICCPR, adopted by the United Nation [sic], stipulate that the religion and the rights of the minorities should be respected,” Mohammadi said.

The US government is a signatory to this covenant and has to respect it. Therefore, an individual or an NGO (non-governmental organization) can file a lawsuit against the president of the country for breach of the covenant, he added.

Mohammadi heaped praise on the Muslims for their massive protests against the movie, noting “Protest against insults to religious sanctities should not be limited to time, place and customary reactions and we should undertake legal measures.”

“The world’s elite know pretty well that Islam is a divine religion and Muslims have always respected divine religions and messengers and would never remain silent vis-à-vis any desecration,” the official said….

Turkey's Erdogan: "Islamophobia" should be recognized as a crime against humanity
The Muhammad Movie Riots: The latest battle in the Islamic war against the freedom of speech
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    Actually, it would be hilarious if Obama were to get extradited to Iran under UN laws that he endorsed, and then gets whatever treatment they give him.

  2. says

    “Article 18 and 27 of the ICCPR, adopted by the United Nation [sic], stipulate that the religion and the rights of the minorities should be respected,” Mohammadi said.

    So if my religion (a very small minority, consisting of only myself) tells me I have to make a musical about the life of mohammed, these Articles will protect me?

    That’s nice!

    And surely “the rights of minorities” includes free speech?

  3. says

    Bahais, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and virtually every other religion have many great cases against the blood-thirsty, perverted mullahs of Iran.

    Notice this creep Mohammadi talks of “divine religions”, which is islamo-speak for only Islam, Christianity and Judaism, and of course, the latter two are considered corrupted. All others are worse than corrupted, and can be extinguished outright, e.g., destroying Buddha statues in Afghanistan, Maldives, etc.

  4. says

    “customary reactions”!? I love it! Wasn’t the Mohammed movie merely portraying these customary reactions? I saw a trailer and it showed angry mobs, killing of Christians and of Jews. These have been the exact ‘customary reactions’ ever since the darkening of the earth under the malevolent storm cloud that is Islam. Customary reactions indeed!!!

  5. says

    ‘Me Sioux Indian but no collect’…

    Well, birthers have sued Rasool Obama over a hundred times and lost because they don’t have ‘standing’…Of course Mahoundians with hurt feelings may have standing under the ‘hurt feeling law’, that only applies to them…
    Hurt feelings should be illegal under international law, no one should be allowed to be in possession of them, or to pass them on to others…Good luck with that lawsuit Mohammadi…Accusations of forgery, fraud, treason and ineligibility, fall on deaf ears with USA courts so far, but hurt feelings is different…If you can establish hurt feelings to the satisfaction of three psychiatrists, and find the right judge, you may just have the ‘standing’ needed….

  6. says

    Unfortunately I’m not familiar with American law. Is it possible, that some law the president signed can supercede the first amendment that is part of the constitution? I thought the constitution always supercedes, as it’s the supreme law, the one the whole country is based on.

    Obama is a moron and traitor to his country for signing that crap.

  7. says

    When Obama’s thrown out of office, the UN should be torn down and turned into a garbage dump, it would be a better use of the property.
    All of his illegal executive orders should be declared null and void.
    Likewise for all of the Constitution violating treaties to which he’s forged his name as President.

  8. says

    epistemology,

    the short answer about the president signing some treaty to over rule the 1st amendment is NO. Treaties aren’t binding unless approved by a 2/3 (67 votes) in the Senate and treaties are not allowed to limit the Bill of Rights.

  9. says

    I’m so sick of the media parroting the myth that the “anti-islam” movie was made by a Jew, that it is the cause of all the rioting, mayhem and murder, and that those savage rioters are a small minority of otherwise peace-loving people.

    I’m sick of the outright and laughable LIES spouted by “islamic scholars” and government officials about how islam respects all religions.

    I’m just so sick of islam in general.

  10. says

    I think the Egyptian Copt who made the movie should sue Egypt for the disrespect shown to Copts as a religious minority in Egypt. Think the ACLU would help him file this suit? (Yeah, sure.)

    How about the Catholic Church — and Evangelical communions that also find portions of Obamacare offensive to their beliefs — suing Obama and/or HHS? Christians and Jews suing every imam who calls them descendants of apes and pigs?

    Once again, yeah, sure. We know it’s all lies and hypocrisy.

  11. says

    I just read a long article in the NYT explaining this alleged “offense” from the Muslim point of view and how they believe in Egypt the US has laws against people denying the Holocost, and therefore the US is selectively allowing the anti muslim film to go on — blah, blah, blah.

    For F—ks sake, what about all the Church burnings and Christians being killed in Muslim lands? I know death doesn’t seem to matter to the fanatics, but wouldn’t you have to think Jesus is being defamed by having crosses, churches, statues being torched. Is it not defamation that Saudi blocks any non Muslims period and any display of non Islamic religious items?

    And I just love the way the NYT is very selective in what articles they leave open for comments and which ones they don’t. You will never see and article on the Middle East open for comments because they obviously don’t want to be called on this drivel.

  12. says

    “Protest against insults to religious sanctities should not be limited to time, place and (bold starts) customary reactions and we should undertake legal measures.” (bold ends)

    Its clear this is a message but what does the message mean.

    Protest against yada yada yada should not be limited to time.

    Not limited by time?

  13. says

    If I read this correctly we can sue the little frilly panties of every single country who’s horrid denziens we’ve seen in Memri TV clips.

    They win court cases with everything but the law But we have actually skilled lawyers who have legal educations that actually are worth the paper they are printed on.

    While their diplomas might as well be thumbprints on bits of camel dung.

    What’s the problem with beating the crap out of them in the court room?

    Shouldn’t WE be making THEM afraid to mouth off?

  14. says

    Well “We the People” have no one to blame but “ourselves”. That’s right, we never should have elected Obama, but worse, while Obama committed impeachable offenses after impeachable offense (over 50 in the last 4-years),”we the people” stood with our thumbs up our backsides and did nothing.

    Not when he went after our Second Amendment rights to gun ownership (back in 2010, Fast & Furious). Now, when our First Amendment rights are under fire I guess we will wave bye, bye to them!

    What a pathetic people we are! To lazy to do anything but blogg away the “Greatest Country” that was ever formed.

    I’m ashammed!

  15. says

    First, just because the Obama administration signed it, doesn’t make it US law. It must first be ratified by the Senate. Second, it cannot conflict with or override the Constitution. However, I suspect Obama (the great “Constitutional scholar”) thinks differently.

    It occurs to me that when I quote some of the hateful, disgusting, or stupid statements from the Koran or Hadith, I can be accused of blaspheming and insulting Muhammad. Would this not mean that Islam blasphemes against itself and that every mulah/immam can be charged with a crime against Islam under this treaty? (Disclaimer: this is just a legal question. It is not intended to cause a chain of riots, murder, and mayhem throughout Muslim countries by the tolerant religion of peace.)

  16. says

    Muhammadanism is a cult whose members believe that their hero was an ideal human being. But the media has the talent to change that image and portray Muhammad as vile and perverted. In less than a decade the cult would be without membership, the enlightened would jump ship because they had no desire for being associated with a pedophile.

  17. says

    “Mohammadi heaped praise on the Muslims for their massive protests against the movie” ..

    Okay couldn’t criminal charges be brought against Mohammadi for inciting more violence?

  18. says

    I forgot to mention that even after a treaty is ratified by the Senate, congress must still pass laws to implement a treaty before it will have an affect on US citizen (at least in side the US). This is why you shouldn’t vote for any democrat for congress, and be very careful about the republican candidate.

  19. says

    A question that always comes to mind when reading these kinds of articles; if this blasphemy law was passed at the UN shouldn’t this be good news to all of us? I mean can’t we sue Islam at a whole using the very same law since all what it does is denigrates all other religions? Isn’t that blasphemy from our perspective?

    Robert would appreciate your input on this.

  20. says

    The First Amendment will never go down to a challenge like this. In some technical legal sense it might be theoretically possible for the First Amendment to be sacrificed to a treaty. But in reality there’s no way in current circumstances. Perhaps it could happen if a WMD disaster occurs, or it could happen in a generation, when the world may be unrecognizable to us. But now? No way. Most of the American people would perceive that as Islam doing to the Bill of Rights what it did to lower Manhattan on 9/11/01.

  21. says

    I’d like to see the president sued under international law for blasphemy. Though the suit would not have even a slight chance of succeeding in the current circumstances, it would bring into greater public awareness the totalitarian character of Islam.

  22. says

    Antisemitism is against the Jewish people – in reflection of the death camps that existed in Europe WWII – Islamophobia is about Islam – a religious ideology – a body of ideas – that are in the Muslim world imposed on others unjustly. Which is a crime against humanity.

    Which they dream of the day when we will live under these same inhumane conditions one day.

    In addition – Erdogan has stated that “no Muslim can commit a genocide” – in callus disregard for the lives of the Ottoman Christians – and all the evidence that shows millions were slaughtered in his country – by the Turkish government!!

  23. says

    These guys are not looking down the road. If they want to make governments responsible for the ill-treatment of other religions, they are opening up a hugely embarrassing can of worms here. If they succeed in prosecuting this youtube guy, they are going to have to answer to all the myriad abuses of other religions in every majority Muslim country in the world.

    But I do like how he tried to quality the charge, saying the Islam respect all the DIVINE religions out there. LOL HE will decide which religion makes the cut into the “divine” category, and HE is the guy talking smack about bad-mouthing other faiths.

  24. says

    “Article 18 and 27 of the ICCPR, adopted by the United Nation [sic], stipulate that the religion and the rights of the minorities should be respected”

    Is that a direct quote? If it is BO could be in trouble.

    I do wonder though if the USA interprets this to mean the rights of the PEOPLES rights are to be respected, not the fantasies/belief systems of people.

  25. says

    Thanks to all who’ve enlightened me on the subject. I see clearer now, and in spite of all the qualms you might have, I can assure you, the U.S. is much better off than Europe.

    In terms of Islamic invasion Europe is a sinking ship. Obviously for the Americans being a people who once fought for their freedom, it’s a highly cherished good. You won’t give it up. When I look at Britain and Germany, my heart sinks. In England they’ve got three sharia zones, Bradford, Dewsbury and Tower Hamlets which is right in the centre of London. In Germany the minister of the interior the same man who launched the “missed” campaign against Islamic terrorists wants to ban the the movie. The foreign secretary who is gay, that means he’d be one of the first victims, if Islam takes over, wants to ban pastor Terry Jones from entering the country. It’s preposterous. They all suck up to Islam.

    My hope is in France, the country of enlightenment. The French banned the burqa and the full veil and I hope they carry on.

  26. says

    Obama is a moron and traitor to his country for signing that crap.

    Obama is definitely not a moron. He is a traitor and does his treacherous vocation rather masterly.

  27. says

    The legal issue of the constitutional importance of a treaty is a subject of major debate among people in the U.S. The Federal courts have made no definitive ruling on the matter, but the general view is that a ratified treaty is treated as if it were an amendment to the Constitution.

    Several years ago under one of the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaties (SALT) the Russians were given the right to make unannounced inspections of U.S. defense contractors (and the U.S. got the same rights in Russia). As I recall, one such raid discovered some minor violations of U.S. law, perhaps occupational health and safety matters. The contractor fought the case all the way to the Supreme Court on the grounds that their right to be immune to illegal search and seizure as specified in the Bill of Rights’ Fifth Amendment had been violated, since the treaty did not require a search warrant. The Supreme Court denied the contractor the legal relief they had sought.

    This issue constantly comes up in reference to the Second Amendment. The U.S. public has consistently demonstrated its support of a regulated right to keep and bear arms, with ‘regulated’ limited to the minimum necessary for public safety. Gun control advocates have lost elections in many venues, and the most onerous laws have been struck down by the Supreme Court. So it is no surprise that gun control advocates now support UN efforts to pass treaties that would impose major restrictions on private gun ownership. Gun owners rightly see this as an end run around the Constitution’s amendment process: the gun control advocates cannot win with any legal means that is internal to the U.S. constitutional order, so the only way left is to get a UN treaty signed by the President and ratified by the Senate.

    Personally, I would love to see some American dhimmi twit file the kind of lawsuit advocated by this Javad Mohammadi clown, and I would love to see it go to the Supreme Court. The current court would be forced to judge whether a treaty could effectively repeal a right that is enshrined in the Constitution. I am confident that the current court would stand up for freedom, although I am also sure that the verdict would not be 9-0, sad to say.

  28. says

    @Mark Koch
    You mentioned “laws against people denying the Holocost”.

    Just for the record, the laws against “holocaust denial” are just as much a violation of free speech, especially as practised in a Europe that spits on our Bill of Rights.
    The story of the Holocaust doesn’t need laws to protect it. It can stand on it’s own just fine, thank you very much.
    And if you need any evidence of the inadvisability of the laws against “holocaust denial”, just read “Banged Up!” by David Irving.

  29. says

    “That no government can be held accountable for the actions of their private citizens…”

    Yes in theory they can , if they are totalitarian governments.

  30. says

    The Obama administration did not sign the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This treaty was signed and ratified by the U.S. government decades ago. It passed the UN in 1966 and came into force in 1974. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty in 1992 when George H.W. Bush was president.

    Interesting history of the treaty per Wikipedia:

    The United States has made reservations that none of the articles should restrict the right of free speech and association

    See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights#United_States

  31. says

    It occurs to me that when I quote some of the hateful, disgusting, or stupid statements from the Koran or Hadith, I can be accused of blaspheming and insulting Muhammad.

    Naram-Sin, it depends on whether you quote those Quranic statements in a positive light or negative light. In Islam it is blasphemy to quote anything about Islam or Muhammed in a negative light. In other words, if Mo did it then it’s a good thing. If Mo thighed a six year old girl, he did a good thing! You would be in trouble only if you point out Islamic stuff in a negative light.

  32. says

    “Personally, I would love to see some American dhimmi twit file the kind of lawsuit advocated by this Javad Mohammadi clown, and I would love to see it go to the Supreme Court.”

    I guess I was wrong on this. According to the Wikipedia entry I posted above, when the U.S. Senate ratified the treaty is specified that the treaty is “not self-executing” under U.S. law. This means that no dhimmi twit would have standing to sue Obama in a Federal court.

    In theory the Government of Iran could bring suit, but only if they had diplomatic relations with the U.S. Hahahahaha!

  33. says

    “Mohammadi heaped praise on the Muslims for their massive protests against the movie ..”

    …couldn’t criminal charges be brought against Mohammadi for inciting more violence?

    Good point, Champ.

  34. says

    I agree with you in part, America is not responsible for making the film, in anyway shape or form. The individual who made the film is.

    What I do not agree with is, throwing this person under the bus and his freedom of speach rights with it. If we do that, we are throwing our Freedom of Speach rights under the bus with him.

    Obama knows that America is not responsible, and so do the Muslims. They are using this incident to destroy our First Amendment rights! That is the Muslim objective, the application of Sharia law in America! And eventually worldwide!

    If, you don’t want our First Amendment rights to go bye, bye, “WE the People,” are going to have to grow some “genitalia”. We are going to have to get out of our comfort zones, stop blogging and take action. There’s a line from the movie “JFK”, where Cosner is told by the CIA agent to, “push, shove, create critical mass, its your only hope” … Well its our only hope too! Why? .. Because, they know who we are, and the discrediting of those in the fore front is already started. The “Shoe” is about to drop, on the next step to our demise.

    If you agree contact the Speaker of the House, John Boehner and let your voice heard! Create Critical Mass! Don’t do it one time, do it at least daily and better still several times a day. Get the word out on the sites you visit, to friend and all of like mind. Let the “hue and cry” be a ROAR! Don’t expect someone else to do it, YOU DO It!

    http://www.speaker.gov/contact

  35. says

    “The Obama administration did not sign the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This treaty was signed and ratified by the U.S. government decades ago. It passed the UN in 1966 and came into force in 1974.”

    Aside from the question of whether this ICCPR conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, is the question of whether it conflicts with the U.N.’s own Declaration of Human Rights.

  36. says

    I like your idea for the Copt movie maker to sue Egypt. Let’s all have lawyers and sue, sue, sue. I would also like to see the movie guy sue Egypt and Libya to prove that what he said in the movie was not true. Bring the Koran and hadyiths as witness.

  37. says

    “Aside from the question of whether this ICCPR conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, is the question of whether it conflicts with the U.N.’s own Declaration of Human Rights.”

    The article I linked to gives the impression that the international lawyers view the ICCPR as an adjunct to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Here is some text:

    “The ICCPR is part of the International Bill of Human Rights, along with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).”

    So, I’d guess that if there was any conflict, the later treaty would supersede the earlier treaty, just as a later amendment to the U.S. Constitution would supersede an earlier amendment. And I’d raise a glass of wine to that, if you get my drift.

    What many people both inside and outside the U.S. don’t get is that the core principles of U.S. constitutional law are tightly linked to the nation’s and individuals’ sovereign status. The idea that my rights as an American can come from some treaty is literally foreign. My rights don’t even come from the Constitution. My rights come from my Creator, or if you prefer from Natural Law, they are intrinsic to my being, and I cannot even voluntarily surrender them.

    When you read the articles on these treaties you see very little conflict between them and the U.S. Constitution. An international law fan would say “Then why does the U.S. argue over ratification, and finally adds ‘reservations’ when it ratifies them?” The answer is because no one wants conflicts in U.S. law to arise from these treaties. We may ratify dozens of treaties that sound like the U.S. Bill of Rights, but in the end it is the Bill of Rights that is supreme.

  38. says

    Iran: Obama can be sued in US courts under UN blasphemy law that he signed onto
    ……………………

    Like many people here at JW, I was worried that this would come back to haunt us. Who knew it would be so soon?

    More:

    Hoisted by his own anti-free speech petard. If they do this, we will see whether treaties that the U.S. has signed can supersede the First Amendment.
    ……………………

    Obama is just handing over our rights. Isn’t an American president supposed to defend the Constitution? I would imagine Obama considers that old-fashioned…

    More;

    A senior Iranian official says US President Barack Obama could face legal action in connection with the production of an anti-Islam movie by an American Jew.
    ……………………

    The film was actually made by an American Coptic Christian. But hey”Jews, Christians”all despised “people of the book”…

    More:

    “A complaint could be filed with US courts against Obama for his violation of articles 18 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) calling for respect of faiths”
    ……………………

    How ludicrous is this? Muslims denigrate Judaism and Christianity and every other faith on a regular basis. But then, we *knew* that this grotesque statute would only be used by Islam…

    More:

    Mohammadi heaped praise on the Muslims for their massive protests against the movie
    ……………………

    Including, no doubt, the slaughter of US consular staff, including the American ambassador, in Libya.

    More:

    “The world’s elite know pretty well that Islam is a divine religion and Muslims have always respected divine religions and messengers and would never remain silent vis-à-vis any desecration,” the official said….
    ……………………

    For anyone with their handy Islamic decoder ring, you know that this only refers to Islam itself. When Muslim talk about “respecting Moses and Jesus”, they actually mean the Muslim “Musa” and “Isa”.

    Liberty or Death wrote, replying to Naram-Sin:

    “It occurs to me that when I quote some of the hateful, disgusting, or stupid statements from the Koran or Hadith, I can be accused of blaspheming and insulting Muhammad.”

    Naram-Sin, it depends on whether you quote those Quranic statements in a positive light or negative light. In Islam it is blasphemy to quote anything about Islam or Muhammed in a negative light. In other words, if Mo did it then it’s a good thing. If Mo thighed a six year old girl, he did a good thing! You would be in trouble only if you point out Islamic stuff in a negative light.
    ……………………

    Excellent post, Liberty or Death. Very important point.