OIC again demands laws against "Islamophobia"

It's not slander if it's true.

(video) Islamophobia vs. Q. 5:38 "(thieves) CUT OFF his or her HANDS"

… also from kids for stealing a 50 cent candy bar
in the supermarket

http://schnellmann.org/islamophobia.html

"... who slander the prophet of Islam."

[in Muslims view] slander is to tell truth (quoting Qur'an & sunnah) about Muh. that Muslms don't want to hear!!

e.g. Muhammad was a pedophile (Q.65:4)

Let's start a new religion.

The central tenet of this religion is that Mohammed was a fraud.

Why not? A tenet of Islam is that Jesus was not the son of God.

It can be a non-exclusive religion so people can still belong to other religions at the same time.

oic can moan and grown all they want. they are not getting it.
M

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19721654

the bbc reproduce anti-american cartoons and even goes to lengths to explain the cartoons' messages to us, yet i couldn't even find a link to the innocence video or french cartoons let alone a reproduction and even more let alone an explanation of the so called offensive cartoons.

is it not a double standard that usa-phobic cartoons are published by the bbc but not islamophobic?

I don't think a law is needed the media with about 1 exception already act like an islamic supremacist law is already in place.

i can see from this that vilifing and insulig americans is okay but doing the same to moslem ideas (not even moslems) is not.

perhaps in the interests of equality americans should storm the egyption embassy and kill a few of its staff because these eqyption cartoons are directly insulting? (an equvalence to insulting a dead prophet would be if the eqyption cartoons were "disrespectful" to america's founding fathers)

Double Standard Alert!

The quran is chock-full of passages against Christians and Jews ...

So would "Christianophobia" and "Jewophobia" be against the law, as well? Of course I'm kidding, since muslims would have to rewrite the quran, and that will never happen. I keep forgetting that they're special and it's their rite of passage to hate non-muslims; yet they require that muslims be loved and respected about everyone else. And I'm being kind by calling this a double standard, it's really much worse than that.

And the penalty for insulting the 'Prophet' will be what?

A. a $10 fine...
B. A $1000 fine...
C.Imprisonment...
D.Death...
E. all of the above...

I wish someone would ask either Akram or Obama if this protection against "defamation" is to be applied equally across the board, with no double-standards like Akram was complaining about?

Sure I know there's no chance he'll say Pakistan and Saudi Arabia should also start applying the death penalty to anyone who mocks Scientology or Judaism, but I'm really interested in what "elect-me-at-all-costs-Obama" would say to the question.

Is he willing to charge Americans with "incitement to hatred" when they daily criticize Leviticus or Numbers for homophobic, sexist, and violent verses? Is he going to arrest atheist academicians who call religious people deluded or moronic? Or will he - wait for it - only apply this law to criticism of Islam?

I would be willing to go along with Obama's UN proposal IF he prefaced his "no-tolerance-for-intolerance" proposal with the proviso that ALL religions must be equally protected by this legislation, particularly the minority faiths in Islamic-majority countries. THAT would be reasonable and would certainly shut the Muslims up.

Freedom fighters should demand laws against Islamogeddon ...

OIC are essentially calling for restrictions on the freedom of speech and the creation of a special, privileged class that is beyond criticism.

That is the death of free society and the road to tyranny; for the class that is beyond criticism will have a free hand to do and say whatever it wants, while the rest of us are muzzled.

Shall the Islamophobia bill pass in the UN, Christians should file also "Bibliophobia"(this makes many countries, Saudi in particular guilty -- IRRATIONAL fear of a book not in Arabic), Science-phobia, Christianophobia, Atheist-phobia a crime....

It's going to be interesting to see how fast the liberals who love to celebrate "banned books" week jump on board with banning speech critical of Islam, because the censorship is going to extend far beyond bad acting in (factually accurate) films produced by kufr about Islam.

American Library Association:

http://www.ala.org/advocacy/banned/bannedbooksweek

It sure would be interesting to know if the New Censors left would "abhor" the (factually accurate) movie critical of Muhammad if it were a $100 million production directed by a prominent Hollywood director.

Seems like bad acting and production is the new pretext for leftist censorship.

Big question:

Where will the American Library Association come down on censoring criticism of Muhammad?:

ALA Celebrate Banned Books Week:

http://www.ala.org/advocacy/banned/bannedbooksweek

Will the liberal American Library Association come out strong against the UN/OIC/Obama attempt to censor criticism of Muhammad?

ALA Celebrate Banned Books Week (Next Week)

September 30−October 6, 2012

http://www.ala.org/advocacy/banned/bannedbooksweek

It's not islamophobia, it's islamoloathing; which is the NORMAL human reaction to Islam. It's similar to the normal reaction that sane people have to child sexual abuse, theft, mutilations beheadings etc, (all the usual behavior sanctioned by Muhammed).
Ps while we're at it I insist that Saudi Arabia allow a synagogue, and both protestent and Catholic churches in Mecca (since they fund all the mosques in the US.)
Fair is fair!

The OIC is making progress in their demands. The filmmaker was dragged out of his house at midnight by the Feds, you know.

Of all religious leaders, why is Mohammed uniquely vulnerable to ridicule?

OIC again demands laws against "Islamophobia"

How does anyone pass a law against a muslim made up word for something that only exists in the barbarians mind?

If these barbarians only behave like human beings, there will be no need for laws "Islamohobia" or in reality "Islamorealism"

OIC again demands laws against "Islamophobia"

How does anyone pass a law against a muslim fabricated word for something that only exists in the barbarians inbred mind?

OIC again demands laws against "Islamophobia"

How does anyone pass a law against a muslim fabricated word for something that only exists in the barbarian's inbred mind?

It’s even worse than that – Hillary Clinton is ramming the moslems’ anti-blasphemy legislation through the UN for them; it will soon be an amended part of a treaty against “racism” we’ve already signed on to, thus making it part of the laws of our lands! Clinton is pretending religion IS race, and forcing our governments to agree to such a lying statement, by amending the anti-racism documents we’ve already signed, with this blatant lie as an “amendment!”

Please see:

http://dajjal.posterous.com/ad-hoc-cmte-war-on-free-speech

…

The ONLY limit to Free Speech, should be the Truth!

As even Aristotle noted long ago, slander is only pre-judice, and vice-versa; presenting accusatory opinions as if they were facts (making accusations against someone else, BEFORE having the facts straight)! And that breaks the Golden Rule of Law (to not attack first)!

Of course, aggressively chanting or yelling a truth at someone in a threatening manner ALSO breaks the Golden Rule, because all threats are psychological attacks (aka: coercion, duress, extortion, “terrorism”) and all non-defensive attacks are crimes.

But ‘threatening’ a criminal with his just punishments, after he’s already committed his crimes, isn’t a theat so much as a promise!

The only other way speech should be limited, is if it incites un-just violence against innocent others (as opposed to legislators and police chiefs calling for violence against those who have already attacked innocent others, as in if they call for the death-penalty, for instance).

The Defense of Truth should always apply.

And all religions are lies. Here’s the most simple, obvious differences between philosophy, science, and religion:

1). Philosophy is speculation, presented AS speculation.
2). Science is tested speculation, presented AS tested speculation.
3). Religion is speculation, presented AS fact.

So all religions are lies, and thus crimes (lying is only the most basic form of theft – it’s the theft of the Truth, and theft IS crime)!

BUT, that being said, there’s still a VAST difference between what islam and all the other indoctrinating ‘religious’ cultures tell to their people, and the obvious, predictable results:

We obey the Golden Rule of Law, by simply defining all situational morality as: “Do Not Attack First!” (and “THOU SHALT NOT KILL!”) which enables trust, progress, and Civilization.

(See all “Western” countries)!

They obey the brazen rule of chaos, embodying immorality as: “Our god says we always have to attack all ‘The Others’ first!” (or “THOU SHALT KILL!”) which inflicts distrust, stagnation, and Barbarism.

(See all ‘moslem’ countries)!

Islam’s own most official instruction manual, the Qur’an, declares islam was created by “god” to violently destroy and replace all “other” religions and cultures in the world. The subsequent actions of their followers confirm this.

Further, they have declared it their “right” to murder anyone who even verbally declares their defensive opposition to the moslem’s attacks, in declaring it “blasphemy” (a ‘crime’ punishable by death) to resist their extortions.

So, while at best religions offer advice based on metaphysical speculations and observations of human psychology, and all ‘real’ religions, at WORST, only say:

“Obey our silly rules, or GOD (/’the gods’) will get you!”

…ONLY islam says:

“Obey our silly rules, or WE will get you (‘for god’)!”

Here’s islam’s “holy Message from god” as exemplified by the collective words and deeds of it’s Founder:

“I will save humanity by lying to, extorting, torturing, robbing, burning out of their homes, kidnapping and ransoming, enslaving, raping and murdering everyone who even only verbally disagrees with me – and you can, too!”

-Muhammad-

So obviously, islam is ONLY an ancient, ongoing extortion-racket CRIME-syndicate, and the only “religious” part in it, is where they say:

“God told us to commit these crimes!”

(Capisce?)!

;-)

If our ability to discuss the words and deeds of this ancient, ongoing extortion racket CRIME-syndicate which threaten us all, is “banned” by these “laws” against our freedom of to speak truly, then they also make it “illegal” to defend our selves from these criminals’ attacks!

When a group (say, islam) declares “War!” on us, for “our leaders” to then declare “No, they didn’t!” is a simple, obvious case of cowardly, treasonous, criminal negligence. They’ve abdicated their right to rule over us when they abandoned their responsibility to defend us from threats, and these new “laws” of theirs, proclaiming their putative right to remain irresponsible, are themselves illegal.

Holy mobster Moslems only hate infidels because the Qur’an says “god” orders them to – Period.

Islam is a threat to everyone because IT says it is.

All moslems are criminals because, by their own rules, they must endorse in public every word in the Qur’an.

And the Qur’an tells them that they are so “superior” to all non-moslem humans, that it’s not only their right, but also their holy duty to their god, to extort, enslave, and murder all the non-moslems in the world, simply for the “crime” of not being moslems.

So the Qur’an is a written hate-crime book expressing a permanent death-threat.

BAN ISLAM – because everything moslems pretend to consider “holy” is already a crime!

;-(

Is that like the speech he gave for or in Israel before he ditched them and opted not to be pictured with its leader.

Then there is hope - in this warped logical sense!!

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

WHY DO PEOPLE APPEAR FROM ALL OVER - TO 'SLANDER' THE PROPHET OF ISLAM!!

IT MUST BE SOMETHING ABOUT ISLAM!!

Who knew voting for CHANGE - would mean a vote for the Sharia [or this Shari'a state of mind].

Then a flogging or worst for the persecuted Copt - is in order!

[To understand Copts' plight - turn your Korans to 9:29]

Should we offer up the Pope too!

::

They are over there chopping off people's heads and they want us to respect it.

It is a sensitive matter losing one's head!!

And if you are really respectful and stick with those on the Left you can avoid the subject of gross human rights violations all together - perpetrated mostly on Muslims by Muslims.

And soon after without realizing it you can sound just like those in Arabia do about freedoms. He insulted the Prophet on his Twitter page - there should be no safe place for him in the world - of course he should be punished [read: beheaded. Perhaps a beheading can even be carried out in the Rose Garden - when we are ready!!].

Nazism took time to take root and those who were not convinced after a while were punished - one should call those centers today anti-racism commissions. Race is no longer the issue - it's now the religion of Islam.

Remember these Muslim people - were once free peoples - before they were fought with and forcibly brought under Islamic law - or Muhammad's laws / commandments.

This happened to them first!

Conditioning is a powerful tool - with Muslims it was not a bell - it was the sword.

Over centuries!!

::

::

Obama is trying to make right what was done wrong 1400 years ago!!

This is nothing more than demagoguery!

Even the staunch Leftist-Socialist border-line-Communist UK Labour Party leader Miliband [or his brother - they both look alike] told Obama in a New York Times article - that he needs to tell those Muslims the truth.

Although Obama did afterwards holler out - in a speech to the Muslim world from the White House - that they needed to stop that "hate" over there - he has said nothing substantial of the terrible situation of rights and freedoms in all of those countries.

And it raises serious questions as to whether this religion is something - a US President should be so closely associated with.

::
::

Pakistan - Oh What a Laugh!!

Thanks to largely Christian sources - accounts of persecution are well documented.

There was a case in Pakistan - where a Christian on a bus trip was beaten to death - by a roadside tea stall owner - after they noticed he was wearing a cross - and had drunk his tea from a Muslim-only cup!!

The Pakistani authorities must have scrapped the Christian man's body off the side of the road - as rights groups said they drove by a few weeks later and the stall was still open for business - with the same sign telling customers to state their religion before ordering.

Christians in Pakistan are often required to pay for dishes they use in restaurants. Or the dishes are smashed after they have eaten from them.

Indeed the case of the Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy [accused of defaming the Prophet] after Muslim co-workers refused to drink from the same ladle as she did - was about the uncleanliness of the non-Muslim - in particular the Christian.

::

Obama can keep up appearances with the Islam world - but if he even attempts to touch that Constitution he's out!!

Obama swore to uphold the Constitution - not the Saudi Sword of Islam!!
::

When these freedoms are restricted, we see violence, poverty, stagnation and feelings of frustration and even humiliation.”

...how do you say the Islamic world.

The stagnation is most apparent.

::

Obama should have listened to his father - on Islam!!!

Trying to revive this blast from the past!

This genie needs to go back in the bottle!

This international blasphemy law would open up a real can of worms. What would the punishment be? Would it be decided on a national or international level? How would the prosecutors/judges etc be trained or who by, as obviously the "blasphemy" would have to be evaluated (minor, major, pertaining to whatever media, heard by how many etc as qwell as referring to what part of Islamic texts or which Muslims it addressed, for example if I make a joke about Sufis do Shias get offended as well? And so on...and there is "interpretation", a deep pit of trouble). Would courts have to employ clerics as consultants, and if so how could they be trusted? What about countries which don't sign up to this nonsense? Do they get a free pass to offend?
My head is spinning. There is too much wrong with this proposed law aside from the obvious; and it is a law which would be so much disobeyed that the courts, jails or head-chopping arenas would be frantically busy.

But go on, Hillary, sign away, you fool.

Quote "Such acts constitute 'flagrant incitement to violence' and are not protected by freedom of expression, Akram said."

Don't yell "Koran" in a crowded theater I guess.

Again, what a crock.

F*** you, OIC. We will never submit. We will never surrender our freedom.

Freedom of speech in Islam:

"O you who believe! Ask not about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble." Quran 5:101
(i.e. stay ignorant!)

Yes, your body will be pulverized with a "massive iron hammer", your grave will "tighten" around your corpse, till its bones pop and crack and the "Tomb-snake" will eat your flesh from head to toe.
Why? DON'T ASK!

http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/08/torments-of-grave.html

Center for Security Policy Frank Gaffney:

(video) Obama Administration Bowing to "International Muslim Mafia" (OIC)

"War On The Truth" Pamela Geller

"Why can't we say negative things about Islam?

…free speech protects ALL speech, Michael, ALL SPEECH. Not just the ideas what we like. Because that’s easy. I mean the ideas that we don’t like … who decides, what’s good & what’s forbidden? The CAIR? The government? The OIC? This is a very dangerous territory.

…And as long as my ideas are heard, I believe the truth will out. The bottomline is: THERE IS A WAR ON THE TRUTH”

In Europe it is already a crime

http://schnellmann.org/clinton-calls-anti-muslim-film-disgusting-reprehensible.html

If they want to make lawa against "islamophobia", they first have to define it unequivocally. That means that they must distinguish it from critique of ideology etcetera. They will not be able to do so in non-islamic countries because criticizing something is not the same as fearing something.

Indeed, the islamos have a lot of phobias...like K-9s. and women.

The corian would be considered hate speech except that some religions are more equal than others. Kind of like 'Affirmative Action for Allah' (gag).

Intolerance and slander of religion ROCK! - its my, OUR right, and my burden that others have the same right to be purposely offensive. We also have other numbered rights... so we may protect ourselves from tyrant foreigners who would take our rights.

The enemies of America think they see an opportunity and are hastening the conflict. They will misjudge and over-reach, and be surprised.

It would help, though, if we had a leader opposed to the muslim brotherhood...instead of boosting.

Mr. Obama demands that the future not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But one man's slander is another man's doing justice to someone.

How can any Christian, who knows that God became man, worked righteousness among us, offered his own sinless life for sinners on the cross, and rose from the dead on the third day ever settle for merely human "prophet" as the giver of God's last word? When offered atonement for sin and victory over death in Jesus Christ, we hear from Muhammad that we're in on a business deal with God hoping our good deeds will outweigh the bad. And how, after hearing the risen Jesus' dire warnings given at the end of the book of Revelation to those who would add to the Scriptures, can we accept the Qur'an (or, for the matter, the book of Mormon)?

Again, the O shows himself a shallow man who pretends to be "one of" his audience rather than stand up for the First Amendment rights he is supposedly sworn to uphold.

Freedom of speech should not be the issue; reaction to free speech should be the focus. Why is it that the crazies wish to diminish our democratic rights rather than correct their disfunctional behaviour.

Any responsible person will tell you that resorting to violence because you disagree with something is never the right action to take. So, here we are justifying bad behaviour.

Using the words "Muslim and Islam" by infidels will be next on the list of banned speech. It is a downhill road when we start diluting what democracies really stand for. This is a line we should not cross. We need to make it unambiguous that freedom of expression will never be diluted and limited because of the reaction of the recipient.

If the Democratics reacted violently to statements made by the Republicans', and vice-versa, would we be censoring every comment they found to be offensive. Religious dialogue should not be placed on a pedestal and excluded from free speech.

I am a Kiwi and have heard numerous jokes about Kiwis and sheep. Could I justify violence because I find it offensive? The Irish have been the brunt of jokes for years, yet they don't take it personally and riot.

I saw a sign in a "speaker's corner" in Cairns that said, "There are 3 rules that must be observed:

1. No amplification

2. No foul language

3. No subject barred

According to the reactionists it should now include number 4., "no subject that will offend or cause someone to react violently."

This would be the end of speaker's corners and soap box oratory worldwide.

Is there anything more fundamental than our right to speak freely? What will we tell our grandchildren? We used to be able to talk freely - not any more,as some subjects are taboo.

There can be no backing down - not by a syllable or symbol.

According to obama, the future does not belong to the likes of Winston Churchill.

I say: The White House, or Bust.

What Morsi and the President of Pakistan is asking for, is that Sharia law be enforced in the United States. Where will this stop? Will they want to murder homosexuals, kill apostates, stone adulterers, cut off the hands and feet of thieves? It is no surprise that Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood wants to enforce Sharia in the US. In the Holy Land Foundation case, a document was put in evidence showing the existence of a conspiracy to engage in a "grand jihad eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within, and "sabotaging its miserable house by their hands{the hands of the unbelievers] and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions."

This was from a document submitted at trial whose authenticity was not disputed. It was obtained as follows: Two people were found photographing the bridge supports of the Annapolis Bay Bridge. The FBI obtained a subpoena and searched their house in Herndon, VA. They found this documet entitled "Goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America"
It was written by a Mohammed Akram and sent to the Shura Council members with a note saying that this was a restatement and update of a plan adopted by the Muslim Brotherhood Shura Council in 1987.

Basically, what Morsi and the UN are trying to do, is to require the US to enforce a "Heckler's veto. That is when heckler's go beyond trying to get their opposing views heard, but try to interfere with the rights of the speaker. Here Morsi goes even beyond that. What is being asked for is for the US to sanction extortion which is a taking or attempt at taking someones legal rights by violence or threats of violence. He, and the President of Pakistan, is asking the US to enforce their rights of extortion -- shut down the speaker, take away his First Amendment rights, or we will riot and kill.

What gives these guys the idea that they know how the laws in other countries, such as the U.S., work? It is obvious from the behavior of those who come here seeking to take away the freedoms of their "hosts" that the ideals of the Founders of this country are way over their heads.

It is offensive. The same way, as a Southerner, I am offended when we are depicted in movies and television as stupid and backward in every way, and then our special way of speaking is mangled by those who really don't understand us.

God...the True One...gave us freedom of speech. These enemies of freedom would take it away from all humans. And they use the freedom of speech in order to take it away.

Almost every OIC heads of state have no idea what freedom of expression means in terms of contemporary western thinking in these days of digital age.

If they truly wants and feel like they need to defeat extreme christian right wing and Zionist funded and inspired groups, such as this one, they need to ignore them or debate them.

I understand all these Islamophobia and or hate spreading sites and organization as this one is simply design to keep international tension among nations and religion. Ultimate objective is to prolong Zionist and or European Kazari occupation of Palestine and kill all hope for negotiated settlement.

I don't think progressive Jewish people are part of this dirty plan.

Yawn-define "Islamophobia"? Presumably much like "anti_Sovietism" during the Cold War, any school of thought towards ISlam than uncritical fawning!

Terry