Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende issued statements claiming that the film "serves no other purpose than to cause offense."

The film serves no other purpose than to report on perhaps the most important news story of our day.

So, by condemning FITNA and Geert Wilders, the Dutch Prime Minister is doing a few things:

* He is abandoning freedom of speech.
* He is abandoning freedom of the press.
* He is rolling over and playing dead in the face of the invading islamic barbarians.

Bye bye, Enlightenment; bye bye, Civilization; bye bye, Respect and Dignity for All Human Beings.

America is truly standing alone, as Mark Steyn would say.

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at April 4, 2008 5:39 PM

Freedom of expression today; economic considerations will soon follow.

From www.debka.com

_
Exclusive: Egypt’s gas contracts with Israel at stake as Mubarak seeks to cool peace relations
April 4, 2008, 11:53 PM (GMT+02:00)

President Hosni Mubarak in new Palestinian initiative

DEBKAfile’s Middle East sources report that scholars at Cairo’s al Azhar University, which is under tight government control, have issued an edict barring the sale of Egyptian oil and gas to “the Zionist enemy” as a betrayal of Islam. Ministers and lawmakers from all of Egypt’s parties are for the first time raising questions about the 15-year gas contract signed in 2005.

Our Cairo sources affirm that none of them would have ventured to question fuel sales to Israel without President Hosni Mubarak’s nod.

So while the US, EU and the UN are so willing to curtail freedom of expression, equal protection under the law, today to appease islam -- perhaps they will impose economic sanctions tomorrow for the same reasons.

islam is the enemy and the source of the evil you will be confronted with at some point. What will you do?

Posted by: witness at April 4, 2008 5:41 PM

“In a 32-0 vote, the council instructed its 'expert on freedom of expression' to report to the council on all instances in which individuals 'abuse' their freedom of speech by giving expression to racial or religious bias.”

Is this instance of U.N. sanity not a reason to celebrate?

Finally, the U.N. will investigate many Muslim’s claim that Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs.

Finally, the U.N. will investigate many Muslim’s call to slay the unbelievers wherever they are found.

Finally, the U.N. will investigate the oppression of all faiths, except Islam, in Saudi Arabia.

Uh. . ., hold on, my son just said something about a cold day in Hades. . .

Posted by: patagonianplato at April 4, 2008 6:23 PM

Person of the book: Bush and Rice are no better than Balkenende...they are also abject dhimmis with their endless platitudes about the ROP. So America is up to its neck in all this along with Europe. Hardly standing alone. We stand together.

Posted by: johndoe at April 4, 2008 6:23 PM

"Last Friday the UN's Human Rights Council took a direct swipe at freedom of expression."

I wouldn't be too hard on the UN. After all, ignorance is the bread and butter of most of its member States..

But when the European States obstaind, that's unforgiveable. An obstention is saying "We don't have any interest in the issue", or "We don't agree, but neither do we disagree with the resolution".

I'm at least happy to know that our own government forcefully opposed the resolution, but wonder what the response will be when an Obama or Clinton are calling the shots in Washington.

Posted by: rational at April 4, 2008 6:53 PM

I was recently reading about Mark Steyn's troubles with the CHRC, when it dawned on me for the first time - forgive me for being slow - that the Islamo-Left's insidious campaign to limit our free speech goes beyond the actual content of speech that they find objectionable. I believe the larger goal is to destroy free speech just for the sake of destroying it...to eradicate one of the most attractive facets of Western life in order to diminish us...so that we no longer possess such an important identifying marker that distinguishes us from Islam and other forms of despotism around the world.

Sharia will be a lot more palatable when there are no more free societies available to contrast it with.

Posted by: Cornelius at April 4, 2008 7:00 PM

Your are so right Cornelius.

If we do not honor and fight for our freedoms, we will find them gone one day with no easy way to get them back. We will no longer be the Free. It is fast approaching the time when we must stand up and be counted. Will we be the despised dhimmi or the proud kafir?

Posted by: the poetess at April 4, 2008 7:14 PM

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

This is an important phrase to us American and should be for all Europeans and we really need to ponder this phrase and what the whole speech by Patrick Henry meant.

The U.N. can "DROP DEAD!!"

We still have the 1st Amendment and if that is dismantled then we have back-slid into tyrrany!

Do we really care????

Posted by: eaglecap at April 4, 2008 7:49 PM

The US should have been out of the UN, and the UN out of the US, years ago. But they wouldn't listen to me. Now those chickens are comin home...to roost. It's not to late to give the UN the bums rush, but Bush won't do it, and neither will Obamillary, and it is unlikely that McCain will dump it. So we are stuck. The only thing we can do is encourage the US gov, not to give the UN additional power, like the sea treaty, or the ability to levy taxes...

Posted by: duh_swami at April 4, 2008 8:16 PM

The problem with so many of these European countries - not all of them, but some of them, and especially the ones who still have monarchies - is that no true divorce of religion and state ever occurred. The Netherlands are among those countries who still have such a law.

How can Europeans assert free speech when they still have blasphemy laws on their books?

Posted by: non-croyant at April 4, 2008 8:16 PM

We put the first nail into the coffin of free speech when we sat back and allowed government in this nation to enact "hate crime laws."

No matter how you try to define them, hate crime laws are really thought crime laws. You're being punished for what you think, not for what you do.

The American public, out of fear of being labeled with some kind of phobia if they opposed them, now accept these laws a normal, and even noble.

You can look for even more of these laws to get passed, and you can look for them to be used to stiffle freedom of speech and press in this country. The history of these kind of laws in other Western democracies is evidence of what's going to happen here.

Posted by: rational at April 4, 2008 8:35 PM

Jerusalem Post:

"The measure was proposed by paragons of freedom Egypt and Pakistan. It was supported by all Arab, Muslim and African countries - founts of liberty one and all. European states abstained."

I have read plenty of Caroline Glick's articles in the JP, and can't remember disagreeing with any of them, but that was a total snowjob. Her article doesn’t explain WHY the European states, along with others, abstained from voting on the Resolution, nor makes any reference to the underhand tactics of the Islamic states on the Human Rights Council that caused it.

She writes of "the Europeans' decision to abstain", but in total fifteen countries abstained from voting on that Resolution:

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Romania, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

Caroline Glick's article doesn’t give the reason for their abstention, nor gives any quotes from their delegates explaining why. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the publishing of Fitna, as this article from the International Humanist and Ethical Union makes clear.

Canada originally introduced the draft Resolution, (A/HRC/7/L.24), to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, whose role - “more important than ever” said the Canadian delegate - would be to:

"gather all relevant information, wherever it may occur, relating to violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, discrimination against, threats or use of violence, harassment, persecution or intimidation directed at persons seeking to exercise or to promote the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression..."

The Islamic states, led by Pakistan, then introduced an amendment to this Resolution, which in addition to above duties would require the Special Rapporteur to:

"report on instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination …”

This amendment totally changed the Resolution and the role of the Special Rapporteur. From being an individual charged with reporting threats to free speech by oppressive states, the Islamic amendment would turn him into one opposed to free speech where it is adjudged to constitute religious discrimination. In short, it would make him a reporter of all speech and writing deemed to be anti-Islamic, not just by states but by individuals too.

Canada, the EU countries, and all the other free democratic co-sponsors of the Resolution on the Council, opposed this amendment, for the obvious reason, and urged Council members to vote against it. As the IHEU article points out:

"For Canada, who had fought long and hard as main sponsor of this resolution to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, this was too much: ‘Requesting the Special Rapporteur to report on abuses of [this right] would turn the mandate on its head. Instead of promoting freedom of expression the Special Rapporteur would be policing its exercise … If this amendment is adopted, Canada will withdraw its sponsorship from the main resolution.’”

The other free countries, as co-sponsors of the Resolution, stated their opposition for the same reason, and joined Canada’s threat to withdraw sponsorship for the Resolution if the vote on the amendment was carried.

The vote was held. As is usual at the UN (See this Dhimmiwatch thread, or this one ) the Islamic states were backed by the tyrannies and the African nations (see below) and the amendment was added to the Resolution.

In favour (27): Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Zambia.

Against (17):Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Peru, Romania, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Uruguay.

Abstentions (3): Bolivia, Japan and Republic of Korea.

The Free Countries consequently carried out their threat to withdraw sponsorship of the Resolution.

The Slovenian delegate, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the EU:

"supported the work of the Special Rapporteur on free speech and expression, but was concerned over the language inserted in the text. It was noted that the role of the Special Rapporteur was to report on the implementation of States and not to report on the activities of individuals. The European Union States and aligned countries withdrew their co-sponsorship of the text.”

The UK delegate, speaking as a coordinator of the Western Group countries who were not members of Council, said that:

"the co-sponsors that were not members of the Council" (including Australia and the United States) "had decided to withdraw their co-sponsorship.”

http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/DB737FD5DF7AAB53C125741A006CC861?OpenDocument

The Islamic amendment, and a later oral amendment added by Cuba to limit press freedom (and voted in favour of by the same group as voted in favour of the Islamic amendment) totally changed the Resolution, to the point where the sponsoring free countries, both on and off the Council, refused to recognise it.

The abstention by the free democratic Council members signified their total disapproval of the changed Resolution. By withdrawing their sponsorship, and boycotting the ballot (which they most certainly would have lost) the Free Countries signalled their complete rejection not just of the new powers given to the Special Rapporteur but of the ruling that gave them to him.

Posted by: Matamoros at April 4, 2008 9:34 PM

Here's what our founding fathers have already said, they have already confronted and rebutted the United Nations and the European Union:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...."

The UN and the European Union are guilty. They have failed to secure the sacred right of their citizens to freedom of speech, and therefore to liberty its self - they have become the dhimmi enemies of liberty.

The punishment is this: the people of Europe must abolish those cowardly and evil bastards from leadership, and institute new government – a real revolution. Do they have the courage, and will they be willing to make the sacrifice as our founding fathers and subsequent generations of proud, free and brave Americans did?

Our founding fathers did it to the God-damned British Empire, now it is time for all liberty-minded nations, beginning in Europe, to declare their own Declaration of Independence, and to declare war on tyranny of all stripes, including the God-damned tyranny of totalitarian Islam.

Posted by: Storm-Rider at April 4, 2008 11:32 PM

Posted by: Storm-Rider at April 4, 2008 11:32 PM

I am becoming a "big fan" of "Storm-Rider".

Nuff' said.

Posted by: awake at April 4, 2008 11:40 PM

Excellent article by Carolyn Glick

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Posted by: Mackie at April 4, 2008 11:46 PM

Islamophobia should be a crime! Islamophobes should be punished!!!

But if Koran+Hadith are much more akin to Mein Kampf than the texts of holy books of other major religions, then it seems to me like saying: Naziphobia should be a crime! Naziphobes should be punished!!! With, of course, crazy (neo)nazis running around threatening to physically harm anyone “defaming” Hitler and the Holy Book Mein Kampf.

I had a low opinion of the UN, and was against the new HR Council. The old HR Commission (UNCHR) was bad, but is saddens me to see it used for back-rolling human rights due to the new system of allocating most seats to non-free countries.

Posted by: johnsawyer at April 5, 2008 1:08 AM

Israel's next Golda Meir...?

I've been following Glick's writing for some time now (I think it's about two years I've been reading JPost regularly online).

She's one smart lady.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at April 5, 2008 1:29 AM

Political Correctness is intellectual thuggery, it has been practiced in the West for decades. This is just a logical extension.

Political correctness: 'How to win a debate without having one!'

Posted by: James at April 5, 2008 2:16 AM

Matamoros,

You're right. Glick has either misunderstood the process or she (or an editor) has removed the crucial pieces of information explaining the meaning of what actually happened. There are many examples of EU dhimmitude, but this was not one of them.

Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at April 5, 2008 5:45 AM

Matamoros;

Thank you for filling in the details. It does leave a significantly different picture.

Posted by: old fogey at April 5, 2008 8:35 AM

Matamoros,

These Canadians seem to be bit schizophrenic.

On the one hand, they want to "gather all relevant information, wherever it may occur, relating to violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression”

On the other hand, they have set up a sort of politburo called the Canadian Human Rights Commission which as best as I can determine, is an opponent of free opinion and expression.

So they fight for free speech abroad, but punish it at home. This is a very strange inconsistency.

What am I missing?

Posted by: patagonianplato at April 5, 2008 9:02 AM

Shocking what our leaders say to appease Muslims:

"We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred. What the Armenians went through is a tragedy, but not genocide."

Shimon Peres in Ankara

Posted by: Charlie at April 5, 2008 10:41 AM

Patagonianplato, I cannot comment on the actions of the Canadian authorities. I have no knowledge of Canadian politics and, with apologies to every Canadian that visits here, must admit that I take little interest in Canadian affairs.

I do, however, take a keen interest in the hijacking of the United Nations by the Islamic states and their allies in the world’s tyrannies. The ambushing of this Resolution, which has turned free speech on its head, is just the latest attack in a prolonged assault on freedom being carried out at the U.N by those nations, to the exasperation of the free world states, who are outnumbered both on the councils and in the General Assembly by the OIC states and their allies.

The Special Rapporteur himself, Ambeyi Ligabo, in his report to this session of the Human Rights Council on March 7th, expressed his concern about inappropriate attempts to extend limitations on freedom of expression to give unfair protection to religions. His report stated:

“The Special Rapporteur further emphasizes that, although limitations to the right to freedom of opinion and expression are foreseen in international instruments… these limitations were designed in order to protect individuals against direct violations of their rights. These limitations... are not are not designed to protect belief systems from external or internal criticism.”

Well now, thanks to the chicanery of the Islamic states, they are. And it becomes Mr Ligabo's reluctant duty to police them.

Caroline Glick’s article has now gone global. It appears, verbatim and unchallenged, with all its omissions and falsehoods, not only on Jihadwatch but on LGF, Freerepublic, The Jewish World Review, as well as blogs written by individuals the world over.

These sites cannot be held responsible for the article's inaccuracy. The responsibility for fact-checking laid with Caroline Glick, and she failed it.

By presenting this railroading by the Islamic nations and their allies as a capitulation by the nations of the free world that sit on the Human Rights Council, she has done both those nations and the free world a great disservice.

Posted by: Matamoros at April 5, 2008 10:48 AM