| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
"On Monday Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested attempts by a humanist group to link Islam to human rights abuses such as female genital mutilation and so-called honour killing of women." Of course, these have already been linked to Islam by Muslims themselves, and Pakistan and Iran weren't protesting then. In any case, one of the members of the "humanist group" mentioned in this article is a friend, and I will soon have much, much more information here about this incident.
Free Speech Death Watch: "Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates," from AP, June 19 (thanks to Twostellas):
GENEVA: Muslim countries have won a battle to prevent Islam from being criticised during debates by the UN Human Rights Council. Religions deserve special protection because any debate about faith is bound to be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense”, council President Doru-Romulus Costea said Wednesday.Scholars: Only religious scholars should be allowed to discuss matters of faith, he told journalists in Geneva.
I.e., soothing, smiling deceivers.
While Costea’s ban applies to all religions, it was prompted by Muslim countries complaining about references to Islam....On Monday Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested attempts by a humanist group to link Islam to human rights abuses such as female genital mutilation and so-called honour killing of women. The interventions sparked a heated debate which threatened to sour the mood of the meeting. The council’s resolutions carry no legal weight but are intended to throw a spotlight on governments that abuse their citizens.
“This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it,” Costea ruled after an emergency break to calm the situation.
Posted by Robert at June 19, 2008 11:24 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
NOT A RELIGION.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 19, 2008 11:36 AM
Well, I can still speak of the unspeakable evil of islam.
PLEASE READ:
http://www.challenging-islam.org/articles/circumcision.htm
scroll halfway down:
http://middle-east-info.org/gateway/genocide/index.htm
WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES
http://middle-east-info.org/league/somalia/fgmpictures.htm
http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk/DiscView.asp?mid=864&forum_id=2
This is going on in MY SUBURB of the TWIN CITIES. Authorities are looking the other way even though it's against State Law.
at June 19, 2008 11:40 AM
One gambit used to disassociate Islam from "honor killings" is simply to define that term so that it takes in killings of a spouse (usually a wife) for infidelity, which tends not to be treated as seriously as it should in many Christian countries with a more macho culture.
However, killings of daughters and sisters for somehow dishonoring the family does seem to be a distinctly Muslim aberration. Perhaps we should talk about "daughter and sister honor killings" to make this clear.
Posted by: Karl Pov at June 19, 2008 12:12 PM
Perhaps we should talk about "daughter and sister honor killings" to make this clear.
Posted by: Karl Pov at June 19, 2008 12:12 PM
How 'bout "Daughter-Slaughter."
But, don't forget an uncle can be asked to kill his niece, as was the case of Souad. Read her book, "Burned Alive: A Survivor Of An Honor-Killing speaks Out" (2004), by Souad.
First name only - her relatives are still searching for her to finish the job.
Concerning the article, the imbecility is just shocking. This is what the human race has come to? Probably better to leave the planet to the insects.
Posted by: darcy at June 19, 2008 12:35 PM
This is why it is so important to have excellent websites such as JW/DW.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 19, 2008 12:35 PM
How about "sharia killings"?
Where else is there any justification for doing this? Honor is too broad a term.
Cite the verse and call it a "koranic killing".
In what other culture is a girl killed for talking to a boy her own age?
Posted by: PMK at June 19, 2008 12:40 PM
The fact that this "victory" was won in the UN doesn't mean much. The UN long ago ceased to be a credible body. With the possible exception of health statistics, what does the UN produce that is credible? What purpose does it serve other than to drain money from developed countries and redistribute it amongst its own bureaucracy?
Posted by: PMK at June 19, 2008 12:45 PM
One would be hard pressed to find a better example when invoking the metaphor about no one wanting to say a word about the elephant in the room than not allowing Islam to be criticized during debates at the inept UN Human Rights Council meetings.
Posted by: Wellington at June 19, 2008 12:58 PM
Well the UN Human Rights Council have simply disconnected themselves from so much of the causation of human rights in this world that they will,and should be pretty much irrevelant on the world stage.
They reflect the "fox in the hen house" situation. They have indeed become a total farce,and a conundrum to human rights groups that are not caught up in the dhimmi multicultural thinking that is so foolishly present in these groups.
It is pitifully sad.
Posted by: Mackie at June 19, 2008 1:04 PM
The fact that this "victory" was won in the UN doesn't mean much. The UN long ago ceased to be a credible body. With the possible exception of health statistics, what does the UN produce that is credible? What purpose does it serve other than to drain money from developed countries and redistribute it amongst its own bureaucracy?
Posted by: PMK
******
As I see it, there are 3 camps with regard to the UN.
1. Idealists who view the UN as an altruistic organization established to prevent war and aid humanity;
2. Pragmatists who view the UN with a discerning eye; and recognize its dysfunction;
3. Exploiters who are able to use the UN in order to assist their malevolent agenda.
The UN is now a tool used by malevolent forces as a weapon to manipulate public perception and promote their propaganda. (via bribing security council members, etc...)
Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at June 19, 2008 1:43 PM
The Cool Ghoul,
You have listed the stages of the UN.
It began with idealism, then soon found itself reduced to pragmatism, which lasted a while courtesy of the Cold War. Now it is being exploited by those who don't believe in its principles. For proof, one need look no further than the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights. Where do we go from here, except out the door?
Posted by: PMK at June 19, 2008 2:15 PM
How about "sharia killings"?Looks like the UNHRC has banned the term. But Cool Ghoul is right - the UN is a fossilized organization with little moral authority, given how their troops have been guilty of rape on peacekeeping operations in Africa. It's amusing to see them discuss hauling US troops before world courts. Posted by: Infidel Pride
at June 19, 2008 2:19 PM
Where do we go from here, except out the door?
Posted by: PMK
--------------------
I agree wholeheartedly that we should secede from it.
I view it as 3 camps of people rather than stages.
So many of the "left" fall into camp #1.
They are beholden to the UN and simply will not look beneath the surface.
Camp #3 (malevolent forces) fully knows this. If they can sway the UN to veto enforcing resolutions against them, (note: it only takes 1 security council member to veto enforcement), and sway committees to ban language which doesn't favor them, then they can effectively control the UN's actions. And camp #1 merely goes along with it - unknowingly.
Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at June 19, 2008 3:19 PM
The time has come to remove the western (civilized) world from this Tower of Babel known as the UN. We can expect another Durban Conference next year in Geneva.
Posted by: Mystical Time Traveler at June 19, 2008 3:28 PM
The council reasons that religion should not be debated because it is a specialized area beyond their expertise. This is incoherent.
Religion addresses matters concerning how mankind should behave ... especially toward one another. If the UN lacks expertise to discuss it then they are useless.
Posted by: Robin Starveling at June 19, 2008 5:28 PM
I wish that all democracies would withdraw from these stupid councils and leave it to the dictators to encourage each other in inhuman stupidity, brutally exposed to the world at large.
That'd be better for human rights in the long run.
Posted by: Henrik at June 19, 2008 6:49 PM
The "UN" is obsolete and now dangerous if anyone takes them seriously. The UN needs to dropped thrown out of any civilzed Western world. GET RID OF THE UN!
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at June 19, 2008 9:45 PM
America should get out of this den of iniquity and send them packing off to Timbuktu. McCain has the idea of starting another organization limited to democracies (i.e., republics). Sounds good to me.
Posted by: Jimmy Bones at June 20, 2008 2:27 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)