| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
In FrontPage today I discuss the death of free speech at the UN Human Rights Council (news links in the original):
The war against free speech is advancing rapidly: Associated Press reported Thursday that “Muslim countries have won a battle to prevent Islam from being criticised during debates by the UN Human Rights Council.” Council President Doru-Romulus Costea explained that religious issues can be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense…This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it.” Henceforth only religious scholars would be permitted to broach them.“While Costea’s ban applies to all religions,” AP explained, “it was prompted by Muslim countries complaining about references to Islam.” The ban came after a heated session on Monday, when the representative of the Association for World Education (AWE), in a joint statement with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, denounced female genital mutilation, the penalty of stoning for adultery and child marriage as sanctioned by Islamic law. Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested, interrupting the AWE speaker, David Littman, with no less than 16 points of order, and succeeding in getting the Council’s proceedings suspended for over half an hour. In the course of this contentious discussion, the representatives from the Islamic countries made numerous revealing statements – statements that are well worth examining as Islamic nations and organizations call with increasing insistence for restrictions on free speech in the West.
Imran Ahmed Siddiqui, the representative from Pakistan, echoed the ever-echoing refrain of all Islamic apologists in the West, when he complained that Littman’s initiative on genital mutilation, stoning and child marriage amounted to an “out-of-context, selective discussion on the Sharia law.” He asked that Littman not be allowed to speak: “I would therefore request the president to exercise his judgment and authority and request the speaker not to touch issues which have already been debarred from discussion in this Council.” The representative from Slovenia then protested mildly against this attempt to silence Littman: “Any NGO representative,” he reminded Siddiqui, “has the right to make a statement within the merits of the agenda item under discussion. We see the statement being made pertaining within the purview of the agenda item and we don’t see grounds for any restricting censorship in that respect.”The representative from Egypt thereupon responded: “I would humbly and kindly ask my colleague from Slovenia to reconsider.” He warned: “We will not take this lightly….This is not about NGOs and their participation in the Council. This is about the Sharia law.” Pakistan’s Siddiqui added: “I would like to state again that this is not the forum to discuss religious sensitivity.” Why not? Again sounding notes that are increasingly familiar in any discussion of the elements of Islam that jihadists and Sharia supremacists use to justify oppression, Siddiqui explained: “It will amount to spreading hatred against certain members of the Council. I mean, it has happened before also that selective discussions were raised in the Council to demonize a particular group.” He addressed Costea: “So we would again request you to please use your authority to bar any such discussion again, at the Council.”
After more discussion, a recess, and another warning from the representative from Egypt, Littman was finally allowed to proceed. After noting that “almost 90% of the female population in the north of Sudan undergo FGM which, in many cases, is practiced in its most extreme form known as infibulation,” Littman declared: “We believe that only a fatwa from Al-Azhar Grand Sheikh Sayyed Tantawi – replacing the ambiguous fatwas of 1949, 1951 and 1981 – will change this barbaric, criminal practice, which is now growing even in Europe.”
At this point Egypt interrupted, complaining that “this is an attempt to raise a bad traditional practice to Islam. Sheikh Al-Azhar [Sayyed Tantawi] is the president of the largest and the biggest and the oldest Islamic university in the world.” He exclaimed: “My point is that Islam will not be crucified in this Council. That’s why we are challenging this ruling” – that is, Costea’s decision to allow Littman to deliver his address.
The representative from Germany asked: “Mr. President, I would kindly, through you, ask the Egyptian delegation and its representative if I did understand in his last intervention…he seemed to have said, and I quote, and I apologize if I did not understand this correctly – my understanding was, quote: “Islam will not be crucified in this Council”. And I would like this statement confirmed and if it is confirmed I would ask you, Mr. President, whether you consider this appropriate with regard to the question of mentioning religion and its symbols?” But Egypt ignored this question, and said: “I would ask to delete any references to the fatwa of Sheikh Al-Azhar [Grand Sheikh Sayyad Tantawi] and to delete all references to Sheikh Al-Azhar from this paragraph and from the official records of the meeting.”
Yet an Islamic legal manual endorsed by Al-Azhar states that circumcision is required “for both men and women” (‘Umdat al-Salik, e4.3). And Tantawi himself has said, according to Geneive Abdo, author of No God But God: Egypt and the Triumph of Islam, that female circumcision is “a laudable practice that [does] honor to women.”
Littman continued, noting that “the stoning of women for alleged adultery still occurs regularly in Iran, Sudan and other countries. In Iran, they are buried up to their waists in pits and blunt stones are used thereby increasing their agony in death.” Soon thereafter he was interrupted by the Iranian delegate, who declared: “The statement and the references made by this speaker in this statement is false and has nothing to do with the realities in my country. I just wanted, for the record… he said that…‘the stoning of women for adultery still occurs regularly in Iran’ – it’s not true, it is completely false, and is out of the question.”
Yet as of September 2007, eight women in Iran were awaiting stoning for adultery charges.
In sum, then, what Littman was saying was accurate, and the Egyptian, Pakistani and Iranian representatives consistently characterized these truthful statements as insults to Islam, and moved to have them suppressed. Not only does this shameful episode bode ill for the human rights of women in the Islamic world; it also represents another victory in the war against free speech that Islamic supremacists have been pursuing with particular energy lately, calling on Western authorities to prosecute Dutch politician Geert Wilders for his film Fitna and Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard for his drawing of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, and in general to outlaw what they perceive as insults to Islam.
They have won at the UN Human Rights Council. That will not be the only battle of this war. But it remains to be seen whether any governing official in the West has the courage and the clear-sightedness to stand up to this challenge before it’s too late -- before we are required by law to stand by as mute witnesses to our own conquest and Islamization.
Posted by Robert at June 25, 2008 6:06 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
I am more convinced then ever that the United States must, on principle, resign from the United Nations. As an alternative, we could propose a group of democratic nations who hold shared values which respect human rights and the rule of law. Such an organization would have tremendous resources and influence in the world. The United Nations would be reduced to insignificance.
Posted by: George Mc.![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 25, 2008 7:47 AM
League of Nations...Nazi bootlicks. United Nations...Islamic Bootlicks and now worse...dhimmis. Spineless Euro-cowards just love their white flags and shovels, surrendering and digging their graves with too little will to fight, too late as always. If I didn't know better, I might mistake them for sheep. Human Rights fast eroding to the will of the extinct madman and his imaginary allah (lowercase very intentional).
Posted by: Quantum Infidel at June 25, 2008 7:56 AM
The United Nations has long outlived its usefulness and now has been taken over by islamic interests. Any attempt to beam a light on the barbaric customs and practices of islam results in muzzling of the speaker. Western nations now need to form their own league, for the future of civilization.
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at June 25, 2008 8:13 AM
A wake-up call in Oz:
This is big news downunder!
All the usual suspects (Keysar Trad) are put on the stand and they all soil themselves. There are moments when even the far left media comes out in support of the right thing. I only fear that we're being systematically desensitized by these Musulmanic demands.
Here's my take on this:
But to see how awful these people really are, one should watch this video, which is already over a year old, but it shows the magnitude of the problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geZCsTezm_U
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 25, 2008 9:37 AM
sheik - the attorney-general just said a very loud, very clear NO to any official recognition of polygamy in Australia. It's illegal; it STAYS illegal.
You and I and every other Australian counter-jihadist must now shower him with approval; and back it up, too, with emails on the same point, to PM, Leader of the Opposition, and our MPs, so that they grasp that there are VOTES in them thar hills, LOTS AND LOTS of votes, and that those who publicly and resolutely oppose sharia will GET votes, not lose them.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 25, 2008 9:50 AM
Of course no one speaks to the truth that Islam is so much more than a religion. many experts believe that Islam is as much as 80Pct. political.
Can we separate sharia law from the religious aspects that is Islam? Freedom of speech should not deny criticism of any religion because there are questionable practices that come into play in many religions.
Their is the conflict of polegamy,their is the conflict of a religion that does not allow for blood transfusions,their are oddball religions that practice satanism,their is a religion that trusts god to let them play with rattlesnakes trusting that they will not get bit. Where would one draw the line at religious practices?
Sharia is in total indifference to US law and must be stopped whenever some foolish progressive (liberal)judge attempts to apply it anywhere.
The UN is an international body that should not allow for the suppression of free speech in regards to any aspect of human life throughout the world.
Suppression of religious criticism should not be allowed in the UN.
Posted by: Mackie at June 25, 2008 11:19 AM
"...What the UNHRC is not prepared to discuss in depth are institutionalized human rights violations that are cloaked in the mantle of religion, and that Mr. Costea's arrogant, farcical council will not accept any criticism for promoting a return to Medieval standards of conduct. Instead of fulfilling its duty to defend the tenets of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the newly reconstituted UNHRC has declared its intention to legitimize the dismissal of crimes against humanity upon the issuance of a fatwa.
This will not do. Either the UNHRC should find a president willing and able to discharge his/her duties, or it should be permanently disbanded. One way or the other, the UN's latest human rights charade must be put to an abrupt end."
http://americanpatriotcouncilblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/un-surrenders-to-jihad-against-human.html
at June 25, 2008 11:37 AM
Re: "Free Speech Dies at the U.N."
Fortunately the U.N. is dying too.
Posted by: johnb at June 25, 2008 12:19 PM
Egyptian, Pakistani and Iranian representatives consistently characterized these truthful statements as insults to Islam, and moved to have them suppressed. hmm considering that these governments are among some of worst human rights offenders in the world so is any wounder that they would oppress or try to oppress freedom of speech that could be used to expose them
Posted by: crusader at June 25, 2008 12:58 PM
The two-pronged approach:
Squelch any criticism of Islam.... while carefully crafting a division between antisemitism and anti-Zionism, so Jews can be attacked without any fear of being labeled racists or antisemitic by the "global community".
So, presumably, the ONLY people actually qualified to discuss Islam are the Islamist clerics educated and indoctrinated in Saudi and Pakistani funded mosques and maddrassas?
Posted by: Kafir_Alalazoo at June 25, 2008 1:38 PM
some friends and I have come up with this one line manifesto:
Every Woman in the World Owns Her Body;
No Man, No Government, No Relgion may take this right.
This should be a UN statement.
Since this will probably never happen, I would like to see it on posters, flags, t-shirts, etc.
Posted by: Slytheryn at June 25, 2008 1:40 PM
I agree with George Mc. Now that the United Nations has become to a downright sinister degree dominated by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the charade that it remains a representative world body should be brought to an end. Not only the United States, but its allies among Western democracies, and anyone else able to believe in a civilized human future, should withdraw from the UN altogether (saving an untold fortune of money in the process). The UN should be ejected from the continental US (Lahore might be a good place for it) and an international body made up of secular democracies, whatever their principal religion might be, should be established. That the principles on the basis of which the UN was founded are not enough to safeguard the right to take exception to barbaric social customs and the victimization of women, is a sign of a degeneracy for which there is no cure, in my opnion. Remove the tumor - servicing it is not maintaining health.
Posted by: Novalis at June 25, 2008 3:31 PM
There is a contradiction in these two statements:
Council President Doru-Romulus Costea explained that religious issues can be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense…This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it.”
The representative from Egypt thereupon responded: “I would humbly and kindly ask my colleague from Slovenia to reconsider.” He warned: “We will not take this lightly….This is not about NGOs and their participation in the Council. This is about the Sharia law.” (my bold)So this is not about “sensitive religious matters” but about Sharia specifically, that we are not to discuss the domain of strictly religious matters. Obviously no other religion has issues with discussing religious matters, except Islam, which wants to impose a world ‘gag order’ on all of us.
Restricting free speech about religious matters ias a ‘gag order’ is overtly against our right to discussion. But a gag order by whom? Why should the UN agency have jurisdiction over national rights to self determination in how we legislate and execute our laws? This is all nonsense. Judicial gag orders by some ‘world body’ has no jurisdiction in any sovereign state anywhere. They can muzzle themselves if they wish, turn off their translator earphones, or sit with tape on their mouths, but they cannot and may not silence anyone else.
Our freedom of speech is a fundamental inalienable human right, and not negotiable by some third world primitive barbarians who falsely imagine themselves religious authorities for the whole world.
The same applies to State Dept. ‘gag order’ against using words like “Islamic Jihad”. It is beyond their governmental jurisdiction to impose their internal memos on our right to free speech, such as defended by our constitutional rights and the First Amendment. Gag orders are specific to court orders regarding particular sensitive cases. Our self defense against Islamic Jihad does not constitute a right to gag orders on our freedom of speech. Our right to free discussion is not up for debate in the UN or anywhere else.
at June 25, 2008 3:43 PM
Let me join the chorus with those who posted above to the effect that the US should withdraw from the UN. The UN is a moral cesspool and should be seen by all sensible folk as an international joke. Time to go (sadly, though, we won't).
Posted by: Wellington at June 25, 2008 3:45 PM
Agreed we should withdraw from the UN.
It may be dying but it's not dying fast enough. Too many countries that are ostensibly allies of the US, some of them are even Western countries, want the UN to remain in place. They don't want to give it up, even if it bodes ill for their freedom. We can't wait for the UN to draw its last breath. We must remove ourselves from the UN and remove the UN from American territory.
We should wait before establishing any union of democracies. Such a union would have to have clear rules for joining and for staying. None of this "one man, one vote, one time and we're a democracy" business. In the meantime we do have several unions of democracies around the globe, NATO being the most prominent example.
Posted by: PMK at June 25, 2008 5:52 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but I understood that McCain had clearly hinted to an alliance of civilized democracies -at least beside the UN.
at June 26, 2008 3:31 AM
Thuggery, ignorance and barbarism become international law... Astounding!
Posted by: Stefcho at June 26, 2008 4:28 AM
Move it to Dubai. Place it in that planned 'Tallest Revolving Skyscraper in World,' so they can sit on it and spin.
Posted by: Bingo at June 26, 2008 8:34 AM
Good Idea......getting out of UN
We, all Western democracies needs to claim our free speech back - and it seems the only way is to get out of UN and make our own new organisation, that exclude every nation (Islamic) that use any kind of violence against Women and children.
Leave the UN, if you really believe in democracy -leave UN to the Muslims, they are running it anyway.
Every resulution that has come out of there lately has only been for muslims to continue their verbal jihad. And silence the truth about this sick "cult"
Stoning women, rape and mutilations(circumcions of both male and female children) is allowed within this ideologi and the "human rights council" sanction that.
That only shows, that WOMEN has no human rights - they are not considered humans in those societies, obviously - they are birth maschines, slaves and nothing more........
And America, start using your own Oil resources, you have more oil underground, than all of the Arab nations together - get to drilling, control the gas prices yourself, and stop being dependent of these sick nations -
"Weapons for Oil" was a big issue with Iraq, now the same is happening with the Saudis - but now it is OK??? SaudiArabia is supporting terrorists,-where do you think these new modern weapons end up???
www.americansolutions.com - read about this - Your government is just a bunch of Dhimmis!
at June 26, 2008 12:17 PM
(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.)