| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
This is a key element of the Stealth Jihad: the attempt to silence those who speak about the ideological underpinnings of jihad terrorism. Most Americans probably aren't aware that there are serious discussions at the UN about criminalizing discussion of the motives and goals of Islamic jihadists, and even fewer probably realize what the implications of this are for the United States and the First Amendment in the coming years.
"The OIC & the UN: Islamophobia and 'defamation of religion,'" by Elizabeth Kendal for the WEA, November 15 (thanks to Paul):
Durban I -- the UN's first World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance -- which was held in Durban, South Africa, in early September 2001 ended with a walkout over its virulent anti-Semitism. Yet sadly it now seems clear that the Durban Review Conference (or Durban II), which will be held in Geneva in April 2009, is shaping up to be even worse.As a prelude to Durban II, a Second Preparatory Session of the 20-state Preparatory Committee -- of which Libya has been elected chair with Cuba, Pakistan and Iran as vice-chairs -- was held in Geneva from 6 to 17 October 2008. The resulting "Draft Outcome Document for the Durban Review Conference 2009" is now available on the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) website at LINK 1.
It is clear from the draft document, as well as from reports emanating from the subsequent 63rd UN General Assembly meeting held in Geneva during the first week of November, that a central focus of Durban II will be "Islamophobia", which is being presented as "a new form of racism".
Muslims, the draft declaration asserts, are at dire risk of a racial "holocaust" due to "a new form of racism" -- "Islamophobia" -- which is incited through "defamation of Islam".
What race is Islam again?
The draft declaration recommends that local, national and international laws and human rights covenants be reviewed and amended as necessary so that "defamation of Islam" is made a criminal offence, losing the protection it has long enjoyed under the "pretext" of "freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security". It recommends that legal instruments be established to punish offenders -- that is, those who "defame" Islam by associating it with violence, human rights abuses or terrorism....
I trust, then, that among the first to be prosecuted for "defaming Islam" will be the likes of al-Zawahri, Omar Bakri, Anjem Chaudry, Abu Bakar Bashir, et al.
Posted by Robert at November 20, 2008 3:55 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Defamation of the profiteer Muhammad, of course. A sign of things to come?
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/11/19/jakarta-cracks-down-on-bloggers/
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 20, 2008 4:26 AM
defamation of Islam hmm how can you defame a religion by questioning it ? unless it really is a cult like sctntoligy or the moonies who unleash hoards of the lower bottom feeders known as lawyers whenever someone call them the cults they are imo
Posted by: crusader stonghold at November 20, 2008 4:31 AM
Defaming Islam by associating it with violence..?! What kind of person would do that? It's not possible...it's unthinkable...my God, I am horrified at the thought...
Posted by: PG at November 20, 2008 4:31 AM
So this IslamoNazi conference is due to take place in Geneva?
I'll bet that there just can't be enough anti-semitism and dhimmitude spewed by its participants at the end of the summit to please Jean Ziegler, Tariq Ramadan and Micheline Calmy-Rey.
Posted by: Proud_Kafir7908 at November 20, 2008 4:54 AM
The malicious nonsense continues, spearheaded this time by that wretched organization, the UN. Islam, arguably the single worst assessment of existence ever devised, seeks immunity from criticism and is on the verge of getting it from the Useless Nations. Stupid world.
Posted by: Wellington at November 20, 2008 6:12 AM
Criticize this, pUNks
Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at November 20, 2008 6:44 AM
By now, the UN has shown how utterly useless it is when it comes to the big issues of the day, whether it be military action against dictatorships or now, as we can see, aiming to preserve the freedom of speech.
The free world, spear-headed by the US, needs to organise a League of Democracies and Free Nations. Countries will only be admitted if they meet certain criteria and prove that they're worthy nations to be in the League. Least of all these countries must demonstrate that they have genuine freedoms: the freedom of conscience, the freedom of speech and the freedom of religious worship. Why should the UN be taken seriously when it affords and presumes that a dictator who suppresses and murders the people he rules over should be treated the same as a government representative elected by his countrymen?
The numerous and various tin-pot dictatorships and authoritarian governments that make up the UN, especially from the Islamic world, make a mockery of what the UN was founded for. If we can do the above, it will be a good start in the right direction. People may call me elitist, racist or whatever-ist for suggesting so but I can live with that. I see it as the only alternative to the morally bankrupt UN we see today and if the Islamic nations don't like it, then good. They don't have to and they wouldn't anyway so it's win-win really.
Posted by: S Perry at November 20, 2008 6:47 AM
The UN is just doing it's job protecting the bad guys from the world.
Once again with feeling...GET THE US OUT OF THE UN...and GET THE UN OUT OF THE US...
at November 20, 2008 7:02 AM
I love it. Hopefully they gear it up even more.
Posted by: FreeSpeech at November 20, 2008 7:08 AM
This is big-time, folks.
1) Believe it or not, the UN still has much cred among Western Libs
2) The OIC, with the help of dhimmified friends, can muster a majority in the General Assembly
3) The UN is the vehicle for creeping world government; even some US Supreme Court justices believe US law should be subordinate to "international law"
4) We have an incoming Prez whose campaign and whose Party have been obsessive about "restoring America's good standing" in the world...look for obsequiousness over just such issues as this
5) If Durban II indeed becomes the basis for a world-wide campaign against "Islamophobia", web-sites like JW will be high on the hit list
It's bad folks...and it's getting worse.
Posted by: Cornelius
at November 20, 2008 7:54 AM
Islam is its own worst critic.
Posted by: DeadRecknoning at November 20, 2008 7:58 AM
I'm trying, really trying, to think of any instance to which I was a witness of "Islamophobia", or discrimination against a Muslim. I can't do it.
Blog comments don't count, since anyone can have a blog, and there may be as many Kaffirphobic blogs as there are of their opposite number.
Discrimination in being served in a restaurant, in being allowed to use public facilities, in being hired for a job for which one qualifies as a candidate, in being harassed by fellow employees or the boss, are all illegal in the US, where one can't be prosecuted even for inciting riots.
When the First Amendment goes down the tubes, many of us will become outlaws. That's okay, though. The Department of Homeland Security can't seem to find and neutralize mass murderers. I doubt they'll be able to do much about talkers and writers. If push comes to shove, there's always code.
I doubt it will be easier to stifle freedom of speech than it was to stop illegal booze during Prohibition.
Such a situation would give a whole new meaning to the term "speak easy", wouldn't it? ;)
Posted by: Abscedere at November 20, 2008 8:20 AM
"The free world, spear-headed by the US, needs to organise a League of Democracies and Free Nations."
S Perry, that would only include the US, Denmark and Geert Wilders.
Posted by: Proud_Kafir7908 at November 20, 2008 8:34 AM
If he's actually our President, this will be a real litmus test for Obama. All the countries to whom we actually have to answer or which are even worth recognizing have pulled out. I doubt Obama will openly display his Judeophobic stripes and confirm everyone's worst suspicions about him right off the bat.
We really do need to found a new international organization comprised of nations which hold regular, free elections and which uphold the UDHR to the letter. The UK's not invited until they abolish Sharia. But it won't happen under either Obama or Biden. This election has rocketed us back 30 years in time.
Posted by: jdamn at November 20, 2008 10:08 AM
The UN once passed a resolution equating Zionism with racism.
Now they're going to equate criticism of Islam with racism? So what? They haven't (yet) taken over the US government. They haven't (yet) overridden our constitutional protections.
The UN is a body of liars. So what? The 44th president may be sympathetic to their beliefs but even he is (for now) subject to the US Constitution.
at November 20, 2008 10:11 AM
Well, we drew up an Anti-kuffarphobia petition and invited the Knesset and leading politicians around the world to sign it, and even to take charge of it. They showed not the slightest interest and many anti-jihad bloggers including Robert Spencer never even replied to our emails requesting help.
The real threat to the world is kuffarphobia, not Islamophobia, but because of the feebleness of Western politicians and bloggers we have handed the reins controlling our future to Islamic governments.
Happy stoning people.
Posted by: Stephen Gash SIOE England at November 20, 2008 11:32 AM
The UN is a body of liars. So what? The 44th president may be sympathetic to their beliefs but even he is (for now) subject to the US Constitution.
Posted by: PMK
Maybe not...The Supreme Court is going to mull over if they should consider the case of 'does the Constitution actually apply to Prophet Elect Obama', because of his failure to comply with a Constitutional requirement for candidacy.
Most likely they will try and get out of ruling, similar to the Hawaiian judge, who ruled that voters did not have the standing to bring this suit. So he threw it out without addressing it.
If no one has the standing to back up the Constitution, and the courts refuse, then the Constitution is dead...Possibly Congress will have to settle it...
Posted by: duh_swami at November 20, 2008 11:40 AM
Muslims, the draft declaration asserts, are at dire risk of a racial "holocaust" due to "a new form of racism" -- "Islamophobia"
Actually it's non-Moslems that are at dire risk from a holocaust due to an OLD form of racism (for the sake of argument, I'll accept that Islam is some kind of "race") -- Islam.
In the last 50 or so years, most of the genocides or mass-murders have been conducted by Moslems against non-Moslems: in Nigeria, in the Sudan, in India and Pakistan and Bangladesh, and in Indonesia. In each case, the number of victims has been from several hundred thousand to over a million.
The only times when Moslems have been victims of mass-murder have been when the perpetrators have been other Moslems, as in Iran and Iraq.
At a lower level of violence, there's "ethnic cleansing". Again, most incidents of this have been conducted by Moslems against non-Moslems: in most of the Arab countries against Jews and Christians, in Pakistan and Bangladesh against Hindus and Christians, in Bosnia and Kosovo against Christians, in the Sudan against Christians and pagans, in Indonesia against ethnic Chinese.
Then there's legalized "racism". In virtually every country ruled by Moslems, non-Moslems suffer from legal inequalities, sometimes mild, more often harsh. On the other hand, in virtually no country ruled by non-Moslems do Moslems suffer from legal inequalities.
Finally, consider terrorism. Moslem terrorists have been operating for year in most non-Moslem countries, whether at the level of the Twin Towers attacks, or at the level of individual beatings of students in Yorkshire. But how many non-Moslem terrorists have there been in Moslem countries? Precious few!
So, the major form of racism in the world today is Islam. Islam is not the victim, it's the victimizer.
at November 20, 2008 11:40 AM
3) The UN is the vehicle for creeping world government; even some US Supreme Court justices believe US law should be subordinate to "international law"
Posted by: Cornelius
Cornelius, I've been paying ever more attention when the Supreme Court makes rulings, looking to which justices are in the majority and which dissent. Reading their positions, that is interpretations of the constitution, has begun to fascinate me as well.
Please explain which justices you believe think that US law should be subordinate to "international law" and why.
I'm not in agreement nor disagreement but I'm interested to follow up on what evidence you cite. I expect I'll end up in agreement.
Beer
Richard
at November 20, 2008 11:58 AM
Can anyone workout how many more countries Islam has to invade for the OIC to get a majority?
Posted by: Will at November 20, 2008 2:26 PM
Nota bene:
http://greenspiece.blogspot.com/2008/06/dine-and-obama-perfect-storm.html
http://greenspiece.blogspot.com/2008/09/perfect-propaganda-storm-gathers.html
Posted by: Papa Whiskey at November 20, 2008 3:03 PM
duh_swami,
The qualifier: (for now).
... even he is (for now) subject to the US Constitution.
The Supreme Court may change that but (for now) I prefer to think even Saint Barack is not above the law. Otherwise, what point is there to being an American?
at November 20, 2008 3:56 PM
Please explain which justices you believe think that US law should be subordinate to "international law" and why.
Richard,
Regarding the question you posed to Cornelius, here is a summary of what justices have said regarding international law. Justice Kennedy wrote an opinion citing intl law and other justices are on record saying it's a good source for their decisions. This article is a good summary of recent work.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=700176
at November 20, 2008 4:10 PM
Muslims are only targeted by other Muslims. The worst thing they face at the hands of non-Muslims is being deported for sedition. Christians are actually the greatest in terms of being ethnically cleansed today, and you can guess who's doing that. Everyone needs to be protected from Muslims, including Muslims.
Posted by: jdamn at November 20, 2008 4:31 PM
Freedoms will go down little at a time, first will be talk radio, BO does not like Sean Hannity, in fact he has actually named him in his attacks against Sean Hannity, next will be the internet. change the word Barry used so much during his campaign will become his mandate to kill freedom of speech especially when used against him and his tactics to socialize the country.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at November 20, 2008 8:27 PM
Richard,
I remember the controversy more than the particulars, but here is an example. Justice Beyer is the proponent of subordinating US law to international law...Scalia is the opponent.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1105364112559
Posted by: Cornelius at November 20, 2008 11:15 PM
That was Breyer of course...
Posted by: Cornelius at November 20, 2008 11:18 PM
I'm worried how Ex-muslims can express them self if they criticising the abuse of islamic laws becomes considered as "racisme"?
Posted by: Johanna.Adams at November 21, 2008 6:25 PM
I'm worried how Ex-muslims can express them self if they criticising the abuse of islamic laws becomes considered as "racisme"?
Posted by: Johanna.Adams at November 21, 2008 6:25 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.)