It makes no mention of any other religion besides Islam, but urges countries "to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement and religious hatred, hostility, or violence."

So I guess this means we won't be seeing anymore derogatory cartoons of Jews and The Pope coming out of those peaceful Islamic countries.

Posted by: Infidel at April 1, 2007 1:21 AM

The Saudis are shaking in their shoes now. Pack your Bibles and Teddy Bears, we're going to Mecca!!

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at April 1, 2007 2:00 AM

Almost forgot:

*~@}:~{>

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at April 1, 2007 2:02 AM

Hitler's bullcrap explanation of Sudetenland has been offered up as the birth of Turnspeak, an argument not without merit.

But deep down, I think we all know that Turnspeak was born in 610 AD in the hot sands of western Arabia.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 1, 2007 2:08 AM

Unbelievable. Evil grows daily. What will be the end of this?

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Posted by: tvdog at April 1, 2007 2:22 AM

urges countries "to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement and religious hatred, hostility, or violence."

Ideally, that would shut down at least half of the mosques in Europe.

Posted by: staff_of_magius at April 1, 2007 2:47 AM

So, the Koran has been banned by the UN? Now that's something to celebrate. What, that's not included in material aimed at inciting religious hatred, hostility or violence?

The UN is so useless unless you consider condemning the US and Israel as useful.

Posted by: schwaben at April 1, 2007 4:22 AM

Islamic countries pushed through a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Council on Friday urging a global prohibition on the public defamation of religion...

The resolution... "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations."

This is basically an attempt by the Islamic umma to use the UN to encode the dhimma into International Law - although the UN "Human Rights Council" does not have powers to enact law, now that this idea has the apparent status of being a UN "resolution" it can be trotted out whenever the Muslims feel it could be of use. And furthermore, it can be used as a stepping stone to force morally weak organisation (particularly left-leaning NGOs) to be compliant with the Islamic will and ultimately to embarrass Western governments in to enacting laws that imply the classic dhimma laws.

Posted by: Tziona at April 1, 2007 6:43 AM

It's almost like the Islamic world is trying to reverse the laws of Logic. Rewrite history, make wrong right, make right wrong, hold the victime culpible.

I really dont like the UN.

Posted by: payingattention at April 1, 2007 6:56 AM

I wonder when they'll pass a resolution condemning the defamation of Jews as 'sons of pigs and apes' etc by the Middle Eastern media, and condemning the encouragment of hatred against Jews in Middle Eastern schools.

The twelfth of never, I'll guess.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at April 1, 2007 7:39 AM

"to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement and religious hatred, hostility, or violence."

Being against Islam is not defamation. Defamation requires a false statement about something. Truth is an absolute defense to a lawsuit when you claim Islam is evil if in fact it is evil. There is no defamation in the statement if it is true.

Hating Islam has nothing to do with racism. If you love Indian Hindus but hate Indian Moslems you cannot be a racist. If you hate black Moslems but love black Jews, you are not a racist. Rather, you are a person who hates a proponents of a vile religion.

Indeed, Moslems have never been discriminated against on the basis of race. The evidence is that Caucasian arab moslems have consistently discriminated against black moslems.

Moreover, in the 1960s Moslems did not have to ride at the back of a bus, or eat at a separate lunch counter, or stay in a segregated hotel. They did not have to stay in separate public accommodations. But if any group religious or otherwise persists in an ideology that allows murder or cannot stop its adherents from indiscriminate murder, the group and its adherents will eventually be segregated. This will not be discrimination. People will not tolerate letting people getting on buses or planes or trains or hotels or restaurants who may be accessory or merely sympathetic to your being killed.

Such public fear will not be Islama-"phobia." Phobia requires an irrational fear. As the worldwide innumerable routine atrocities done by Moslems is not contradicted by protesting masses, fear of Islam is not a phobia but rather a prudence. We believe that if these incessant atrocities committed in the name of Islam do not immediately stop, we will move to a world of "Islamo-prudence." It will be a world where the Moslem will be "prudently" separated from the rest of humanity.

Immams reading this, you should be more concerned about harmonious living with infidels than to make ridiculous charges that infidels are racists. And what is pathetic is how the U.N. gives disproportionate votes to Moslem nations thereby stacking its agencies with staffs who work against the interests of humanity. Coming soon, Saudi Arabia as rotating member of the security counsel!

Posted by: David England at April 1, 2007 8:37 AM

OK. But this is the UN, folks, and so this is entirely to be expected. Does it mean anything at all? Look at the effect UN resolutions have had in the recent past.

And look at Russia, once more, yet again, supping with the Devil.

Posted by: Dane at April 1, 2007 8:41 AM

From the article above:
It makes no mention of any other religion besides Islam, but urges countries "to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement and religious hatred, hostility, or violence."

This is HYSTERICAL in its hypocrasy!!

What we NEED is a country with some balls to get up there in front of this sham council and make a presentation highlighting and detailing the FACT that islam teaches, and in fact demands, racist and xenophobic behavior from muslims to non-muslims... and also, it should be pointed out again and again and again that the koran directs its followers to consistantly and constantly wage war on non-muslims, inciting violence against non-muslims, and foments religious hatred, hostility, and an astonishing level of violence against non-muslims across the globe.

SOMEONE needs to go up there and use this entire 'resolution' word-for-word to show how islam is the deserved enemy.

Posted by: JenBee at April 1, 2007 9:05 AM

These guys are impressive. Plato could only think of three categories:

Lovers of Money
Lovers of Honor
Lovers of Wisdom

He had completely missed ‘Lovers of BullS___’. The United Nations, breaking new ground daily.

Posted by: pez at April 1, 2007 9:15 AM

Hypocrisy is right.

The resolution "urges countries to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement and religious hatred, hostility, or violence."

So that must mean that Christians in muslim countries will no longer be beheaded ? That churches and synagogues will be safe from attack ? It works both ways, boys.

I am glad Canada opposed the resolution. Does anyone have a list of which other counties voted against it ? And which countries abstained ? Bunch of wimps.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at April 1, 2007 9:21 AM

Can someone please let me have the words to sound respectful about a 54 year old man who has sex with a 9 year old girl.

Posted by: Celsius at April 1, 2007 9:27 AM

ImNoDhimmi,

The full text of the resolution, along with a list of the countries that voted for and against, was posted in the comments section seven threads back entitled 'UN Human Rights Council condemns "attempts to identify Islam with terrorism"' by commenter buraq_is_dead.

I note that both Mexico and the Philippines voted "for," to my astonishment and disgust.

Posted by: Stendec at April 1, 2007 10:04 AM

this is disturbing. especially for british nationalists and their front line fight agaisnt encroaching islamic fascism. they are trying to silence any opposition before they move into the next phase of jihad in europe, open warfare.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at April 1, 2007 10:22 AM

Personally, I think it should be incumbent on every non-Mohammedan in the world who still had the use of their right hand to learn to draw sufficiently well that they can produce a caricature of the "prophet", if only turbaned stick-man,with his name written under it. These people should be shown decisively just how far their writ will be allowed to run (solely within the borders of their own assorted dysfunctional and intolerant states). What happened to the website where you could post your own picture of the ideal man and an example for all time?

Posted by: wallyUK at April 1, 2007 12:02 PM

The U.S> should let them pass this resolution on one condition:

They have to name any one single instance of genocide, invasion or other severe human rights violation they succesfully prevented. From Biafra to Cambodia to Bangladesh to Sudan to the Congo to Vietnam to Rwanda to East Timor to Algeria the examples of violations they clould have and were supposed to at least ry to prevent. And Bosnia doesn't count; there the presence of the U.N. in support of Al-Qeada loving Izetbegovic made things worse.

If they can do it, and only it they can do it, they can pass the resolution. In other words, it ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: maxwell46&2 at April 1, 2007 12:25 PM

I hope we all agree that it is a fundamental human right of mine and yours that none shall mock our Identity (meaning religion). It is the same as racism.

Posted by: Abdullah at April 1, 2007 12:26 PM

Here's a flow chart of islamic "argumentation". It's an instruction set on how to counter arguments against their Satan's Bible - the KKKoran:

[if you can read german, have a look]

http://bp1.blogger.com/_5mfXvFdGiqg/RgaV5FfJeeI/AAAAAAAAAFE/ujl8wwneYR0/s1600-h/dhimmi_leitfaden.jpg

Posted by: Allahfanculo at April 1, 2007 12:35 PM

I hope we all agree that it is a fundamental human right of mine and yours that none shall mock our Identity (meaning religion). It is the same as racism.

Posted by: Abdull

Dear Abby,

Your presence in Europe mocks the Identity of all Europeans. Therefore you are the racist.

Q.E.D.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at April 1, 2007 12:37 PM

My presence in Europe mocks european Identity? loool Give me more laughs. My mother was a european as far as humanity can look back.

Don't think we don't know those who hate Islam. It is the Jews and the pagans who hate Islam the most. Those closest to the believers in friendship are those who say, 'we are christians'

Among the christians are also some (a few) who turn to the Jews looking for friendship and alliance against the truth. Tony Blair comes to mind

Posted by: Abdullah at April 1, 2007 12:50 PM

Stay or go?

At what point does the tedium and the idiocy on display outweigh the continued value to Infidels of this particular specimen or, put wit-whitmanly, as speciman daze?

Posted by: Hugh at April 1, 2007 12:58 PM

I vote stay.

Hugh, you could easily dissect his contradictions above with eloquence.

For me, less eloquent:

Abdullah, look in the mirror, you are a congenital racist. Jews do this, pagans do that, Christians do this other. YOU are a racist and a pathetic vehicle to be begging for tolerance.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at April 1, 2007 1:02 PM

abdullah

"I hope we all agree that it is a fundamental human right of mine and yours that none shall mock our Identity (meaning religion)."

islam is a religion?

s##t last time i checked i thought that the koran was a guide on how to start wars, rape, kill jews, refer to non muslims in a racist manner and call them pigs and dogs, plunder and how to have sex with little girls!

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at April 1, 2007 1:13 PM

The good thing is that the UN is completely worthless and ineffective, and is therefore unable to actually enforce this resolution. Or perhaps not: this is, after all, something that many countries actually desire, and will enthusiastically enforce if given the chance.

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at April 1, 2007 1:14 PM

Their next resolutions will declare:

"Ignorance is a form of intelligence",

"Blindness is an aspect of vision",

and "Lunacy is a kind of sanity".

Their useful idiot lemming allies (Russia, China, etc.) rush toward the cliff of Sharia Law, thinking to hurt the West.

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 1, 2007 1:36 PM

A blessed Palm Sunday to you all, including you Abdullah. As the real God and His Son love you despite your allegiance to an evil cause.

OT two items:
One; shooting in Atlanta mall last night. Two or three perps. shot people in a Jewelry store the only info available is that they fled in a Ford Explorer SUV. Notice anything funny? Jewelry stores routinely have Surveillance cameras. No images of perps have been shown also no info is available on who or what they are looking for. No descriptions at all, I guess there were no witnesses. Oh wait, someone saw their car, but NOT them. If they were white Baptists their pictures would be all over the news.

Two: There is an AP story that Nancy Pelosi is carrying a statement to Syria from ISRAEL!
"that the country must stop supporting Palestinian militants before Israel will engage in peace talks," from AP
Am I in the Twilight Zone?

And Hugh, maybe we could warn Abdullah that phony history will not be tolerated. For some reason, I find that very offensive.
I suppose now the phony history of the North American Continent will give them the right to reclaim.

Posted by: auntbea at April 1, 2007 2:04 PM

Great! Let's get an security council resolution condemning the legal statutes of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. for violating it.

Posted by: mountainecho at April 1, 2007 2:06 PM

The resolution "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations." Perhaps, then, they should tell off that naughty Mr Bin Laden who said:

"We should fully understand our religion. Fighting is a part of our religion and our Sharia"

"We--with God's help--call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it".

We are seeking to incite the nation to rise up to liberate its land and to (conduct) jihad for the sake of God."

"Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God".

If these (and plenty of others like it) do not clearly identify Islam with violence, I don't know what does.

Posted by: Paul at April 1, 2007 2:34 PM

Wow. The Scientologists must be elated.

At some point, political correctness will result in something so absolutely ridiculous that the whole thing will start to fall apart. That move will be something like this, where it will be so clear that the PC mentality has given a free pass to a group who will use the cover to advance everything that affronts all of what humanity holds dear.

Will this measure halt blood libel in the Middle East? Will it put an end to talk of "apes and pigs?" Will Christians be allowed into Mecca?

Posted by: Greek Fire at April 1, 2007 3:02 PM

Hugh:

Please, I am begging you. I vote GO. The tedium is unbearable and ruins every single thread with ignorance and inanities.

Pretty please?

Posted by: CGW at April 1, 2007 5:32 PM

It makes no mention of any other religion besides Islam, but urges countries "to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement and religious hatred, hostility, or violence."

I wonder if those 17 Islamic countries know that, according to the wording of this statement, they are all almost certainly in violation of the resolution, at a level that can almost certainly be demonstrated in court.

I would advise anyone onsite with deep pockets (at JihadWatch? If only!) and anyone with some expertise in International Law to get together and work out:

a) Exactly what it will take to bring charges and action against a nation under this resolution

b) Complete documentation of clear violations by each of the Islamic signatories to the declaration

c) preparation for a legal team of volunteers and professionals prepared to take serious action through National or International courts against these countries the moment this resolution is ratified in the General Assembly.

While the law is not consistent with already established standards of Free Speech, it is not a particularly bad law (I can think of worse) if it can be applied evenly, though it is quite egregious that it contains explicity wording that appears to indicate that it is not intended to be -- all the more reason to test it right away.

I really don't think these countries understand what it will take to play on a field in which tolerance is a basic rule. The west can live with enforced tolerance -- it's basically what we do. But can Saudi, Iran or Palestine?

I'd start with the Palestinian Authority and Saudi -- one needn't go farther than the textbooks published by their respective ministries of education.

Let them try to keep changing the rules. The tolerance cat was out of the bag over 200 years ago, during the European enlightenment. You cannot enforce laws that make demonstrable truths into slander or libel, but if an antidefamation law has any teeth, it should first bite those who cannot breath anything but hatred, lies and discrimination.

C'mon guys, prove to us that lawyers are really worth something after all.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at April 1, 2007 5:47 PM

Hugh

I vote Stay. The very value to this site is the tedium and the idiocy on display. The only reason to ban him would be if he turned out to be a fellow Infidel pulling our legs.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 1, 2007 7:48 PM

Hmmmm...

Hugh, I'm inclined to vote GO.

The threads that the troll visits tend to get caught up in the troll's inanities. Even caught me once.

True, it is an inspiration to polemics, but really, how much extra inspiration does one need?

Of course there is the value as a specimen. But I suppose one wants some variety in specimens. Once a mohammedan troll has displayed all if his/its scales, what is the value in a continued presence?

Surely a new one will come along.

Now that I think of it, it might be of value to ocassionally post an item from one of the jihaddi websites or an item from MEMRI from one of their public voices.

But I can't see much value in keeping one particular pet troll for more than just so long.

They are pretty offensive.

Posted by: joeblough at April 1, 2007 11:18 PM

Hugh, please let Abdullah the retard and Naseem the gadhi (female donkey in Hindi/Urdu) stay on the boards. I could use the laugh and for newcomers, those two idiots serve as case studies for what you and Robert talk about.

Slightly OT but I wanted to share this: I finally had the guts to take two Qu'rans off the top shelves and put them on the floor in my local library (San Francisco). In response to this stupid UN resolution. I don't have the talent to draw, so cartoons are out of the picture. So I did the least I could in a short period of time (I was in a rush). I should have stepped on it and torn a few pages out. But it's baby steps. Baby steps.

Posted by: wrathofasma at April 1, 2007 11:38 PM

hope we all agree that it is a fundamental human right of mine and yours that none shall mock our Identity (meaning religion). It is the same as racism.

Posted by: Abdullah at April 1, 2007 12:26 PM

Keep hoping abdullah. My religion is mocked, lambasted, ridiculed, defamed, and blamed for every problem in the world, past and present, by pompous atheist boors, college professors, elitist, secular pseudo-intellectuals, and a host of other "experts." They've captured a passive scapegoat. But my religion has been around much longer than yours and has consistently demonstrated that it can weather any storm and emerge even stronger. You can argue with ignorance all day, but you'll never win. If islam was a strong and confident faith, it wouldn't teeter on the verge of collapse every time someone points out that it is a savage, malevolent death cult practiced by primitive rejects from civilization, or every time someone says "boo" to islamic "sensitivities." I'm fed up to my eyeballs with islamic "sensitivities."

The fact that islam is your "identity" makes you a dangerous fanatic, a rabid megalomaniac, an advocate of totalitarianism. You can't say that about me because my co-religionists do not commit mass murder indiscriminately in the name of God; they do not consider Jews to be the descendants of apes and pigs; they do not have ambitions of world domination; they do not consider themselves superior to all other people; they do not intend to forcibly convert the entire world. Since your "identity" makes you a threat to all civilized and peaceful people, I can say whatever I want to say about your religion with absolutely no compunction whatsoever. Get used to it. And FYI, it has NOTHING to do with racism and everything to do with survival. Your race card is about used up, but nice try.

Posted by: Susanp at April 1, 2007 11:46 PM

"I'm sure some observant mind (maybe Orwell) has identified the phenomenon of the perpetrator accusing the victim of exactly the crime he is in the process of committing -- "

It's called projection, a well-known phenomenon in psychology.

People who practice it have often been subject to that behaviour in the past and until they can deal with it on a conscious emotional level, often replay it in real life on others, fuelled by their subconscious. It generally comes from a trauma and until the original trauma is resolved it does not go away. In the case of Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein etc, it is very dangerous, especially when the surrounding society supports it. This is just one cause, of course, very basically expressed.
Politically it's very effective because it short-circuits effective retaliation and confuses the issues at hand.

It is typical of narcissists (see, among other writers, Sam Vaknin).

There's an Australian book called Working With Monsters that details how to cope with this sort of thing at work, but it takes a hell of a lot of work...

Posted by: carpediadem at April 2, 2007 1:09 AM

Nice quote tvdog! Well observed!

Posted by: carpediadem at April 2, 2007 1:09 AM

Actually Abdullah, there is no fundamental human right against being mocked. Insult and sarcasm have formed part of human rhetoric ever since ...well, the beginning I suppose.

It's not always very nice to be on the receiving end of course, and so, I suggest two things:

-hang around polite people.

-Get rid of every bit of mockery, propaganda and insult Islamist have used and expressed against Jews.

Set the example Abdullah! May the force be with you!

Posted by: carpediadem at April 2, 2007 1:20 AM

"Don't think we don't know those who hate Islam. It is the Jews and the pagans who hate Islam the most. ...- Abdullah."

*sigh* i thought so...

Abdullah, most Jews couldn't give a flying f*** about Islam except insofar as it represents a threat to their lives, rather like termites in a house.

You guys aren't THAT interesting!!

Posted by: carpediadem at April 2, 2007 1:22 AM

Christian and all other non-muslim where not allow entry into Mecca and Medine for over 1426 years bu Islamict Law and International Law. You cannot sue Islamist country under international law about allowing non-muslim missorian in as they donot want Christian inside they nation causeing touble.

Posted by: DefenderofIslam at April 2, 2007 1:38 AM

carpediadiem

Thanks for bringing that up. I used to read leftist publications like CounterPunch and I saw that all the time in the pro-Palestinian articles. They would have stories of Arab children walking to school and then Jewish settlers would come and attack them with chains. They also accuse the Jews (or Zionists as they refer to them) for wanting a Greater Israel, which is the same size of Greater Palestine (from the river to the sea, google it). They accuse Jews of having passages in the Talmud that say it is okay to have sex with young girls, that non-Jewish lives are worth nothing, that deception is permitted. Now I don't know what is in the Talmud (in fact, I think the so-called bad passages in the Talmud are fake. I am most likely correct), but doesn't that sound awfully familiar to you?

Posted by: wrathofasma at April 2, 2007 1:57 AM

joeblough said

The threads that the troll visits tend to get caught up in the troll's inanities.

True, but is that the troll's fault, or our fault? The troll's postings have their value. The thread-ending responses don't.

Posted by: special_guest at April 2, 2007 3:07 AM

"UN human rights council passes resolution opposing defamation of Islam"

Not surprisingly, the UN human rights council calls for the immediate detention without trial for those who defame Islam, followed by physical torture, and finally, forced conversion to Islam. Oh yes, and death to the Great Satan!

Posted by: special_guest at April 2, 2007 3:14 AM

"a "campaign" against Muslim minorities "

......what about the active ethnic cleansing of the NOn Muslim minorities being carried out in the Muslim controlled lands?......

...Ban Muslim immigration now....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 2, 2007 7:59 AM

This is what Multicultural political correctness produces.

If you have 47 nations in a council and many of them do not subscribe to Western notions of protected individual and minority rights.... it's no surprise that you'll get rulings like this.

The UN is a reflection of the standards it has in place. If we expect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be observed, then the UN needs to consist of member nations which can prove they honor its principles.

Having the Declaration but never having an accounting of member nations means the UN doesn't stand for those principles.

Do an accounting of every member nation using a third party auditor. Nations not in keeping with the Declaration will be put on notice until they meet the standards. If nations resist or refuse - their membership in the UN should be suspended until they come into compliance.

What good does it do to have a bunch of rouge nations in the UN? If they want the benefits they need to come into line. If they refuse or think the UN is 'western' and human rights are something 'western' then they should be suspended. Let them go their own way, but not with the support that access to the UN brings.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at April 2, 2007 9:59 AM