| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Recognizing the hazards Sharia law poses for freedom of conscience, and how insidiously it often advances under the guise of "human rights." "Islamic states seek world freedom curbs-humanists," by Robert Evans for Reuters:
GENEVA, March 12 (Reuters) - Islamic states are bidding to use the United Nations to limit freedom of expression and belief around the world, the global humanist body IHEU told the U.N.'s Human Rights Council on Wednesday.
In a statement submitted to the 48-nation Council, the IHEU said the 57 members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) were also aiming to undermine the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
"The Islamic states see human rights exclusively in Islamic terms, and by sheer weight of numbers this view is becoming dominant within the U.N. system. The implications for the universality of human rights are ominous," it said.
The statement from the IHEU, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, was issued as the U.N.'s special investigator on freedom of opinion and expression argued in a report that religions had no special protection under human rights law.
Ambeyi Ligabo, a Kenyan jurist, said in a report to the Council limitations on freedom of expression in international rights pacts "are not designed to protect belief systems from external or internal criticism." [...]
But this argument is rejected by Islamic states, who say outright criticism -- and especially lampooning -- of religion violates the rights of believers to enjoy respect.
The IHEU statement and Ligabo's report came against the background of mounting success by the OIC, currently holding a summit in Dakar, in achieving passage of U.N. resolutions against "defamation of religions."
Although several such resolutions have been adopted by the two-year-old Council and its predecessor since 1999, in December the U.N.'s General Assembly easily passed a similar one for the first time over mainly Western and Latin American opposition.
The OIC -- backed by allies in Africa and by Russia and Cuba -- has been pushing for stronger resolutions on "defamation" since a global controversy arose two years ago over cartoons in a Danish newspaper which Muslims say insult their religion.
The "defamation" issue has become especially sensitive this year as the U.N. prepares to celebrate in the autumn the 50th anniversary of the 1948 Universal Declaration, long seen as the bedrock of international human rights law and practice.
And that's silly, as it implies not being offended or insulted is a human right, making a mockery of a document designed to protect against the most grievous acts of violence and discrimination, many of which happen to be enshrined in Sharia law.
The OIC has been actively promoting its own 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which it argues is complementary to the Universal Declaration but which critics like the IHEU say negate it in many areas.
Universal Declaration: Coke Classic. Cairo Declaration: "New Coke."
Humanists, who include believers of many faiths supporting separation of religion and state as well as atheists and agnostics, say the "defamation" drive is part of an effort to extend the Cairo declaration to the international sphere.
The IHEU statement argued the December General Assembly resolution means states "may now legislate against any show of disrespect for religion, however they may choose to define 'disrespect'."
Posted by Marisol at March 13, 2008 12:08 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Cue claims in these comments of ulterior motives on the part of these humanists to undermine religion in general.
Posted by: non-croyant![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 13, 2008 12:50 AM
Non-croyant--
I don't think that's a given. If anything, a comment like that only invites contentious discussion along those lines.
And it wouldn't make sense, since, as the article notes that Humanists:
include believers of many faiths supporting separation of religion and state as well as atheists and agnostics...
So the thread certainly need not go in that direction.
Posted by: MarisolJW at March 13, 2008 1:22 AM
Since when did Cuba get into the defense of Islam business? What's in it for them - I thought it was Hugo Chavez who finances them, not Crown Price Bandar or Ahmadinezad or Karzai or Musharraf.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 13, 2008 1:22 AM
The International Humanist and Ethical Union is a group of the non-religious (agnostics, atheists) whose members, it appears, clearly recognize the meaning, and menace, of Islam.
Posted by: Hugh at March 13, 2008 1:24 AM
"Non-croyant--
I don't think that's a given. If anything, a comment like that only invites contentious discussion along those lines."
One would think. But my comment was based on related prior experience:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=29254_OIC-_Islamophobia_Causes_Terrorism#comments
Comment #16
Posted by: non-croyant at March 13, 2008 1:31 AM
non-croyant: Human rights are anti-tithical to liberty? I think not.
Posted by: Voltaire at March 13, 2008 2:07 AM
David Littman has been watching this phenomenon and writing and warning for many years
in 1999
http://www.meforum.org/article/477
In recent years, representatives of some Muslim states have demanded, and often received, special treatment at the United Nations mostly via the Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). As a result, non-diplomatic terms such as "blasphemy" and defamation of Islam" have seeped into the United Nations system, leading to a situation in which non-Muslim governments accept certain rules of conduct in conformity with Islamic law (the Shari`a) and acquiesce to a self-imposed silence regarding topics touching on Islam. This pattern of behavior has emerged with regard to a host of issues—Salman Rushdie, Muslim antisemitism, Islamic alternatives to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), a "defamation of Islam" resolution, and the actions of the Sudanese government.
Posted by: ploome at March 13, 2008 3:19 AM
Just as no western nation should permit dual legalisms - national law/sharia courts, neither should there be dual human rights charters. Sharia courts & Cairo Declaration simply force everything to be viewed through the Islamic prism of tolerance.
The Arab Charter on Human Rights “entered into force” by the United Nations on March 15, 2008.
Arab Charter of Human Rights/Cairo Declaration = The Tandem Project clearly fails it's own objective, as anyone understanding the supremacist nature of Islam can see . . .
GOAL:To Eliminate ALL Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
I hope Geert Wilders releases FITNA before the UN engages with this nonsense. The UN was unsuccessful in their bid to take control of the internet, and the 56 member of the OIC will use any backdoor approach they can get their greasy hands on to censor any threat to their influence.
Posted by: miira at March 13, 2008 7:35 AM
Human rights are essentially the rights of an individual against collective power (and in the modern west that has usually meant the state). The idea that any institution is granted a pass on human rights goes against the entire idea of human rights as previously thought.
Posted by: Jerry M at March 13, 2008 8:26 AM
I've just quickly read over this Cairo Declaration of "Human Rights" in Islam, which as you can imagine is a rather frightening document. (I can say that it is actually even worse than I had imagined.) The idea that anyone could seriously advocate replacing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with this repulsive document beggars belief. You can read it for youself here: http://religlaw.org/interdocs/docs/cairohrislam1990.htm Here are a few excerpts:
Article 1 (a) : All human beings form one family whose members are united by submission to God and descent from Adam. All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, language, sex, religious belief, political affiliation, social status or other considerations.
Notice that "all human beings form one family" but that "all men" are equal.
Article 2(a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to protect this right from any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari’ah-prescribed reason.
In other words, it is ok to kill apostates, adulterers and homosexuals.
Article 5 (a) The family is the foundation of society, and marriage is the basis of its formation. Men and women have the right to marriage, and no restrictions stemming from race, colour or nationality shall prevent them from enjoying this right.
But apparently restrictions stemming from religion shall prevent them from enjoying this right!
Article 6 (a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage.
But will these rights be the same as the rights accorded to men? As for retaining one's maiden name, who cares? In my (European) country, all women legally retain their maiden names (passports, ID cards, etc...are not changed, although many women use their husbands surnames socially) because it is easier on an administrative level. I won't have to change the name on my passport when I get married, so that is one less hassle, but it's not really a huge issue either way.
Article 9 (a) The quest for knowledge is an obligation, and the provision of education is a duty for society and the State. The State shall ensure the availability of ways and means to acquire education and shall guarantee educational diversity in the interest of society so as to enable man to be acquainted with the religion of Islam and the facts of the Universe for the benefit of mankind.
And what about the freedom to ask questions and to challenge? "So as to enable man to be acquainted with the religion of Islam..." Need I say more?
Article 10 Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism.
Article 12 Every man shall have the right, within the framework of Shari’ah, to free movement and to select his place of residence whether inside or outside his country and, if persecuted, is entitled to seek asylum in another country. The country of refuge shall ensure his protection until he reaches safety, unless asylum is motivated by an act which Shari’ah regards as a crime.
Article 16 Everyone shall have the right to enjoy the fruits of his scientific, literary, artistic or technical production and the right to protect the moral and material interests stemming therefrom, provided that such production is not contrary to the principles of Shari’ah.
Article 17 (a) Everyone shall have the right to live in a clean environment, away from vice and moral corruption, an environment that would foster his self-development; and it is incumbent upon the State and society in general to afford that right.
Article 19 (d) There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah.
Article 22
(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.
(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.
(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.
Article 24 All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.
Article 25 The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.
Posted by: margheri at March 13, 2008 9:11 AM
Humans rights before Islam is like pearls before swine. Anyone who confuses human rights with backwards relgious superstitions like the rage against some cartoons automatical shows complete ignorance of human rights. Besides, since when did Islam show any respect towards any other religions, starting with the Jews?
Posted by: Dumbo at March 13, 2008 9:57 AM
Most people don't even know that this Islamic declaration on human rights exists, and if they do know about it, they probably aren't aware of its contents. People need to be made aware. Concerned individuals should contact the UN to make their opinions regarding this atrocious document known.
Posted by: margheri at March 13, 2008 10:17 AM
"Universal Declaration: Coke Classic. Cairo Declaration: 'New Coke.'"
Not exactly - it's this:
Universal Declaration: Grape Kool Aid.
Cairo Declaration: "Jonestown Tea."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
Although Wiki states that the poison did not use KoolAid, that might be a Kraft Foods denial just like Coca Cola once denied that Coke originally contained cocaine.
Posted by: Pelayo at March 13, 2008 11:14 AM
Revised UN bullet reveals progress toward "Progress":
Tax you
End private ownership of guns
End freedom of speech, starting with religion
Enforce global warming doctrine as religion
End freedom
Put your cold, silent, broke, un-armed butt in a burka.
Tax you
at March 13, 2008 11:28 AM
"UN bullet" should have been "UN bullet chart". But you get the idea.
Posted by: RalphInfidel at March 13, 2008 11:31 AM
Has anyone ever written to a mosque (or other Islamic organisation or school, etc...) in their area regarding this declaration, specifically outlining the objectionable articles, and asking the organisation for their stand on the declaration?
Have major Islamic organisations operating in Western countries made public their support or non-support of the declaration? If not, have they been asked to state their opinion?
Posted by: margheri at March 13, 2008 11:38 AM
Too bad Koranist nations can't be kicked out of the UN-they would then be free to follow their own human rights charter without the rest of us having to worry as much about them foisting their version on the whole world.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at March 13, 2008 11:48 AM
In the December 2007 vote referred to in the text, the UN General Assembly passed a Pakistan-proposed resolution against “religious defamation”, which also expressed concern about laws that have led to “religious discrimination” and profiling since 9/11. Without any sense of the irony of its wording, the resolution urges:
"States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance."
Full text of the draft resolution, in different languages, is linked below (just click on the language you require). I warn you, don’t read it if you have high blood pressure or a history of heart disease - the hypocrisy is appalling.
http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A/C.3/62/L.35
The General Assembly vote went 108-51 in favour of the resolution, with 25 abstentions. So you can see just who's defending freedom, and who detests it, here’s how the voting went:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against:Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstain:Argentina, Armenia, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mexico, Mongolia, Nepal, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, United Republic of Tanzania.
Absent:Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Nauru, Seychelles, Tonga.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10678.doc.htm
Posted by: Matamoros at March 13, 2008 11:54 AM
Infidel Pride:
"Since when did Cuba get into the defense of Islam business? What's in it for them..."
Cuba isn't so much interested in defending Islam as it is in blocking pro-human rights resolutions. A member of the UN’s Human Rights Council, it votes en bloc with the members from the OIC states and Russia, China and the various African despotisms, to stymie any and all resolutions that would defend human rights and promote freedoms in their countries.
The Human Rights Council is a very poor joke. It held its first meeting in June 2006. By April 2007 it had passed NINE resolutions condemning Israel - one of only two countries the council has specifically condemned (the other being Burma - censured just once). In contrast, it has only expressed “deep concern” over the genocide in Darfur.
Stop Press: On March 6th 2008, during its current sitting, the Council adopted its SIXTEENTH censure of Israel.
http://blog.unwatch.org/?p=116
Posted by: Matamoros at March 13, 2008 12:03 PM
This Cairo declaration of 'human rights' is nothing but imposition of repressive Sharia law universally on the planet:
Article 22-Posted by: margheri
(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.
(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.
(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.
Article 24 All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.
Article 25 The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.
These articles say it all. Accept Sharia or else. This is not Human Rights but the elevation of Sharia AGAINST our human rights. Is the UN clueless as to what this really means? It is a universal declaration by Islamists on the end of human freedoms! Pure tyranny of Mo's barbaric book of Allah.
at March 13, 2008 12:17 PM
Given Pakistan's purported concern for religious diversity and persecution of religious minorities around the world, as stated in the draft, I trust that the Pakistani government is setting a shining example for the rest of the world by doing all it can to combat the discrimination and violence that religious minorities (Christians, Ahmadiyya Muslims, etc...)in Pakistan face on a daily basis.
Posted by: margheri at March 13, 2008 12:30 PM
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.Looking at how the UN vote went, it looks like ALL the world’s tyrannies, especially the Ummah states, voted in favor of this non-human rights resolution. Only Thailand and Costa Rica stand out as out of place. Why would they vote for this Islamic piece of garbage? Our Freedoms, the real Human Rights, are NOT UP TO A VOTE!
Anyway, the Ummah states should only be give ONE collective vote, since they'r voting for Sharia law.
at March 13, 2008 1:29 PM
Battle_of_Tours:
“Looking at how the UN vote went, it looks like ALL the world’s tyrannies, especially the Ummah states, voted in favor of this non-human rights resolution. Only Thailand and Costa Rica stand out as out of place.”
The tyrannies do vote en bloc with the OIC states against every pro-human rights resolution, so it’s probably just a case of maintaining alliances. What was odd, to me, was that all the Caribbean countries voted in favour of it too, along with the less developed Latin American nations.
The votes against came almost entirely from the secular liberal democracies. What you could term, despite their geographical situation, “the West”.
The abstains are interesting too. A lot of proto-secularists; countries that maintain a secular front, but are either divided on religious lines - India, Nigeria - or else have strong religious movements in them: Armenia, the Latin Catholic countries.
I guess it supports Samuel Huntingdon’s Clash of Civilizations theory of a world aligning itself along cultural lines. “Vote with your neighbour” certainly seems to be the norm, which proves that you can learn all you need to know about the workings of the United Nations from watching the Eurovision Song Contest.
at March 13, 2008 2:38 PM
This piece kind of caught my eye:
Ambeyi Ligabo, a Kenyan jurist, said in a report to the Council limitations on freedom of expression in international rights pacts "are not designed to protect belief systems from external or internal criticism." [...]What do they mean by “outright criticism -- and especially lampooning -- of religion violates the rights of believers to enjoy respect” really mean? Should not ‘respect’ be something that is earned? What has Islam done of late, or ever, to ‘earn’ our respect? In fact, the opposite is true, that they had done everything possible to earn our ‘contempt’. From 'honor' killings of women, to 'death for apostasy', to killings Christian priests and Bishops, beheading little girls on the way to Christian school, to draconian Sharia punishments, to calling for death of all Jews; all these things are grossly contemptible.
But this argument is rejected by Islamic states, who say outright criticism -- and especially lampooning -- of religion violates the rights of believers to enjoy respect.
Their Sharia is the most contemptible piece of political jurisprudence known to mankind, one that subverts our freedoms to slavery to their evil pagan god, the unreasonable and unredeemable Mohammed’s Allah. This is not a criticism of a religion but against a tyrannical and oppressive political sect based on a religio-cult of Mohammedism. We are fully within our rights to question and criticize this evil cult’s ambitions of world domination with its supremacist, and tyrannical, theocratic political ideology. If Islam wants our respect, it had better get on the stick and earn it. And it will not earn respect by voting for Sharia against our Human Rights. Sharia is to be abolished. Our rights of freedom are more important than their self-imposed restrictions on 'criticism' of their precious Mohammed. Off with this evil political cult.
at March 13, 2008 3:48 PM
Islamic involvement in human rights legislation worldwide should be regarded with suspicion because Islam has only ONE human right: the right to be tyrannized by moon-idol propaganda from hell.
Posted by: pythagoras at March 13, 2008 3:55 PM
Thank you margheri for the link to the Cairo "Declaration of Universal Right to Submit to Sharia", and to those who commented on it.
But I think the original Universal Declaration of Human Rights has a problem as well. It mandates that all religions be treated as equals, without any reference to what the beliefs are of the religion. Huitzilopochtli, the Aztec god of war and human sacrifice, is equivalent to Kama, the Hindu god of sensual love. Allah, the Muslim god of war and mental and physical slavery, is equivalent to the Christian god of tolerance and forgiveness. The UN agrees with George Bush that all religions are the same, praying to one god is the same as praying to any other god.
If a religion mandates war against non-believers everywhere in the universe, for all time, until they submit and convert; if it codifies the second-class status of women as fields to be tilled by their husband; if it justifies child rape and sexual slavery; if it divides the world into believers and non-believers and encourages deception when dealing with non-believers; in summary, if the religion breaks every single one of the clauses in the Univeral Declaration of Human Rights, that is irrelevant, because all religions are equal, and must be treated exactly the same.
at March 13, 2008 5:48 PM
Marisol said
And that's silly, as it implies not being offended or insulted is a human right, making a mockery of a document designed to protect against the most grievous acts of violence and discrimination, many of which happen to be enshrined in Sharia law.
The UDHR is meant to protect against another Holocaust, but is used by the Muslims to stop the publishing of cartoons, or the making of a movie, that they don't like. And meanwhile, by the way, another genocide is occurring in Darfur, committed by Muslims, with barely a peep out of that noble institution, that League of United Nations.
I understand, in 1948, why the clause about religion came about, and what it is meant to do. It is not meant to justify a plan-for-world-domination disguised as a "religion" to break every clause of the UDHR. Hence, article 30, which is something, but not nearly enough by itself:
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
While the UN may have been created with noble ideals, the reality can only be described as excremental. Anything coming out of this anti-democratic (where Saudi Arabia and Pakistan can outvote the U.S. in regards to womens' rights, and where Syria can head up the Human Rights Commission) fraternity of antisemites, must be held up to very hard scrutiny.
Posted by: special_guest at March 13, 2008 6:22 PM
While the UN may have been created with noble ideals, the reality can only be described as excremental. Anything coming out of this anti-democratic (where Saudi Arabia and Pakistan can outvote the U.S. in regards to womens' rights, and where Syria can head up the Human Rights Commission) fraternity of antisemites, must be held up to very hard scrutiny.- Posted by: special_guest
Bravo! Slavery is not equal to freedom.
Well said special_guest, and bravo for your above posts.
Will Mohammedans ever understand this? Not in this life.
at March 13, 2008 7:03 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)