| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
So said a representative of Pakistan at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on March 13, 2008.
In a follow up to IHEU's written statement to the UN Human Rights Council describing Islamic efforts to undermine the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Roy Brown, IHEU's main representative at the UN in Geneva, prepared an oral statement for Council debate on 13 March but was prevented from giving it in full because of repeated objections from two Islamic delegations.
The prepared statement:
"Attempts to restrict freedom of expression and other human rights"Mr President,
On Human Rights Day, 10 December 2007, the permanent representative of Pakistan, addressing the Human Rights Council on behalf of the OIC, [the 56 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference] spoke glowingly of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, noting the contribution made to its creation and to the two international covenants by many Muslim countries. He went on to state that the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is "not an alternative, competing worldview on human rights. It complements the Universal Declaration as it addresses religious and cultural specificity of the Muslim countries". He also stated that the OIC is considering the creation of an Islamic Charter on Human Rights in accordance with the provisions of the Cairo Declaration. [First interruption]
But, Mr President, it is difficult to see how the Cairo Declaration be considered complementary to the 1948 Universal Declaration. It makes no reference to the Universal Declaration, whilst Articles 24 and 25 of the Cairo Declaration explicitly state that:
[Second interruption]
"All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah", and: "The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration."
But under Shari'ah law, Muslim women and non-Muslims are not accorded equal treatment with Muslim men. The Shari'ah, therefore, fails to honour the right to equality guaranteed under the UDHR and the international covenants, and denies the full enjoyment of their human rights to those living in States which follow Shari'ah law.
[Third and fourth interruptions – as a result of which, and following the President's comments, Brown felt obliged to skip the next two paragraphs and move straight to his concluding sentence]
Regarding freedom of expression, the Cairo Declaration makes clear that whilst information is vital it may not be used "to weaken faith". Article 22 states that:
(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 [inter alia] harm society or weaken its faith.This, Mr President, restricts freedom of expression and elevates faith above human rights.
[Statement continued here]
We urge States to consider very carefully the negative implications for the universality of human rights, and of the derogation from the international covenants, implicit in the Cairo Declaration and the plans of the OIC.
Thank you, sir.
Points of Order
The first interruption on a "point of order" came from the Egyptian delegate who objected to any mention of the Islamic Charter of Human Rights because, he said, he was unable to find any mention of this matter on the agenda. (Hardly surprising since this was a general debate on the promotion and protection of human rights). The chairman over-ruled this objection but Brown was interrupted again within seconds, this time for having moved on to discussing the Cairo Declaration. He did not think it was open to reconsider documents adopted in 1999. The president responded by pointing out that we constantly refer to the Universal Declaration adopted 60 years ago and we do not have any objections to doing so. He suggested that the argument used "was in need of being reconsidered" and again asked Brown to continue. But within seconds Brown was interrupted yet again, this time by both the Egyptian and Pakistani delegates. The Pakistani said "we are not discussing here the Islamic Sharia". It is a controversial subject - the balance between freedom of expression and freedom of religion. We are still discussing it in informal session. "It is insulting for our faith to discuss Shari'ah here in this forum". The Egyptian representative then stated that "Sharia is not under discussion here and I do not believe it is a document that should be discussed in the Human Rights Council." The president expressed himself to be fully aware of the informal consultations that were going on, but took the point of the Egyptian representative regarding the Sharia law and asked that the NGO should refrain from making judgements or evaluations on this particular "court of legislation" and to "revert to statements made in this room on other issues". Brown then saw no option but to skip the next part of his statement, saying: "Thank you, Mr President. I was attempting to speak in the context of potential restrictions on freedom of expression which have been discussed in this room. But I will move forward and merely suggest, indeed urge States to consider very carefully the negative implications for the universality of human rights, and the derogation from the international covenants, which are implicit in the Cairo Declaration and the plans of the OIC. Thank you Sir."
You can see the whole sorry event on YouTube.
Negative consequences
Continuing interruptions have a negative effect on any statement because the audience quickly becomes absorbed by the interruptions, and both speaker and audience can quickly lose track of the speaker's argument. Worse, the speaker is often reduced to simply stating his main conclusion without being able to provide his supporting evidence. In this case, without the benefit of the quotations from the Cairo Declaration, a well-reasoned argument was reduced to sounding like mere polemics. Objections also act as a warning to others against raising sensitive issues and have a chilling effect on those who might wish to cover similar ground. No doubt all of these effects are well understood by the Islamic delegates.
More worrying still are the implications for rational discussion of Islamic interpretations of human rights. Any criticism, indeed, any discussion of Shari'ah law at the Human Rights Council is now considered an "insult to Islam". The problem is the extremely close relationship between Islam as a religion, and Sharia which, although a system of law, holds a central position in that faith. The continuing efforts by the Islamic states at the Human Rights Council, in the UN General Assembly and elsewhere to silence "defamation" of religion can be seen in this context. Should these efforts succeed, any criticism of the Shari'ah, of its entrenched inequalities or brutal punishments will be condemned as defamation of Islam. Rational discussion – indeed any mention of the Shari'ah – will have become impossible.
For the time being, then, the Islamic States can continue to pretend that Islamic declarations of human rights are compatible with international standards. But that claim should seen for what it is.
"When we want to know about human rights we do not go to the UN, we go to the Holy Qur'an". Ayatollah Khomeni.
The continuing struggle
Unwelcome though censorship at the Human Rights Council might be, it was not entirely unexpected following the extensive coverage of IHEU's written statement in the media during the preceding 24 hours. The report by Reuters, for example, had been widely read.
Brown believes the whole incident was an ambush. "No doubt forewarned by our written statement they decided to stop us. But IHEU will continue to campaign at the UN and elsewhere for the human rights of all people, and against any attempt to weaken or undermine them."
IHEU, Geneva 14 March 2008
Posted by Robert at March 21, 2008 8:25 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Please keep fighting the good fight.
Posted by: Abu_Lahab![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 21, 2008 9:02 AM
The page to which you have linked on the IHEU site is now "page not found."
Posted by: Pilgrim at March 21, 2008 9:56 AM
As John Wayne would say, Try it now, Pilgrim.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 21, 2008 9:58 AM
Should these efforts succeed, any criticism of the Shari'ah, of its entrenched inequalities or brutal punishments will be condemned as defamation of Islam. Rational discussion – indeed any mention of the Shari'ah – will have become impossible.By George... Posted by: Beagle
at March 21, 2008 9:59 AM
If the UN Human Rights Council itself becomes an obstacle to freedom of expression and to true freedom of religion, which includes the right to dissent as well as the right to assent, then bypass it it--the battle should be waged both within and without the UN.
Posted by: John C at March 21, 2008 10:19 AM
The link works fine now. That kinda ruins all my conspiracy and cover-up theories. Oh, well.
Thanks, marshal.
Posted by: Pilgrim at March 21, 2008 10:24 AM
Shar'ia Law - oxymoron.
Posted by: tanstaafl at March 21, 2008 10:39 AM
Freedom or servitude?
Liberty or lickspittle?
Human rights or despotic dictates?
There can be no compromise with tyranny.
Posted by: profitsbeard at March 21, 2008 10:42 AM
This is a vivid display of the ruinous affect Muslims exert on the proper functioning of Western institutions. They are enemies of the premise on which such institutions are founded. As imperfect and innefectual as UN institutions clearly are, they are horribly made more so by the presence of Muslims.
If their motive is to practice spread Islam or the tenets of Shari'a in the West, then Muslims don't belong here. They are not participants in our pluralistic democracy, but gate crashers, undesirable invaders.
Islam is ultimately inimical to the freedoms, privileges, and rights we've fought and died for. It is a grave and catastrophic error to continue to allow Muslims to exploit and parasitize these freedoms, privileges, and rights to promulgate Islam in the West. We gravely betray our legacy in the West by permitting it to continue.
Posted by: jsla at March 21, 2008 10:52 AM
Very interesting. In fact, Egyptian and Pakistani were using protocol of the UN GA to enforce their Sharia rules over the same. Note what they said: "it is insulting for our faith to discuss Shari'ah here in this forum". "Insulting to our faith" here means "against Sharia" (Robert can probably provide a quote where it is forbidden for infidels to discuss about Sharia), so he is in fact using Sharia law as an argument in the UN GA! And he almost succeeded in silencing the speaker. This clearly shows and proves how our system is vulnerable to all forms of Jihad.
The president should have said - "We don't care about what is insulting to your faith. We follow the rules of the UN GA here, not the rules of your faith." But, dhimminitude seems to be in western genes.
Happy Easter, He is Risen!
Posted by: LazarOfSerbia at March 21, 2008 10:57 AM
Sharia is garbage. End of discussion.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at March 21, 2008 10:59 AM
Happy Easter, He is Risen!
Posted by: LazarOfSerbia
The orthodox calendar must be ahead of the catholic one by two days ;-)
Posted by: FreeSpeech at March 21, 2008 11:31 AM
I'm just trying to compensate the difference :)
Posted by: LazarOfSerbia at March 21, 2008 12:31 PM
It complements the Universal Declaration as it addresses religious and cultural specificity of the Muslim countries
the only problem is because we are infidels they dont consider us to be human so no human rights
at March 21, 2008 12:46 PM
Are Robert’s Rules of Order consistent with Sharia? If not, the interruptions by the Muslim representatives are moot.
Posted by: skevin at March 21, 2008 1:41 PM
For future reference - the IHEU (International Humanist and Ethical Union) is not a UN agency.
This is from their webpage:
"IHEU is the world union of over 100 Humanist, rationalist, secular, ethical culture, atheist and freethought organizations in more than 40 countries. Our mission is to represent and support the global Humanist movement. Our goal is a Humanist world in which human rights are respected and all can live a life of dignity.
They are fighting the fight in absence of any religious affiliation.
PLEASE NOTICE THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE ATHEISTS!!!!!
SoteriA and others, do they have your support?
Posted by: Pelayo at March 21, 2008 2:00 PM
I support every civilized person in his fight against barbarians.
Posted by: LazarOfSerbia at March 21, 2008 3:04 PM
"It is insulting to our faith to discuss Sharia in this forum"
It seems there is no forum where discussing Islam in not 'insulting' to Islam. Like the boy in The Boy Who Cried Wolf, the village tires of the incessant outrage over insults.
Well, ok, it's really more like The Wolf Who Cried Waaa.
Wolves, for all their strength and ferocity, found that feeding off the work of others nearly led to their extinction.
----------------------------------------------
Posted by Pelayo:
PLEASE NOTICE THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE ATHEISTS!!!!!
SoteriA and others, do they have your support?
Under two conditions:
1) They demonstrate a willingness to distinguish between benign personal faith and religious supremacy movements.
2) They do not waste time and energy promoting the replacement of religious dogma that does not threaten my personal freedom with dogma of the state, simply because it is 'religious'.
(Sensitivity alert: if I were a deeply caring, and sensitive leftist atheist, I would now be obliged to be 'insulted', do some deep 'deconstruction' of "THESE PEOPLE", and proceed immediately into cardiac arrest over it. :-)))
at March 21, 2008 3:16 PM
Now they can get back to the important things in life like arresting women for wearing mascara.
Posted by: kafir world at March 21, 2008 3:18 PM
Ralph, I am one of those insensitive, conservative atheist no one ever hears about. However, we cannot allow our differences to get in the way of our survival.
By the way, could you help in the efforts to prevent this intelligent design idea from being forced into the public school science classroom? Thanks.
Posted by: Pelayo at March 21, 2008 5:12 PM
Muslims are bullies. Sharia is irrational tyranny.
Posted by: James Martel at March 21, 2008 6:30 PM
In fact, come to think of it, your existence is an insult to Islam...
Posted by: Stefcho at March 22, 2008 8:09 AM
Yes, I for one am quite aware they are atheists.
Posted by: Pilgrim at March 22, 2008 9:30 AM
Pelayo:
By the way, could you help in the efforts to prevent this intelligent design idea from being forced into the public school science classroom?
I'm not sure what you're looking for here, but I'll give you a quick summary of my thoughts and you tell me if I could help.
The intelligent design movement was apparently started by publication of Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, at least that's the claim in the jacket of his second book, The Edge of Evolution.
I didn't read his first book. I do have a copy of the second book but have only skimmed it. My first impression was: looking at problems posed to evolutionary theory by Steven Gould (punctuated equilibrium) and Behe's analysis of probability in random mutation, the press and Behe himself, have given up and taken the position that if current theory cannot completely explain evolution, no future modification or new theory can.
The biggest hole in Behe's argument is his failure to note that there are many examples in everyday life of the spontaneous organization of chaotic systems under nonequilibrium conditions (cloud formation, circulation cells in heated fluids, oscillating chemical reactions powered by an exernal heat source, whirlpools, etc...). These phenomenon call into question the assumption that one would have to wait until all possible genetic possibilities are tried before a useful mutation is happened upon. There are simple, but dramatic classroom demonstrations that could be developed based on these examples. Ilya Prigogine (1977 Nobel Prize in Chemistry) was an early writer on the subject in Order Out of Chaos and From Being to Becoming. Many more have extended his work since.
My approach would be to allow, not promote, allow for the existence of God and God's creation of evolutionary processes as a consequence of the laws governing the universe, however incompletely they are understood, and continue to study them as a science like every other field. In this view, the study of evolution should be no more threatening than the study of chemistry or celestial mechanics. The religious aspect could then be removed from the classroom and properly returned to the home and church.
For those who believe the universe is only ~6000 years old this approach will be unsatisfactory. But I think most people of faith will admit that the evidence that the universe is far older is overwhelming and comes from several different fields of science.
Having said all that, alerting people to the danger Islam poses to civilization, fundemental human liberty and dignity, and by extension intellectual inquiry is more pressing to me personally, as I am still waiting to be subdued by Christian 'extremists'.
at March 22, 2008 9:42 PM
"My approach would be to allow, not promote, allow for the existence of God and God's creation of evolutionary processes as a consequence of the laws governing the universe" - from above.
It is already allowed. The problem is that no-one can figure out a way to test the hypothesis that a god or gods are involved and if you cannot test the hypothesis then it isn't science.
Figuring out a way of testing the existence of the need for a god is in the hands of people who champion those ideas. They have currently failed to produce anything remotely scientific in this field, yet they expect their ideas to be treated as equally as the MET. Instead all they do is quote mine, deliberately distort (or even completely ignore) scientific findings and live inside the gaps that the MET cannot yet answer. When they start acting like scientists they will be treated like scientists.
I also believe that this is just as important and issue as the global jihad. Both issues need to be addressed rationally or western society as we know it will cease or at the very least be hobbled.
at March 23, 2008 4:01 AM
Ralph I just wanted to see where you were as far as Christian fundamentalism was concerned. When creation is taught or even discussed in the public schools, all of them will have to be addressed. Every religion has a different creation story.
Here are ten.
http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html
I perceive a problem with the ordinary atheist. These people are so wrapped up in their concern for Christian fundamentalists that they fail to see the Muslim problem. I quit commenting on some atheist forums because I was getting nowhere in convincing them that Islam was ther real problem.
Posted by: Pelayo at March 23, 2008 10:59 AM
Xeno posted:
The problem is that no-one can figure out a way to test the hypothesis that a god or gods are involved and if you cannot test the hypothesis then it isn't science.
That's why it's called 'faith'.
I also believe that this is just as important and issue as the global jihad.
While I would agree with just about everything else you said in your post, I have to disagree here. I think global jihad poses much more of threat, both immediate and long term. In fact, unless teaching intelligent design is more pervasive and given more credence than I imagine most science teachers giving it, I don't think it's even close.
A much bigger concern, I believe, is the deliberate perversion of critical thinking skills in social sciences occurring at the university level. Deliberately twisting physical concepts such as the uncertainty principle to justify 'postmodern' social viewpoints and prejudices like moral relativism and multiculturalism is a tremendous problem for the future of both rational thought and domestic tranquility.
At first glance I attributed this 'new' postmodern line of 'inquiry' to its proponents taking a few too many hits on a bong and failing, the next morning, to realize their new 'insights' were drug induced and didn't pass the scrutiny of sober reflection.
Now, I only wish that scenario were true.
The more I look at this problem the less I am convinced that is accidental. Moral relativism and multiculturalism do more than remove adherents from personal responsibility for rational thought and discrimination between right and wrong; they spread the notion that exercising rational thought and the recognizing distinctions between right and wrong are undesirable public ills.
This situation has frightening implications for the future. Social Darwinism and the adaptation of pseudoscientific government policy was a crucial underpinning of the most brutal regimes of the twentieth century.
Postmodern, leftist ideology empowers Islamic belligerence and encourages the erosion of law and custom that in other circumstances would be impossible; in David Horowitz's words, an Unholy Alliance.
The outright rejection of critical thinking skills by in the post-modern movement is an attempt to discredit the West and weaken capitalism by removing the rational foundation it is built upon. We see examples of this in the 'Global Warming Debate'. If simulations used for commercial aircraft design or other design applications involving immediate and demonstrable public safety issues (bridge, building, and dam design for instance) were given no more scrutiny and subject to no more verification and validation that global warming models are given, there would be a public outcry when it became apparent, and justifiably so.
But, with 'Global Warming', physical reality no longer matters as much as intentions. Sound scientific method and design verification processes are bypassed with jingolistic slogans like 'the debate is over'. The consequence of 'failure to act' is presented as undoubtedly catastrophic and too immediate to ignore, but just enough over the horizon that those consequences cannot be tested. And our 'salvation' just happens to lie in giving a governmental body, the U.N., power and profit (St. Gores carbon trading company for instance) in controlling production and use of the lifeblood of the economy and modern civilization: energy.
Most handily, a natural down-slope in the oscillation of the global temperature mean over the next few decades will be indistinguishable from the 'success', that is - the total lack of any effect whatsoever, of U.N. climate change policy. The west is now positioned, politically and psychologically, to submit to environmental Jizya payments to purchase our social purity
This has ominous religious aspects to me, and is obvious when trying to engage a global warming 'true believer' in a rational discussion of the subject.
at March 23, 2008 3:36 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.)