It can be ignored. The U.N. can be ignored entirely, if those fed up with the machinations of the Islamintern International decide to do so. It has only the authority its members decide to give it. Flout that flaunted, vaunated, utterly corrupt and hollow authority. Just do it. Let others, aside from Americans, treat the U.N. with well-merited contempt.

Posted by: Hugh at March 28, 2008 12:56 AM

is it time to stop funding this UN and let it die?

Posted by: ploome at March 28, 2008 1:22 AM

Gee, can we start by urging governments to ban the Quran for saying those who believe in a Trinity are blasphemers?

Posted by: sceptico at March 28, 2008 1:32 AM

Prepping the ideological battlefield for Durban II.

Posted by: Papa Whiskey at March 28, 2008 2:11 AM

Although the text refers frequently to protecting all religions, the only religion specified as being attacked is Islam, to which eight paragraphs refer.

Surprisingly, the current League of United Nations is even worse than the original League of Nations in the lead-up to WWII. At least the previous incarnation wasn't openly pro-Axis; it was merely corrupt, incompetent, and dithering in its response to the rise of fascism.

As long as it exists on U.S. soil, I hope we don't ignore the U.N. It has devolved into a full-blown menace to the free world. It needs to be physically uprooted and moved to somewhere more hospitable, such as Damascus or Tehran.

It is time for a new union, not of seventh-century-theocracies and dictatorships-for-life, but of democracies. It is time for democracies to defend democratic values. It is time to stick a fork in the concept that all people are the same, all people share the same values, all disagreements are based on simple misunderstandings.

We are different. Very, very different. Long live that difference. Thank G*d, we are different.

Posted by: special_guest at March 28, 2008 3:13 AM

Anyone who blasphemes reality and keeps insisting that Islam is a religion of peace should be made to prove on what planet Islam is a religion of Peace, and then he should be deported there.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at March 28, 2008 5:30 AM

John McCain has mentioned that he wants to organize a new "Organization of Democracies". He wont stop the UN from existing...however, let them sit there and be good for whatever they are good for....
A Organization of Democracies I believe the media reported 100 countries, including Poland and the New Europe...
I am very excited about this. Let the UN go broke.

Posted by: terise at March 28, 2008 6:05 AM

Does anyone actually take these types seriously?

Seriously?

Posted by: carpediadem at March 28, 2008 7:15 AM

I'm proud to see that Canada opposed this sham resolution.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at March 28, 2008 7:18 AM

This United Nations is one the biggest farce ever created it is run by the UMMAH and what else is new. This slow but steady Jihad seems to be working. It is like a silent deadly killer just before we know the carpet will snatched from underneath us.

Posted by: savsiv at March 28, 2008 8:23 AM

John McCain has come out with the right idea, proposing a 'league of democracies' which would then actually get something done, sidelining the UN and rendering it to what it really is, useless.

Posted by: Sounder at March 28, 2008 9:07 AM

I'd have more faith in John McCain if he didn't have someone in his campaign who used to work for Vicente Fox in Mexico. Nonetheless, the democracies of the world need to get out of the UN as long as there are 50-something separate moslem nations since they will vote together as a block.

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at March 28, 2008 9:21 AM

I am so sick of the OIC's crass hypocrisy, but they don't make me sick as much as the people here who should know better but still pander to them. The last people on earth who should be talking about defamation of religion are the Muslim.

Posted by: Dumbo at March 28, 2008 9:48 AM

The resolution "urges states to take actions to prohibit the dissemination ... of racist and xenophobic ideas" and material that would incite to religious hatred.

Yes, let's do that. Target Number One for such prohibition: the Qur'an.

Posted by: saturnine at March 28, 2008 10:56 AM

Funny. The previous post has a title: "Saudi Shoura Council votes down law promoting respect for other religions".

It says it all.

Posted by: calatrava at March 28, 2008 11:23 AM

unfortunatelywhile the United Nations was a good idea and Canada was one of the founders is been hijacked by a group of pro-Islamic countries with oil money buying votes from poor third world countries and the UN human rights Council is an example that money can corrupt anyone or anything my feeling is in the next two years we are going to see the a universal declaration of human rights in place by the Cairo declaration of human rights that is based on sharia law and unfortunately it seems like under sharia law unless you are a Muslim you have no human rights it seems like the UN has become a bully pulpit for Islam and for organizations like the OIC it a long past time for the UN to rename itself the United Islamic and tyrannical nations and for Western countries to get out of it and form their own version of the UN it is an organization like the league of Nations is outlived its usefulness as long as countries like the member nations of the OIC and the Communist\fascists nations of the world are in control of important UN bodies like the UN human rights Council

Posted by: crusader at March 28, 2008 12:21 PM

As reported above, The Human Rights Council voted to pass this resolution. The votes cast were as follows:

In favour (21):Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa and Sri Lanka.

Against (10):Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

Abstentions (14):Bolivia, Brazil, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Japan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Peru, Republic of Korea, Uruguay and Zambia.

The voting on this resolution went the same way as the vote in the UN General Assembly back in December 2007 (See comments on this Dhimmiwatch thread.) As in that vote, the world's tyrannies and dictatorships again voted with the Islamic states to pass the resolution.

This resolution wasn't about religious defamation. Its aim was to oppose any linking of Islam with terrorism and to attack freedom of expression too. In the wording of the resolution, the Council:

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

• "expresses concern at laws or administrative measures that have been specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination that they experience."
• "urges States to take actions to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence." (Saudi Arabia please take note)
• "emphasizes that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but only those provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals." (in other words, do as we say in your countries, but let us do as we wish. The Chinese delegate was especially approving of this one)
• "reaffirms that general comment No. 15... which stipulates that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred... is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred." (I'm sure they will pass a resolution condemning the hate preachers shown in Fitna any day now)
• "invites the Special Rapporteur...to continue to report on all manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia on the enjoyment of all rights." (I think that's a misprint. It should read 'the serious implications of Islam on the enjoyment of all rights')

The Council's press release on the vote has comments from some council members. The Saudi Arabian delegate won the award for rank hypocrisy with this gem:

"Saudi Arabia [which bans Jews from the country and does not allow non-Muslims freedom of worship] called for tolerance of all religions and called on the international community to respect Muslims and their feelings in accordance with all monotheistic religions."

Posted by: Matamoros at March 28, 2008 12:29 PM

Matamoros gave the voting results for the resolution. Note that China and the Russian Federation voted in favor of the resolution. Things could get messy.

Posted by: special_guest at March 28, 2008 12:47 PM

"China" "Russian Federation"

In these two cases one suspects the votes in favor of prohibiting "defamation" of "religions" (that is, Islam) was less about fear than about greed. There is the desire for China to make sure it "has access" to Middle Eastern oil. The Chinese government is making the same mistake that Western governments have made, believing it has to do more than pay the market price -- but it doesn't, just as they didn't have to, but, for a long time, did (and in many ways still do).

In the case of Russia, which does not need Middle Eastern oil, there may have been a simple calculation that one major oil producer may need the cooperation of other oil producers to maximize benefits, or that Russian arms can find a market in the Muslim lands.

This is short-sighted. Both countries have Muslim minorities. In Xinjiang there are Muslims, and there are scattered communities elsewhere. There have been Jihads in western China the 20th century. The last major one was in 1930 (see Mildred Cable, "The Gobi"). That time could come again. Muslims might disrupt the Olympics. Why should not the Chinese government work to appease Muslims, paying them in the easy coin of that farce, the U.N.Human Rights Council?

But the Russians face growing islamization, and the kind of anti-religion campaign that the Soviets conducted, and that in Central Asia helped to undo, for a while, Islam, needs to be reinstituted, not necessarily using force, but in an attempt to make sure that Islam does not continue to make a comeback, but is made the subject of critical analysis so that, in Russia and in the five "stans" of Central Asia, people cannot avoid learning about how states and societies suffused with Islam are subject to political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral paralysis or backwardness that reflect, that are directly linked to, Islam. That connection must be made, publicly and uninterruptedly and uninhibitedly. But a vote like that can come back to bite.

And China, too, has a stake in calling Islam into question. Not only in China itself, but for the sake of the Overseas Chinese, who in Malaysia, and in Indonesia, have been, and will be, the victims of Islam.

A vote that both countries, taking the shortest possible view, will come to regret.

Posted by: Hugh at March 28, 2008 1:30 PM

special guest:

Note that China and the Russian Federation voted in favor of the resolution. Things could get messy.

Both of these countries always vote with the OIC bloc, both on the HRC and in the main General Assembly. Take a look at the UN Assembly vote on a similar resolution back in December 2007, and you'll see Russia and China gave it their backing along with Cuba, Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe and other oppressive non-Muslim regimes. These countries, together with the OIC states, always vote against any and all resolutions that promote human rights, and for any that deny basic freedoms.

Posted by: Matamoros at March 28, 2008 1:34 PM

I'd love to see the UN move from New York City to some pestilential third world hell-hole like Khartoum.

Posted by: MP at March 28, 2008 1:37 PM

Russia, and (wierdly enough) Thailand are observer members at the OIC. Russia has been a member since 2005, and with Putin still in power, that won't change. What surprises me is some non-Islamic countries such as Nicaragua, Philippines, South Africa and Sri Lanka voting in favor, when even traditionally dhimmi countries like India abstained.

Hugh

I don't see how the Russians can launch an anti-religion campaign the way they did during the Soviet Union, since the Russian Orthodox Church has made a comeback in Russia, which forces Russia to seek a new tool. Of the 5 stans, Kazakhstan is safe, since it has a 49% Russian population, but the other 4 stans are just non-Islamic due to the Soviet era dictatorships still in place. Even from that, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are now places where Islam is free to be practiced, and the same is likely to happen once the Kemalesque like Niyazov is gone from Turkmenistan, and Karimov from Uzbekistan.

Also, with Turkey going the way it is, if these countries do what Azerbaijan does and look to Turkey for leadership, then things would be even more hopeless in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan. As for Tajikistan, it's Sunni but Farsi, and so expect Iranian influence there to just grow - as it is, Radio Teheran is popular in that country.

As for China, it's not just Xinxiang but also Gansu that has a substantial Muslim population. In a worst case scenario, one could see a China-sized Islamic country spread from the Caspian sea right into the heart of China. That would be the biggest annexation to dar ul Islam since the 7th century conquests, and far exceed the objectives of the Ummah in Kosovo, Kashmir, Mindanao, Yala and a whole lot of other places.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 28, 2008 2:18 PM

Has the leader/Decider of the Free World, President Bush (or his underlings), made any comments re: Fitna or the broadcast thereof?

Posted by: Charles Bogle at March 28, 2008 2:49 PM

As long as it exists on U.S. soil, I hope we don't ignore the U.N. It has devolved into a full-blown menace to the free world. It needs to be physically uprooted and moved to somewhere more hospitable, such as Damascus or Tehran.

I vote for Tehran, that worldwide center of tolerance, respect, and human rights.

I'll bet we can get the arrogant Muslims to heartily agree to it, too!

I wonder what would happen to some third world diplomat who double parks in Tehran! "OFF WITH HIS HEAD!"

Before Ronald Reagan eliminated the Soviet Union, I wrote my congressman and suggested that the UN be relocated to West Berlin, so that all of the UN personnel would see the Wall daily, and would have to deal with the inconveniences of communism. He forwarded it to the State Dept, which rejected the idea.

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at March 28, 2008 4:31 PM

U.N. Human Rights Council approves Islamic countries' resolution on "defamation"

So it's official now, the Islamists' have the right to defame the West without opposition.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at March 28, 2008 6:16 PM

I wonder why the UN is not concerned about the defamation of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Bhuddists, atheists, agnostics, etc. by Muslims?

Why no outrage at the desecration of Holy books and sites?

Posted by: lafn at March 29, 2008 12:35 AM