United Nations vs. Human Rights: World Church Congress, Augsburg

Every man should think what he likes and say what he thinks – Spinoza

Report by David G. Littman:

On April 13, I was given the floor at the KIRCHE IN NOT – CHURCH IN DISTRESS
3rd International Congress of the World Church Meeting (Augsburg Germany, 11-13 April).
Theme: Europe’s Heritage, Europe’s Future / Where do we come from; where do we want to go?

An unfortunate mishap took place on this specific occasion – generating many complaints then and after. As the speaker has been asked by many persons for his full text, and also by the organisers – who were not responsible for what happened and expressed sincere regrets – he feels that it would be appropriate to provide a factual explanation which will permit readers to understand what actually occurred just before the closing panel at this distinguished Congress that was attended by over 1,000 persons. To present an exact record, the official video recording has been used, including moments of applause from the audience and the two interruptions by the moderator, including brief comments. See also note (*)

[The passages that were actually pronounced in full are in bold type. Those that could not be stated as a result of the interruptions – manifestly against the will of the vast majority of the audience – are in normal type. Passages in square brackets are those which the speaker did not intend to say, but were put in his edited text for documentation, and eventual publication. It was only prepared the day before, adapted from a text he delivered on 13 March 2008 at the European University in Rome: (Title: “Impact of Shariah-based Human Rights at the United Nations” in a Conference held on: Identity Crisis: Can European Civilization Survive); and for the Association for World Education at the Seventh Session of the UN Human Rights Council at the Palais des Nations, Geneva on 26 March 2008.

* * * * *

The United Nations versus Human Rights is my subject today.

“Will 2008 be the year when the United Nations celebrates the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and simultaneously destroys its own principles? There is, indeed, cause for great concern because the institution has lost its own way in recent years, becoming a caricature of itself?”

I am quoting from a statement by the Paris-based LICRA, the International League against Racism and Antisemitism, signed by thousands [including many eminent personalities such as Nobel Peace Laureate Elie Wiesel] that was published in the world press last month in Le Monde [Paris] and Le Temps [Geneva], and elsewhere.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ General applause from an audience of about 700 persons in the Congress Hall ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let me provide two recent examples of shameful attempts to stifle freedom of expression by ludicrous challenges at last month’s 7th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, in Geneva – which is in Europe.

On 25 March there were 20 interventions by the Chinese delegate to disrupt any criticism about Tibet by Western States and NGOs (non-governmental organizations). This farce was backed by the usual dictatorial regimes on the Council, including Pakistan, speaking on behalf of 57 Muslim countries, all members of the OIC – the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

The next day I took the floor for the Association for World Education under item 9 – covering Racism and related forms of intolerance. There were five attempts to stop me delivering my three minutes NGO statement: three times by Egypt, once by the Palestinian delegate, and once by Iran – who complained that I was “focusing on Islam and some Islamic countries by insulting them.” Allow me to read those opening comments which I made on the 26th March that were considered so insulting:

“Regarding the Report [A/HRC/7/19] of the Special Rapporteur on Racism, Doudou Diène, and his comments on defamation of religion, we note that once again he has failed to mention the greatest of all defamations of religion – when chapter and verse of holy texts are cited to justify calls to kill in the name of God or Allah. On 9 August 2007, we made an Appeal to the UN Secretary-General and the High Commissioner – and later to the Council [in a joint written statement to the 6th Session, A/HRC/6/NGO/5: Appeal to Condemn Calls to Kill in the name of God. We concluded: “In face of this cult of hate, death and destruction against ‘the other’, we are appealing to you]
“to condemn all calls to kill in the name of God or religion – any religion.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustained applause that grew even louder after the translation into German
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“This taboo subject is consistently ignored within the UN system, despite the fact that a policy of silence on the part of the international community, of Muslim spiritual and secular leaders, the OIC and the Arab League, is tantamount to condoning this great evil. Calls to kill in the name of Allah should be unequivocally condemned by senior Muslim theologians as a “defamation of Islam.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More sustained applause, which became much louder and longer after the German translation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Yet these calls have been justified by Al-Azhar Grand Sheik Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradhawi, and by many others, including Osama bin Laden. The Special Rapporteur makes no clear reference to this global plague of our time, other than by a side reference to: “the stereotyped association of Islam with violence and terrorism – an association which is bolstered by intellectual constructs, used by political rhetoric and exaggerated in the media…” (§57)]

I also pointed out that “the Special Rapporteur refers to‘the writing and teaching of history’ and ‘the importance of fostering education in multiculturalism in schools, in the media and in the home’ Yet Judeophobia / Antisemitism – under the guise of ‘anti-Zionism’ – is now widely recognised as endemic in the Muslim world, being nourished by a general ‘culture of hate’ that is creeping into “Eurabia” and beyond. Clearly, many of the States [, the 47 countries of the OIC, ] that, since 1999, have sponsored the resolution combating ‘defamation of religions’ – adopted on 18 December 2007 by the UN General Assembly – do not believe it applies to them!”

[A recognised expert on racism, Director of Research at the CNRS, Pierre-André Taguieff has described all this in detail in two recent books – La Nouvelle Judéophobia (Paris, 2002) and a 1000 page volume, Prêcheurs de haine: Traversée de la judéophobie planétaire (Paris, 2004].

In 2005 we analysed in 3 NGO written statements to the United Nations what is being taught to Arab schoolchildren in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and the same hatred is also being taught in Palestinian, Syrian and Iranian schools and elsewhere.

[E/CN.4/Sub.2/ 2005/NGO/2: The culture of ‘Jihad & Martyrdom’ in Egyptian school textbooks; E/CN.4/Sub.2 /2005/NGO/3: The culture of hate in Saudi Arabian textbooks and growing Arab reactions; and E/CN.4/Sub.2 /2005/ NGO/4: Arab Criticism of Muslim Extremist Activities in the West; also: “A Culture of Hate Based ‘Jihad and Martyrdom’: Saudi and Egyptian Schoolbooks Today” (Midstream, March-April 2005). In his conclusion: “The Special Rapporteur recommends that the Council draw the attention of member States to the importance of developing an intellectual front against racism and, consequently combating – through education, scientific research and information – ideas, concepts and images likely to incite or legitimize racism, racial discrimination or xenophobia.” This should be heeded by all.]

Nothing of this outrageous Judeophobia [being taught to children in the Arab/Muslim world, especially in what is to be a future Palestinian State] has been covered in the Reports of the Special Rapporteur on Racism or by any UN bodies or UNESCO, yet the proof of this endemic hate-mongering is easily available in original texts & translations by consulting the websites of MEMRI [Middle East Media Research Institute], PMW [Palestinian Media Watch] and CMIP [Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace].

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SPEAKER WAS STOPPED HERE BY THE MODERATOR WHO STATED, INTER ALIA,
“I am sorry to interrupt, but we must close soon.” (English & German). He replied that he could not just end there. This ‘cut’ occurred exactly here, only 12½ minutes after he had begun, although the moderator was informed the evening before that 10 minutes had been agreed for his text in English, and as much or more for the German translation. He therefore continued to read his text – unstopped.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I concluded with a simple appeal: “Is this Human Rights Council now ready to condemn calls to kill in the name of God, and the preaching of hate, or will it remain silent on such major issues for humanity?”

Needless to say, the Council remained silent, as it did on so many occasions, such as the genocide in Southern Sudan against Christians and animists – where Christian Solidarity International freed over 80,000 slaves – and for the last four years in Darfur, on which I spoke regularly for CSI and other NGOs. Even now as I speak to you, African Muslims are being killed and ethnically cleansed from their homeland – Darfur – in a genocide by the Arab-Islamist NIF regime of Khartoum.

Four months ago, on 10 December 2007 – “Human Rights Day” – Pakistan Ambassador Massoud Khan addressed the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on behalf of the 57 countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. While speaking glowingly of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the positive contribution to its creation by many Muslim countries, he declared that the 1990 Cairo Declaration [on 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”.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SPEAKER WAS STOPPED AGAIN BY THE MODERATOR DESPITE CALLS AND MUCH APPLAUSE FROM THE AUDIENCE FOR HIM TO CONTINUE
This 2nd call to stop came after 4 minutes (total: 16½ minutes, with two minutes for interruptions). The moderator stated that she had controlled her watch carefully, but the speaker insisted he be allowed the 10 minutes granted – as at the United Nations. As this was not accepted – despite a vibrant appeal by a man going up to the podium – he was forced to conclude. (see bold below).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet, the Cairo Declaration cannot be, in any sense, considered complementary to the Universal Declaration, as it makes no reference to it – while its Art. 24 and 25 explicitly state the contrary:

“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.” Many clauses in this Islamic Declaration limit the rights contained in the Universal Declaration, with references to Sharia’h, especially Articles 2, 7, 12, 16, 19, 22, 23.

As is well-known, 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 Universal Declaration the international covenants, and thus denies the full enjoyment of their human rights to those living in States which follow Shari’ah law. By limiting rights to those permitted by the Shari’ah, the Cairo Declaration – rather than complementing the Universal Declaration undermines many of the rights they are supposed to guarantee.

When it comes to freedom of expression, the Cairo Declaration makes this freedom subject to the Shari’ah. Under its Article 22, a person may only express their opinion in a manner “as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shariah”, and freedom of expression may not be used to “weaken faith”. A resolution, “Combating Defamation of Religions” was adopted at the General Assembly on 18 December by 108 votes to 51 with 25 abstentions. Similar resolutions have been adopted automatically since 1999 at the Commission on Human Rights and by the new Human Rights Council, but this was the first time that such a resolution had been passed by the UN General Assembly. The resolution expresses once again “deep concern about the negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief”. But the only religion mentioned by name is Islam. The resolution emphasizes that while everyone has the right to freedom of expression, this should be exercised with responsibility – and may therefore be subject to limitations, inter alia, “for respect for religions and beliefs”.

The implications of all such UN resolutions against freedom to criticise religious laws and practices are obvious. Armed with UN approval for their actions, States may now legislate against any show of disrespect for religion – however they may choose to define this “disrespect”. Islamic States see human rights exclusively in Islamic terms, and by sheer weight of numbers, or of oil, this view is becoming dominant within the system, but there are signs of resistance. On the same occasion on 10 December 2007, four months ago, German Ambassador Gunter Nooke expressed his regrets at:
“the tendency within some parts of the international community to roll back the principle of universality in order to make the enjoyment of fundamental rights dependent on factors such as tradition, culture, religion or the level of development.”

Yet, it is a sign of the times that the OIC’s ‘rules of the game’are slowly being accepted. The implications for the universality of human rights are ominous. The OIC is attempting to limit religious freedom by consistently promoting the Shari’ah-based Cairo Declaration, and also by rejecting wording in the Council resolution on the elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief that would permit individuals, including Muslims, to change their religion.

Creeping dhimmitude at the Council and other UN bodies should be denounced for what it is. Both States and human rights defenders worldwide should remain vigilant and actively resist any attempt by the OIC to give equal status to the Cairo Declaration or to any future Islamic Charter on Human Rights that limits the Rights enshrined since 1948 in the Universal Declaration.

* * * * *

I shall conclude by quoting from the renowned Jewish-born philosopher, Sir Karl Popper [best known for his philosophy of critical rationalism and his emphasis on the way in which we learn through the making and correcting of mistakes]. In his analysis of Plato’s criticism of democracy, he refers to a so-called “paradox of freedom” and “a paradox of tolerance”. His words shall be my conclusion today at the KIRCHE IN NOT Conference, in Augsburg:

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed and tolerance with them … We should therefore claim in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade.” [David Miller (ed.), A Pocket Popper (Fontana Paperbacks, GB, 1983), chapter 25: The Paradoxes of Sovereignty (1945), pp. 319-325; pp. 445-46 (note 4, Plato, Republic, 564 A (Popper: “Less well known is the paradox of tolerance. Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of .…”)]

Let us meditate the words of Sir Karl Popper – NOW before it is too late! And I do regret that I was unable to explain to you the reasons – the very profound reasons – for that conclusion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustained applause expressing approval for the speaker and disagreement with his being silenced

* * * * *

TOTAL TIME: 19 MINUTES (LESS INTERRUPTIONS = ABOUT 17 MINUTES). THE WHOLE TEXT COULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED (WITH GERMAN TRANSLATION) IN AGREED 21 MINUTES

(*) I feel that the public has a right to know exactly what took place – and not rely on hearsay – and am thus providing the necessary ‘facts’ that cannot be contested by anyone who was present then.

On Friday evening I learned from one of the organisers that there had been three cancellations out of the seven speakers for the 1st panel on Sunday morning (9:00-10:15) on Europe. I offered to prepare a text in regard to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. This was accepted, and I was told to keep to 10 minutes (with a German translation to follow). Subsequently, two others persons joined the panel, bringing the total to six. The friendly moderator was informed by me in detail the night before, that I had taken considerable time to prepare my text and would need the 10 minutes for my English presentation that had been mutually agreed (with a German translation to follow). I informed her that many panels had started late and most finished late – some over half an hour and more – but she expressed a desire to start on time and wished to finish at 9:15. Knowing that this was impossible, I asked her not to put me as the last speaker.

As usual, the panel began a little late and the moderator introduced the speakers until 9:13 a.m. The 1st and 2nd speaker spoke for roughly 9 and 10 minutes each. Then a Muslim Russian delegate spoke and was translated into German paragraph by paragraph (a total of 15 minutes). I was then given the floor at roughly 9:48 and was stopped for the 1st time by the moderator at about 10:00, and for a 2nd time at 10:04, concluding at 10:06 – a total of 19 minutes – of which two were taken by the interruptions and my replies. The two last spiritual speakers were very brief and everything ended almost on time without any Q & A. As usual, the last panel of the Congress – with bishops and clerics – started after 10:45, more than quarter of an hour later than scheduled. Everyone waited patiently for nearly ½ an hour, while over 20 persons came to the podium for my statement. There would have been no difficulty for the 1st panel ending at 10:30, instead of at 10:15 sharp.

Despite the ‘politically incorrect’ passages in my statement when the 2 interruptions occurred, I do not think that this was intentional – as has been suggested – rather, it might have been simply an unfortunate coincidence, and the reason was merely the desire of the moderator to finish on time.

Originally, I had been asked to read my statement in English, to be followed by the translation. However just before I was due to speak the efficient translator explained to me that it would be easier for her, and for the audience, if the German translation proceeded paragraph by paragraph. In accepting her suggestion, out of courtesy, I erred as the moderator could not have interrupted my 10 minute address, nor considered cutting the translation into German – a total of 21 minutes.

The organisers sincerely regretted this unusual incident, which caused general consternation toward the end of the Congress,. This was especially so, as I was the only speaker (from the twenty panels) to be abruptly interrupted, whereas many speakers had exceeded their time without such a drastic reaction from the moderator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

David G. Littman is a historian, who published Arab Theologians under Jews and Israel in 1971 (Geneva, Editions de l’Avenir) under the pen-name: D.F. Green (with Yehoshafat Harkabi). He has published several articles on Jews and Christians (dhimmis) under Islam, mainly in the 1970s and 1980s. Since 1986 he has been
a human rights defender for several NGOs at the United Nations in Geneva, and a representative for the last 10 years of the Association for World Education and since 2001 for the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ), for whom he was main representative from 1986-1991. Nearly 100 of his earlier oral and written statements to the Commission and Sub-Commission on Human Rights were published in “Human Rights and Human Wrongs at the United Nation” (WUPJ, 1986-1991, N° 1 to N°11). He has edited articles on comparative and current human rights themes, which were published with more recent oral and written NGO statements – in “Human Rights and Human Wrongs at the United Nations,” Part 5 (pp. 305-472), edited by Robert Spencer, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims (New York: Prometheus Books, 2005, p.593).

Posted by Robert at April 30, 2008 7:08 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us