Recently in United Nations Category

Of course. Who else? "UN Official Justifies Boston Bombings as ‘Retribution’, Blames America," from UN Watch, April 22:

GENEVA, April 22, 2013 –  In a letter sent today to UN chief Ban Ki-moon and U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice...., UN Watch demanded the condemnation of top UN Human Rights Council official Richard Falk over his latest remarks blaming the Boston terrorist attacks on U.S. foreign policy and “Tel Aviv.”

For more on Falk, who was recently expelled by the Human Rights Watch organization yet retains his UN position, click here.

Israel is not an apartheid state. Muslim Arabs are in the Knesset, and enjoy more rights there than they do in an Islamic state. The real apartheid is in Sharia states, where the oppression of women and non-Muslims is institutionalized.

"Apartheid Palestine?," by Ann Bayefsky in the Jerusalem Post, March 17 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

It is impossible to read this latest UN report, or to listen to its authors and its state sponsors, without knowing that the campaign to rid the world of Israeli settlements is a campaign to rid the world of Israel.

On Monday, March 17 in Geneva, the UN Human Rights Council will hold a first-ever three-hour session devoted to the alleged human rights abomination known as the “Israeli settlement.” In the moral wasteland of the United Nations, a Jew living on Arab-claimed land is a violation of Arab human rights.

There were once an estimated 900,000 Jews across the Arab world, but today there are less than a few thousand. They were given a choice: die, convert or flee.

This was an Islamic phenomenon, not an Arab one. But otherwise Bayefsky's analysis is spot-on.

Now the 22nd Judenrein Arab state is in-the-making: Apartheid Palestine.

Meanwhile, 20 percent of Israel’s population is Arab, and free Arab citizens sit on the highest courts of the land, represent Israel abroad, and hold political office. An Arab living (and thriving) in the Jewish state is fulfilling a human right.

How does this obvious contradiction make it past the human rights geniuses at the UN?

The answer is almost as old as humankind: intolerance, xenophobia, bigotry and lawyers.

On the table in Geneva will be a report, produced by three lawyers carefully selected by the UN brass.

The first item of business brushed aside by these legal beagles was that the conclusion of their so-called “fact-finding mission” was decided before they ever got started. Their job description, laid out by the Human Rights Council, was “to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the... rights of the Palestinian people.” But the same resolution already says: “Affirming that the Israeli settlement activities... constitute very serious violations... of the human rights of the Palestinian people.”

Then there was the irrelevant issue of the bias of the fact-finders.

Pakistani “expert” Asma Jahangir has already had numerous UN jobs (as has her sister Hina Jilani, one of four authors of the UN’s infamous Goldstone Report). In 2004, as UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Jahangir took the extraordinary step of issuing a special statement exclaiming she was “aghast at the planned and deliberate extrajudicial execution of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.”

When Israel killed Yassin’s successor, Abdul Aziz Rantissi – with zero civilian casualties – Jahangir “sent a communication to the Government of Israel” worried that Israeli helicopters had fired “into the civilian car of Dr. Abdul Aziz al-Rantisi, a senior Hamas political leader.” No matter that their terrible acts had led US authorities to name both men as “specially designated global terrorists,” or that as combatants in a war they were not entitled to judicial process.

French “expert” Christine Chanet is on record as having told a UN treaty body meeting in July 2010 that settlements impose “severe” impediments to Palestinian rights.

Her decisions as a member of the UN Human Rights Committee are also revealing. In 2001 she dissented when the Committee decided that a Jewish citizen of the Czech Republic had been denied equal protection of the law after Czech authorities failed to provide restitution for property plundered by the Nazis. Chanet reasoned that by deciding in favor of the Jewish victim, the Committee was wrongly “involving itself in the assessment of evidence by the domestic courts.”

But in 2004, Chanet dissented when the Committee decided not to pursue the complaint of a professor who alleged he was denied an academic promotion because of his perceived anti-Israel and anti-Semitic views. In the case of the alleged anti-Jewish victim, Chanet reasoned in the opposite direction. She said the Committee erred in refusing to reassess the professor’s record of performance because the right answer was to “be determined not in the light of the complaint as made before a domestic court.”

The third judge, Unity Dow from Botswana, has been on the Executive Committee of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) since 2006, and was chairperson of the Executive Committee from June 2011 to June 2012. During that time, the ICJ played a leading role in pressing for and supporting the Goldstone report and its libelous accusation that Israeli defense forces deliberately targeted Palestinian civilians.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that these legal minds produced a report on settlements that looks like law but smells like rubbish....

Shawqi Allam wants the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization to devote itself to rectifying the image of Islam in the West, which I am confident will soon enough be its only job. But if the illustrious mufti really wants to rectify Islam's image, there is an easier way than pressuring UNESCO to engage in whitewash and deception about Islamic jihad: he could devote himself to convincing his fellow Muslims to end jihad terror attacks, end the institutionalized harassment of and discrimination against women, non-Muslims and gays under Sharia, and end all Islamic supremacist attempts to impose Sharia provisions in the West and gain special accommodation for Muslims. If he worked on those three things, he would start to find Islam's image improving overnight.

"Egypt: Mufti Called On Unesco to Rectify Islam's Image," from the Egypt State Information Service, March 19:

Grand Mufti Shawqi Allam on Monday 18/3/2013 called on the UNESCO to exert more efforts to rectify the image of Islam in the West. Allam said interfaith and intercultural dialogue should be based on acknowledging the cultural identity of any civilization without being dominated by another.

The mufti made the remarks during a meeting with visiting chairperson of the UNESCO General Conference Katalin Bogyay and Hungarian Ambassador in Cairo Peter Kevic.

He passed off a 2006 photo of a young woman who was killed in Gaza as a victim of the IDF defensive action in Gaza in 2012. As Muhammad said, "war is deceit."

"UN cuts ties with official tied to false Gaza tweet," by Stewart Stogel for the Jerusalem Post, February 7 (thanks to Jan):

NEW YORK - ­ Kulhood Badawi, a veteran public affairs officer in the Jerusalem branch of the United Nations Office of the Coordinator of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), has been "separated" from the UN, say officials in New York.

The de facto firing, publicly explained as a contract non-renewal, comes shortly after the conclusion of an internal investigation lasting almost a year.

The investigation conducted by the UN Development Program centered on a February 2012 Twitter post containing the photograph of a dead Palestinian girl, who Badawi insisted was killed by the IDF during its shelling of Gaza.

Subsequent investigations revealed that it was in reality an archived Reuters photo originally taken in 2006.

According to Reuters, the photograph was that of a young woman killed as the result of local clashes in Gaza, not as the result of any IDF action.

Badawi, it was later discovered, had been involved in several earlier controversial actions, including a 2006 demonstration in Jerusalem in which she labeled current Defense Minister Ehud Barak a "war criminal." UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs Valerie Amos, while not disputing Badawi¹s actions, publicly questioned whether the world body could be held accountable for "personal" tweets.

As such, she launched the inquiry that Israel's UN mission charged was a "whitewash," with Ambassador Ron Prosor repeatedly insisting that Badawi be fired.

Amos then explained she was awaiting conclusions and recommendations. Yet weeks turned into months, with the investigation having been concluded in October 2012, and repeated inquiries to Amos for updates produced nothing.

On Wednesday, an email from the UN revealed that all facets of the fact-finding mission had finally been completed, and that the organization had opted not to renew Badawi's contract....

The hypocrisy is flagrant and systematic, and driven by the largest voting bloc at the UN, the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is inveterately antisemitic. "Hypocrisy: UN adopts 9 resolutions on Palestinians & Golan, yet silent on Syrian massacre of Palestinians," from UN Watch, December 19 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

GENEVA, December 18 – The U.N. General Assembly today adopted nine resolutions on Palestinian rights and the Golan, sharply criticizing Israel yet making no mention of Sunday’s massacre of Palestinians by Syrian warplanes firing missiles into a mosque in a Palestinian refugee camp near Damascus. Nor did the texts mention the tens of thousands of Palestinians who continue to flee the camp.

By the end of this week, the current 2012 UNGA session will have adopted 22 country-specific resolutions on Israel – and only four on the rest of the world combined, one each for Syria, Iran, North Korea and Burma, noted UN Watch.

Today’s resolutions criticized Israel for “the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people,” and focused on “the extremely difficult socioeconomic conditions being faced by the Palestine refugees in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.”

One resolution condemned Israel for holding on to the Golan Heights, demanding Israel hand the land and its people to Syria.

“It’s astonishing,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch. “At a time when the Syrian regime is massacring its own people, how can the U.N. call for more people to be subject to Assad’s rule? The timing of today’s text is morally galling and logically absurd.”

“What is also outrageous is that these resolutions claim to care about Palestinians, yet the U.N. proves itself completely oblivious to the actual suffering on the ground, happening right now: Palestinians slaughtered, maimed and expelled by Assad’s forces.”

“Today’s farce at the General Assembly underscores a simple fact: the U.N.’s automatic majority has no interest in truly helping Palestinians, nor in protecting anyone’s human rights; the goal of these ritual, one-sided condemnations remains the scapegoating of Israel,” said Neuer.

“The U.N.’s disproportionate assault against the Jewish state undermines the credibility of what is supposed to be an impartial and respected international body, and exposes the sores of politicisation and selectivity that eat away at its founding mission, eroding the U.N. Charter promise of equal treatment to all nations large and small,” Neuer added.

“With more than 40,000 killed in Syria, and millions of Syrian refugees suffering now in the cold of winter, it ought to shock the conscience of mankind that the U.N. will devoting more than 80 percent of this session’s resolutions to Israel, and just one, on Thursday, to Syria.”

Below are the draft texts that were endorsed today by the UN General Assembly. In total, by the end of this week the UNGA will have adopted 22 resolutions on Israel — and 4 on the rest of the world combined.

CNS News adds: "Ruled by a former military coup leader, Mauritania is a North African Islamic state where conversion to another faith is punishable by death. The country’s criminal code provides for a three-day period of reflection and repentance for any Muslim found guilty of apostasy. 'If he does not repent within this time limit,' it states, 'he is to be condemned to death as an apostate and his property will be confiscated by the Treasury.'"

Both slavery and the death penalty for apostasy are prescribed by Islamic law, so it is no surprise that an Islamic state would have both. But that such a state should be elected to the UN Human Rights Council just show how compromised are the clowns who run the UN.

"Human Rights Day Marred by Election of Slave-holding Mauritania as VP of UN Human Rights Council," from UN Watch, December 10 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

GENEVA, Dec. 10 – UN Watch condemned today's election of Mauritania, a country that allows 800,000 of its citizens to live as slaves, as Vice-President of the UN Human Rights Council.

In addition, the Geneva-based group also announced the failure of its yearlong campaign, with 55 MPs and NGOs, to get UNESCO to remove Syria from its human rights committee.

1. Mauritania Elected Today as VP of UN Human Rights Council

The UN Human Rights Council met today in Geneva and elected Mauritania as its Vice-President and Rapporteur for the next year, the second highest position at the world's top human rights body.

"It is obscene for the U.N. to use the occasion of Human Rights Day, when we commemorate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to elect the world's worst enabler of slavery to this prestigious post," said Hillel Neuer, UN Watch executive director.

"The U.N. is making an arsonist head of the fire department. It defies both morality and common sense."

According to a recent report by the Guardian, "up to 800,000 people in a nation of 3.5 million remain chattels," with power and wealth overwhelmingly concentrated among lighter-skinned Moors, "leaving slave-descended darker-skinned Moors and black Africans on the edges of society."...

The UN has long since departed from its original mission and now, as a tool of the OIC, is little more than an instrument to manipulate world opinion into supporting the Palestinian jihad against Israel. And here it indulges in outright genocidal aspirations: "UN Hosts Art Depicting Palestine as All of Israel," by Joel B. Pollak for Breitbart, December 10 (thanks to Blazing Cat Fur):

The UN is now hosting in the public entrance hall of its New York headquarters a Palestinian exhibit which includes pieces that artfully depict all of Israel as Palestine. The display goes hand-in-hand with the logo featured at the top of the cover page of the speech that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas’ delivered to the General Assembly on November 29, 2012. That emblem continues to promote a one state solution, Palestine without Israel....

The UN is increasingly a tool of the global jihad. With cynical and brazen hypocrisy, it has been relentlessly criticizing Israel for years, while turning a blind eye to the human rights abuses that are sanctioned by Islamic law and common in Muslim states. The U.S. and all free countries should have left it long, long ago.

"UN Demands Nuclear Inspections in Israel," by William Bigelow for Breitbart, December 6 (thanks to Choi):

The UN General Assembly approved a resolution on Monday by a vote of 174-6 that would require Israel to open its nuclear program to inspection “without further delay.” The only countries voting against it were the U.S., Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.

And the animus toward Israel doesn’t stop there; the UN also wants to convene a meeting to ban nuclear weapons from the Middle East, which would leave Israel vastly outnumbered and essentially helpless against the Islamic hordes wishing to eradicate it.

There was supposed to be a similar meeting this month in Helsinki, Finland, with all the Arab states and Iran in attendance, but the U.S. turned it down, supposedly because of the trouble in the Middle East and Iran’s intransigence on nuclear weaponry. Israel has never confirmed that it possesses nuclear weapons and has never joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), but then, neither have India, Pakistan, and North Korea, all of which possess nuclear weapons.

Iranian diplomat Khodadad Seifi hissed, “The truth is that the Israeli regime is the only party which rejected to conditions for a conference.” He vented that there should be "strong pressure on that regime to participate in the conference without any preconditions."

Israeli diplomat Isi Yanouka defended Israel, noting that Iran and Syria are not exactly friendly neighbors: "All these cases challenge Israel's security and cast a dark shadow at the prospect of embarking on a meaningful regional security process. The fact that the sponsors include in this anti-Israeli resolution language referring to the 2012 conference proves above all the ill-intent of the Arab states with regard to this conference."

In a stunning display of the moral equivalence at the UN, Syrian diplomat Abdullah Hallak told the UN that Syria was furious that the Helsinki conference was postponed because of "the whim of just one party, a party with nuclear warheads. We call on the international community to put pressure on Israel to accept the NPT, get rid of its arsenal and delivery systems, in order to allow for peace and stability in our region.”

Although the Obama Administration voted against the resolution as a whole, they voted for two paragraphs stipulating that all nations on earth adhere to the NPT and assert that countries that don’t adhere to it ratify the NPT at “the earliest date.” Only Israel and India objected. Guess which two countries are the most threatened by Islamic neighbors?...

In "Sanction of the Savage State" at WND, December 2, Pamela Geller exposes the real agenda behind the UN's vote to give "Palestine" the status of "non-member observer state":

That collective negation of humanity, the United Nations General Assembly, voted Thursday to designate “Palestine” a “non-member observer state.” The measure passed by a huge margin, with 138 nations voting in favor and only nine against (including the U.S. and Canada), along with 41 abstentions.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the vote “unfortunate and counterproductive … plac[ing] further obstacles in the path of peace.” Despite the U.S. opposition (coming after four years of Obama’s thinly veiled hostility toward Israel), this vote represented the sanction of a terror war against innocent civilians made possible by an increasingly weak America on the world stage. As America goes, so goes the defense of freedom. Is it any surprise that less than a month after Obama’s re-election, jihadists go forward with a vote for a terror statelet in Gaza and inside Israel?

This vote was not really any surprise. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, rammed it through. The OIC (56 Muslim countries plus the Muslim-occupied areas of Israel that are known as the “Palestinian” territories) is the largest international world body today, and the largest voting bloc at the U.N. And not once does even one of those Muslim countries ever vote contrary to the Islamic supremacist agenda. Ever. So how did you think the vote was going to go?...

And so Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was absolutely right when he said on the day of the vote: “None of the vital interests of peace appear in the resolution that will be put forward before the General Assembly today and that is why Israel cannot accept it.” He was right. This vote for a fictional “Palestinian” state won’t bring peace. If anything, it signals the end of the last great hope for peace, the Oslo “Peace Process.”

The Oslo “Peace” charade has been dead since the second intifada, after Yaser Arafat, the godfather of modern terror, refused the offer of practically everything the jihadists demanded in a “Palestinian” state (including Jerusalem), but now it is officially dead. Everybody now knows the big lie is over.

According to the Israel Project, “Unilaterally seeking to declare a state in the West Bank violates the Palestinians’ Oslo Accord commitments to refrain from ‘steps that will change the status of the West Bank… pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.’ High-ranking Palestinian officials have boasted that the resolution will mark the formal end of the decades-old Palestinian peace process with Israel.”

Now that Oslo is officially dead, will Israel, the one side that was actually adhering to the conditions and playing by the rules, finally quit the farce? They are dancing with themselves in this ludicrous peace process. There can be no peace process when the only objective of the enemy is your annihilation. You can sing kumbaya until your throat bleeds, it isn’t going to change reality.

Here’s the thing. The Palestinian Muslims were offered a state in 1948 when the British mandate was being partitioned at this very same UN (although it is vastly different now in mission). Palestinian Muslims wanted a state so bad? Really? Why didn’t they take it in 1948 or the multiple times Israel and various international coalitions (i.e. the quartet) made overly generous offers? Thursday’s vote was not about a “Palestinian” state; it was about rewarding savagery and Hamas terror and denying the Jewish people their homeland. That’s what this is all about. And this never would have happened without the *wink wink* *nod nod* of President Obama in league with the butchers. More of the gruesome consequences of a weak and feckless President.

They want to roll back Oslo? Let’s do it. All the way. Palestinian Islamic Jihad is preparing what they called a “more savage and bloody round” of war with Israel. When this savagery begins, Israel must be allowed to defend itself. If Barack Obama forces another ill-advised Muslim Brotherhood-devised truce upon the Israelis, the consequences could be disastrous not just for Israel, but for the free world in general....

Read it all.

Like UPI, Mahmoud Abbas is in full projection mode, accusing the foes of jihadis of what the jihadis themselves do. "Abbas: Israeli 'Threats' Won't Deter Us," by David Lev for Israel National News, November 29 (thanks to Voice of the Copts):

Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas said Thursday that he is not afraid of Israel's “threats,” and the he plans to go full-force forward with his attempt to get the UN General Assembly to give a PA state non-voting observer status at the UN. Abbas, speaking in New York, said that the PA had been subject to “extreme pressure” to pull its request for statehood recognition, but that it planned on continuing with the process.

Numerous European countries, including France, have announced that they will support the bid. The U.S., meanwhile, said that it was sharply opposed to the move. With support from third world and Arab countries, the bid is expected to pass easily when it comes up for a vote later Thursday.

Abbas said that Israel had “threatened” him, but that he was not “afraid. If Israel wants to hurt me they can easily do so, because I live under Israeli occupation.” He added that in his opinion, the PA deserved to have a state at this time. “The world has witnessed for the past six years how the PA has developed institutions, political, security, and government, in preparation for this declaration,” he said.

Abbas did not specify how Israel had “threatened” him, but was apparently referring to statements by Israeli officials that Jerusalem would demand international guarantees in future negotiations, and that the statehood bid would “boomerang” on the PA. Speaking on Israel Radio earlier, Government Secretary General Tzvi Hauser said that the PA move will make a final settlement harder to achieve. “This moves breaks the rules of the game and will allow Israel to react in any way it deems necessary in order to protect its interests." Hauser stressed that any deal between Israel and PA needed to be made by direct negotiations, and that involving international bodies in the attempts to arrive at a settlement would not produce anything....

That's what Gaza became, contrary to all the confident predictions that Israel's withdrawal would usher in a new era of peace, and that's what a Palestinian state would be as well. "Palestinian 'state' wins U.N. recognition," from USA Today, November 29:

The United Nations General Assembly voted Thursday 138-9 with 41 abstentions to grant Palestine non-member state status.

The vote does not settle outstanding issues with Israel or change anything on the ground, say experts.

"We are here for a final serious attempt to achieve peace," Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas told General Assembly delegates before the vote. "Not to end the negotiation processâ?¦ rather to breath new life into the negotiation process."

Vuk JeremiÄ?, president of the General Assembly acknowledged the historical nature of the vote and called on Israeli and Palestinian leaders "to work for peace, negotiate in good faith and succeed."

Israelis say the Palestinian appeal for non-member state status will make peace less likely. Currently the Palestinian Authority has the status of U.N. observer.

Abbas went forward despite appeals to postpone the request, which the United States says will only make negotiations for a permanent state less likely to happen.

"If the Israeli authorities want to threaten my life, they can," Abbas said according to Palestinian news agency Ma'an. "The whole world realizes that the Palestinian Authority, with all its political and security services, and administrative bodies, has been ready to upgrade its status for six years."

The Israeli government did not threaten Abbas' life, but said said that peace is only achieved through negotiations, and not by unilateral declarations that do not take into consideration Israel security needs.

"Israel's hand is always extended in peace, but a Palestinian state will not be established without recognition of the state of Israel as the state of the Jewish people, without an end-of-conflict declaration, and without true security arrangements that will protect Israel and its citizens," he said Thursday.

Ahead of the vote, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch filed an amendment to a defense bill that would eliminate funding for the United Nations if the General Assembly changes Palestine's status.

"Increasing the Palestinians' role in the United Nations is absolutely the wrong approach, especially in light of recent military developments in the Middle East," he said in a statement. "Israel is one of America's closest allies, and any movement to strengthen one of its fiercest enemies must not be tolerated."

In his speech, Abbas said he"did not come here to de-legitimize a state established years ago, that is Israrel. Rather we are here to affirm a state that must achieve its independence, and that is Palestine."

His bid to seek U.N.recognition was met with "an incessant flood of Israeli threats," he said, including "justification of military assaults and ethnic cleansing,particularly in east Jerusalem."

Israel's occupation "is becoming consistent with an apartheid system" that promotes "racial hatred and incitement," he said. "The window of opportunity is narrowing and time is running out."...

What incredible mendacity and projection.

What a surprise. "Hypocrisy exposed: U.N. ignored Israel's repeated pleas to act against Hamas rockets, then rushed to stop Israel's self-defense," from UN Watch, November 22 (thanks to Blazing Cat Fur):

GENEVA, Nov. 22 -- Although this past week saw U.N. agencies and high officials rushing to intervene the moment Israel began to defend its civilian population from hundreds of Hamas rocket attacks, letters published by UN Watch show that the same U.N. actors repeatedly turned a blind eye while Israel pleaded for action.

Russian ambaasador Vitaly Churkin, who for nearly two years now has blocked any U.N. Security Council action to stop the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad from murdering more than 30,000 of his own people, lashed out this week at "procrastination on Gaza."

In reality, it has been the procrastination, indifference and inaction of Russia and its Security Council allies that gave Hamas the green light to bomb Israeli civilians, finally prompting Israel's belated response.

On at least 20 separate occasions this year, the Israeli government turned to the U.N. concerning Palestinian rocket attacks, in identical letters sent to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the Security Council.

Israel urged the United Nations to act, and, at a minimum, to speak out and condemn the attacks.

“Inaction today could help ignite an escalation of conflict tomorrow,” Israel warned, while exercising astonishing measures of restraint that no country facing a similar onslaught of rockets has ever shown. Yet we are unaware of any U.N. action taken in response....

This document never mentions Islam, which is the only major force interfering with the freedom of religion, but it is nevertheless good to see the UN taking the stance. If it becomes a criminal offense to criticize Islam, however, as the UN has also called for with Resolution 16/18, many Islamic supremacists will see the affirmation of the right to change religions as an insult to Islam and even as an expression of hatred against it. At that point, expect the UN's calls for protection of the freedom of religion to end.

"Violated in practice, questioned in principle – UN expert urges Governments to protect the right of conversion," from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, October 25 (thanks to Trevor):

NEW YORK (25 October 2012) – The United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, today urged States to consistently respect, protect and promote the human right to freedom of religion or belief in the area of conversion.

“The right of conversion and the right not to be forced to convert or reconvert belong to the internal dimension of a person’s religious or belief-related conviction, which is unconditionally protected under international human rights law,” said Mr. Bielefeldt presenting his report* to the UN General Assembly.

In his study, the independent expert analyses the patterns of abuses that are perpetrated in the name of religious or ideological truth claims in the interest of promoting national identity or protecting societal homogeneity, or under other pretexts such as maintaining political and national security.

“While some undue restrictions on the rights of converts or those trying non-coercively to convert others are undertaken by State agencies, other abuses, including acts of violence, stem from widespread societal prejudices,” the Special Rapporteur noted.

“Violations in this sensitive area also include forced conversions or reconversions, again perpetrated either by the State or by non-State actors,” he said. “In addition, the rights of converts or those trying non-coercively to convert others are sometimes questioned in principle.” In this context, he stressed, the rights of the child and his or her parents must also be guaranteed.

The right to conversion
“In addition to being exposed to manifestations of social pressure, public contempt and systematic discrimination, converts often face insurmountable administrative obstacles when trying to live in conformity with their convictions.”

“In some States, converts may also face criminal prosecution, at times even including the death penalty, for such offences as ‘apostasy,’ ‘heresy,’ ‘blasphemy’ or ‘insult’ in respect of a religion or the country’s dominant tradition and values.”

The right not to be forced to convert
“While some members of religious or belief minorities experience pressure to join a religion or belief deemed more ‘acceptable’ in society, converts are often exposed to pressure to reconverting to their previous religion. Such pressure can be undertaken both by Government agencies and by non-State actors, including by directly linking humanitarian aid to an expectation of conversion.”

The Special Rapporteur said he was particularly concerned about pressure or threats experienced by women, sometimes in the context of marriage or marriage negotiations, to convert to the religion of their husband or prospective husband.

The right to try to convert others by means of non-coercive persuasion
“Many States impose tight legislative or administrative restrictions on communicative outreach activities. Many such restrictions are conceptualised and implemented in a flagrantly discriminatory manner, for instance, in the interest of further strengthening the position of the official religion or dominant religion of the country while further marginalising the situation of minorities.”

“Members of religious communities that have a reputation of being generally engaged in missionary activities may also face societal prejudices that can escalate into paranoia, sometimes even leading to acts of mob violence and killings.”

The rights of the child and his or her parents
The Special Rapporteur said he had also received reports of repressive measures targeting children of converts or members of religious minorities, including with the purpose of exercising pressure on them and their parents to reconvert to their previous religion or to coerce members of minorities to convert to more socially ‘accepted’ religions or beliefs.

“Such repressive activities may violate the child’s freedom of religion or belief and/or the parents’ right to ensure an education for their children in conformity with their own convictions and in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.”

(*) Check the full report: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N12/461/30/PDF/N1246130.pdf?OpenElement

"World leaders need to find ways to ensure freedom of expression doesn't equate to violence." In other words, world leaders need to capitulate to Muslim violence, and criminalize criticism of Islam, so that Muslims no longer have an impetus to riot and kill. If this means ending all counterterror efforts and rendering their nations mute and hence defenseless in the face of the advancing jihad, so be it.

If Navi Pillay had any shred of moral sense left, she would be calling upon Muslim leaders to teach their people that rioting and killing are not acceptable responses when something makes them angry. But instead, she says this, which only reinforces the idea that rioting and murder work, and when the kuffar say something Muslims don't like, all the Muslims have to do is kill a few people and burn a few buildings, and the kuffar will shut up of their own accord.

"Pillay: Hatred, free speech don't mix," from UPI, October 24 (thanks to Block Ness):

UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 24 (UPI) -- A top human rights official said from U.N. headquarters that world leaders need to find ways to ensure freedom of expression doesn't equate to violence.

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said there are signs of growing tensions between freedom of expression and religion.

"I have publicly regretted or condemned various displays of religious hatred or bigotry and have also consistently urged religious and political leaders to condemn the violence, including the loss of life that has taken place in reaction to such incidents in various parts of the world," she said.

“Teaching UNRWA students about the so-called ‘Holocaust’ as part of human rights harms the Palestinian cause… and changes the students’ views regarding their main enemy, namely the Israeli occupation.” Indeed -- it doesn't square with the vicious Jew-hatred they need to keep alive in order to keep the jihad against Israel going.

"Jordanian teachers in UN schools for Palestinian refugees say they’ll refuse to teach the Holocaust," by Elhanan Miller for the Times of Israel, October 16 (thanks to Lachlan):

Rumors of a UN decision to re-introduce Holocaust studies in schools run by UNRWA — the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees — have raised the ire of Jordanian teachers, who say they will refuse to teach history that “harms the Palestinian cause.”

In a statement issued Monday, the Executive Committee of UNRWA teachers in Jordan responded to rumors that Holocaust studies would be reintroduced this year to the enrichment curriculum on conflict resolution, which is taught in schools operated by the UN agency in Palestinian refugee camps.

“We condemn this decision, which equates the butcher and the victim,” read the teachers’ statement, demanding instead to introduce classes on the Palestinian “right of return” to Israel and the history of the 1948 war with Israel.

Some 2 million Palestinian refugees are registered with UNRWA’s Jordan offices. The UN agency operates 172 schools in 10 refugee camps across the kingdom, serving a total of over 122,000 students.

Last year, the association of UNRWA employees endorsed a decision to ban the introduction of Holocaust studies in UNRWA schools, Jordanian daily Al-Ghad reported Tuesday, a decision the teachers said was still binding.

“We shall monitor the curriculum being taught under the title ‘concepts of human rights’ [which is] aimed at reducing [Palestinian] students’ awareness of the right of return,” read the statement.

“Teaching UNRWA students about the so-called ‘Holocaust’ as part of human rights harms the Palestinian cause… and changes the students’ views regarding their main enemy, namely the Israeli occupation.”

Since 2009, Hamas in Gaza has actively opposed UNRWA’s attempts to introduce the Holocaust into school curriculum in Gaza, claiming that it contradicted Palestinian culture....

This is fine news indeed, especially since he says he is giving up in the face of immovable opposition from the U.S. and Europe. But with so many recent calls for the imposition of Islamic blasphemy laws in the West under the guise of "hate speech" laws, and with many of them coming from Western journalists, we're not quite out of the woods yet in regard to Islamic supremacist assaults upon the freedom of speech.

"West's free speech stand bars blasphemy ban - OIC," by Tom Heneghan for Reuters, October 15 (thanks to David):

(Reuters) - Western opposition has made it impossible for Muslim states to obtain a ban on blasphemy, including anti-Islamic videos and cartoons that have touched off deadly riots, the Islamic world's top diplomat said.

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), said his 57-nation body would not try again for United Nations support to ban insults to religion, but appealed for states to apply hate-speech laws concerning Islam.

"We could not convince them," said the Turkish head of the 57-member organisation which had tried from 1998 until 2011 to get a United Nations-backed ban on blasphemy.

"The European countries don't vote with us, the United States doesn't vote with us."

Western countries see the publication of such images and materials as a matter of free speech....

Ihsanoglu told a conference in Istanbul at the weekend that the OIC had failed to win a ban at the United Nations and would not revive its long diplomatic campaign for one.

Asked about recent media reports that the OIC wanted to resume the campaign for a blasphemy ban, he said: "I never said this and I know this will never happen."...

Ihsanoglu's statement clarified the OIC stand at a time when Muslim religious leaders have stepped up demands for an international blasphemy law and politicians have accused Western states of spreading anti-Muslim hatred under the protection of their free-speech laws.

Starting in 1998, the 57-nation OIC won majorities in U.N. rights bodies and at the U.N. General Assembly every year for non-binding resolutions on "combating defamation of religions" that Western states opposed as potential threats to free speech.

But support for these texts steadily fell to just over 50 percent by 2010, because of strong Western and growing Latin American opposition, and the OIC opted for a weaker resolution against intolerance towards all religions last year.

That more general resolution, drawn up with the United States and the European Union, passed unanimously.

The long dispute highlighted differing views of free speech in Western and Muslim countries. Ihsanoglu said Western states had a "strange understanding" of free speech if it could be abused to hurt and insult others....

Muslim politicians have stepped up their denunciations of Western free speech policies following the video and cartoons lampooning Prophet Mohammad. Muslims consider any criticism of him as highly offensive and beyond free speech protection.

"We cannot accept insults to Islam under the guise of freedom of thought," Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan told the Istanbul conference.

"We Muslims want the same respect shown to Jewish culture, which we support," Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said.

But while editorialists and religious leaders have renewed calls for a worldwide blasphemy ban, few national leaders have actually ended their rhetorical reactions with that demand.

One who did at the United Nations last month was President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan, whose own national blasphemy law has come under increasing criticism at home and abroad as open to widespread abuse against minority Christians.

Ihsanoglu, speaking at the conference on a panel with Pakistani opposition leader Imran Khan, encouraged countries with blasphemy laws to apply against insults to Islam, and then quickly added: "not particularly the one in Pakistan".

What? The whole Sharia regime has apparently been instituted by Misunderstanders of Islam who don't realize that Sharia is benign and completely compatible with Western principles of human rights. How odd!

"Mali: Human rights abuses in are now ‘more systematic’ - U.N.," from Xinhua, October 12 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

UNITED NATIONS (Xinhua) -- A senior UN official said here Wednesday that the pattern of human rights violations in Mali is now “more systematic,” and called for the government to re- take control of the rebel-held northern part of the West African country.

“The pattern of human rights violations is changing,” Ivan Simonovic, the UN assistant secretary-general for human rights, said at a press conference here. “What is new now is that humans rights violations are becoming more systematic.”

The press conference took place following Simonovic’s four-day visit to Mali to assess the human rights situation there.

Simonovic, a Croatian diplomat and former Croatian justice minister, was appointed in May 2010 the UN assistant secretary- general for human rights

Islamic militants have established a strict Sharia law in the north following an unplanned coup in April, and the “population is suffering a number of human rights violations, particularly targeted at women,” said Simonovic.

Under the strict laws, women are facing restrictions in the ability to work, an increase in forced marriages and drastic punishments, he said.

Children are also quite vulnerable in this situation, he said, “there is reliable evidence of many children being enlisted” as child soldiers....

If "Islamophobia" is criminalized, will these attacks on infidels stop? No, of course not. The only thing that will stop will be the infidels' ability to speak about and resist the jihad onslaught.

"Algeria at UN: Limit free speech, protect Islam," by David Stringer for the Associated Press, September 30:

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Algeria demanded new efforts Saturday to limit freedom of expression to prevent denigrating attacks on Islam, appealing to the United Nations to take a lead as nations engaged in new debate on the tensions between free speech and religious tolerance.

In an address to the General Assembly, Algeria's foreign minister Mourad Medelci called for global action under the auspices of the United Nations to respond to violent demonstrations provoked by a U.S.-produced video that mocks Muslims and the Prophet Muhammad.

While Medelci didn't offer precise details of how he believed the U.N. could intervene, his call follows similar demands at the General Assembly from scores of leaders in the Muslim world who want new laws to ban insults against Islam.

On the sidelines of the annual forum, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, told The Associated Press Saturday in an interview that the deaths of two dozen people in violent protests against the anti-Islam film underscored the need for new legislation.

Malaysia's foreign minister Anifah Aman told the General Assembly that the creators of the anti-Islam film — an amateurish, privately produced U.S. video that mocked Muhammad's image — and those behind the publication of lewd caricatures of the prophet by French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo had shown "blatant malicious intent" toward Muslims.

"When we discriminate against gender, it is called sexism. When African Americans are criticized and vilified, it is called racism. When the same is done to the Jews, people call it Anti-Semitism. But why is it when Muslims are stigmatized and defamed, it is defended as 'freedom of expression'?" Aman told the General Assembly.

Aman he believed it was "time to dwell deeper into the heart of the problem and the real debate — the relationship between freedom of expression and social responsibilities, duties and obligations."

Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari had called in his speech Tuesday to the General Assembly for action led by the U.N. to address a "widening rift" between the Muslim world and the West....

Speaking Saturday, Liechtenstein's Foreign Minister Aurelia Frick said that the "hateful slander of people on the basis of their culture or religion is unacceptable," but did not join calls for new laws. She urged nations instead to promote values of "tolerance, understanding and mutual respect."

Yes, that will fix everything.

We saw at the UN this week a concerted effort by Muslim leaders from around the world to compel the West to criminalize criticism of Islam. The objective of this effort is to stop those who point out the motives and goals of the jihadists, as these are rooted in Islamic texts and teachings. That will render the West mute and hence defenseless before the advancing jihad and the tyranny of Sharia.

"At U.N., Muslim world questions Western freedom of speech," by John Irish for Reuters, September 28 (thanks to Clayton):

(Reuters) - Muslim leaders were in unison at the United Nations this week arguing that the West was hiding behind its defense of freedom of speech and ignoring cultural sensitivities in the aftermath of anti-Islam slurs that have raised fears of a widening East-West cultural divide.

A video made in California depicting the Prophet Mohammad as a fool sparked the storming of U.S. and other Western embassies in many Islamic countries and a deadly suicide bombing in Afghanistan this month. The crisis deepened when a French magazine published caricatures of the Prophet.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said it was time to put an end to the protection of Islamophobia masquerading as the freedom to speak freely.

"Unfortunately, Islamophobia has also become a new form of racism like anti-Semitism. It can no longer be tolerated under the guise of freedom of expression. Freedom does not mean anarchy," he told the 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Friday.

Egypt's newly elected Islamist president, Mohamed Mursi, voiced similar sentiments in his speech on Wednesday.

"Egypt respects freedom of expression, freedom of expression that is not used to incite hatred against anyone," he said. "We expect from others, as they expect from us, that they respect our cultural specifics and religious references, and not impose concepts or cultures that are unacceptable to us."...

While repeating his condemnations of the video, U.S. President Barack Obama staunchly defended free speech, riling some of those leaders.

"The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech - the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy," Obama said in a 30-minute speech dominated by this theme.

'CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS'

Speaking after Obama, President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan, where more than a dozen people were killed in protests against the anti-Islam film, demanded insults to religion be criminalized.

"The international community must not become silent observers and should criminalize such acts that destroy the peace of the world and endanger world security by misusing freedom of expression," he said.

Highlighting the anger of some, about 150 protesters demanded "justice" and chanted "there is no god but Allah" outside the U.N. building on Thursday. One placard read: "Blaspheming my Prophet must be made a crime at the U.N."

Foreign ministers from the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation met on Friday. The film topped the agenda.

"This incident demonstrates the serious consequences of abusing the principle of freedom of expression on one side and the freedom of demonstration on the other side," OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu told reporters.

Human Rights First and Muslim Public Affairs Council, two U.S.-based advocacy groups, warned of the risks of regulating such freedoms.

"Countless incidents show that when governments or religious movements seek to punish offences in the name of combating religious bigotry, violence then ensues and real violations of human rights are perpetrated against targeted individuals," they said in a joint statement.

The 47-member U.N. Human Rights Council, dominated by developing states, has passed non-binding resolutions against defamation of religion for over a decade. Similar ones were endorsed in the U.N. General Assembly.

European countries, the United States and several Latin American nations in the council opposed the resolutions, arguing that while individual people have human rights, religions do not, and that existing U.N. pacts - if enforced - were sufficient to curb incitement to hatred and violence.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle attempted to dampen talk of a clash of civilizations on Thursday.

"Some would have us believe that the burning embassy buildings are proof of a clash of civilizations," Westerwelle said in his U.N. address. "We must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such arguments. This is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash within civilizations. It is also a struggle for the soul of the movement for change in the Arab world."

Yeah? Where is the other side in this clash?

AP's scurrilous photo, clearly trying to invite Hitler comparisons

A real leader makes a strong moral stand against jihadist savagery. "Netanyahu: 'We will never be uprooted again,'" from FoxNews.com, September 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a rebuke to Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, vowed Thursday during an address to the U.N. General Assembly that the Jewish people "will never be uprooted again."

Netanyahu started his address by telling the history of the Jewish people and their ties to the land of Israel.

"Throughout our history the Jewish people have overcome all the tyrants who sought our destruction," he said. "The Jewish people have come home. We will never be uprooted again."

The prime minister was speaking amid concerns in Israel that it may be running out to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power and threatening Israel's existence.

It also comes amid tensions between the Obama administration and his own over that issue.

Netanyahu's demand that President Obama declare "red lines" that would trigger an American attack on Iran's nuclear facilities has been rejected in Washington and sparked a public rift between the two leaders.

Further, Obama did not meet with Netanyahu this week during his visit to the U.N., drawing rebukes from pro-Israel Republicans in Washington....

A few hours before Netanyahu flew to the U.S., Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at length about his vision for a "new world order" during his speech at the U.N. His speech on Wednesday happened to fall on Yom Kippur, the most sacred day on the Jewish calendar, devoted to fasting, prayer and introspection.

Netanyahu issued a statement condemning the speech soon after the fast ended. "On the day when we pray to be inscribed in the book of life a platform was given to a dictatorial regime that strives, at every opportunity, to sentence us to death," Netanyahu said.

Indeed.