Comments by David G. Littman, NGO Representative (UN, Geneva) of the Association for World Education (AWE) and the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ):
On 18 November, a grandiose, 1,500 m2 grotto-like ceiling by Spanish artist Miquel Barcelo was unveiled at the Palais des Nations after a year’s work, involving 20 assistants and at a controversial cost of $25 million of Spanish taxpayers’ money. The former ‘Swiss’ Room XX was inaugurated in royal pomp by King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan – co-sponsors of the ‘Alliance of Civilisations’ – as well as other dignitaries, the artist and 700 guests. Renamed ‘Chamber for Human Rights and the Alliance of Civilizations’, it is slated for the Human Rights Council with a special session in December to celebrate the Sixtieth Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. At the 6th meeting of the ‘Eurasian Islamic Council’ in Istanbul on September 15, Prime Minister Erdogan – with Prime Minister Zapatero by his side – defined ‘Islamophobia’ as a grave pathological state of mind, and voiced his expectation that members of different civilizations would soon consider it a ‘crime against humanity‘.
Irony of irony, this grandiose artistic creation, with its thousands of stalactites – representing dripstone hanging from the roof of a cave – is a symbolic representation of the current state of the Human Rights Council, which might be described by echoing Churchill’s dramatic words in the House of Commons seventy years ago:
I have watched this famous island [‘Council’] descending incontinently, recklessly, the stairway which leads to a dark gulf. It is a fine broad staircase at the beginning, but, after a bit, the carpet ends. A little further on there are only flagstones, and, a little further on still, these break beneath your feet.
(Speech, March 24, 1938 – at a fateful moment in European and world history.)A stealth-like ‘struggle’ is gaining ground at the Human Rights Council and elsewhere in a ‘Jihad atmosphere’. * The last flagstones are constantly breaking beneath the feet of delegates – especially concerned NGOs -and these ‘points of order’ stalactites from dictatorial regimes are more dangerous than the picturesque ones dangling above.
————————-
* Recent use of term, ‘Jihad atmosphere’, see “Hezbollah’s foundation is youth,” by Robert F. Worth, International Herald Tribune – http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/20/mideast/lebanon.php
* * * * *
This is a sequel to our recent articles on Jihad Watch (28 September, 3 October, 11 October) in which we endeavoured to provide a ‘blow-by-blow description of the tactics being used by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to dictate what can and what cannot be stated or debated at the Human Rights Council. In total contradiction to the universal values enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (UDHR) but in harmony with the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI), this ongoing phenomenon has been analysed by several NGOs. We are providing below a copy of AWE’s recent correspondence with the President of the HRC and the HCHR, which illustrates how the remaining flagstones are slowly breaking under the feet of those delegates of democratic states, and NGOs, who wish to apply the UDHR – including, “freedom of expression and the right to disagree” – at the Human Rights Council and in other UN human rights forums.
On June 16, during the CHR “Shariah Affair”, I was warned amicably by Romanian President Doru Romulus Costea – after a recess of 45 minutes, due to menaces from the Egyptian delegate on behalf of the OIC – that when concluding our statement on violence against women, I should avoid any mention of ‘shariah’ or ‘fatwa’. Presumably, this would now cover even a comic reference to the now famous fatwa of the well-known Islamist Lecturer and author, Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Al-Munajid (former staff member of the Saudi Embassy Islamic Affairs Department, Washington D.C.), who declared on Al-Majd TV (August 27) that, as mice were Satan’s soldiers it follows that “according to Islamic law, Mickey Mouse should be killed in all cases.” On November 6, Al-Munajid returned to the fray on Saudi Iqra TV, declaring firmly that he had “never issued a fatwa about the killing of Mickey Mouse” – a topic that is now generating serious debate in the Arab world, including a daring satirical article by Egyptian writer Sami Al-Behiri, residing in the U.S., on his interview with Mickey Mouse in Disneyland. (http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD212308 )
By chance, the UN inauguration of the ‘Chamber for Human Rights and the Alliance of Civilizations’ on November 18 coincided with the 80th birthday of Mickey Mouse. After such a ‘little bit of luck’, why not a ‘little freedom of imagination’ to conjure up Mickey Mouse, and his companion Minnie, performing some ‘slapstick jihad’ at the 60th anniversary of the UDHR – perhaps even a debate on the ‘Mickey Mouse fatwa’ – thereby inaugurating a Disneyland Première at the Palais des Nations in Geneva?
* * * * *
H.E. Mr. Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi
President of the Human Rights Council
OHCHR, Palais Wilson. Geneva
1 October 2008Dear Mr President,
Freedom of Expression at the Council and the dangers of ad hominem ‘points of order’
I regret that the statement I made for the AWE at the Council’s 18th meeting (9th session on 23 September), under item 9, created an atmosphere of tension as a result of the intervention by the delegate of Egypt. Once again – as on 23 March and 16 June – Mr. Amr Roshdy Hassan made an ad hominem attack against me – and an explanatory “reply”, not a “point of order”.
[The full 23 Sept. text, with interruptions, is provided at the end of the correspondence]
For convenience, we will be handing this letter to you at the Palais Wilson tomorrow morning before the start of the Expert Seminar on the links between articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR, entitled: “Freedom of expression and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” We note that you are scheduled to make an Opening Statement after Ms. Navanethem Pillay, High Commissioner for Human Rights. We feel that the matters that we are raising in regard to this question of “Freedom of Expression at the Council” and the danger of ad hominem point of orders is crucial and pertinent to the seminar.
Your diverse comments and reference to the “Golden Rule” were welcome. However, we would appreciate a clarification from you, as President of the Human Rights Council, on the “rule” you applied when deciding that the statement was “out of order”. As I explained during our discussion on this matter just after the end of the 18th and again before the start of the 19th meeting, such ad hominem attacks by the delegate of Egypt have become the norm. This time he even suggested that I “find a hobby or grow a moustache or something” and his comments went unhindered – without a reaction from any Council Member. Your decision as President to declare our statement “out of order” when it dealt with Islamic clerics who defame religion may well result in a dangerous precedent in the future, penalising NGOs under similar themes.
There are many NGO representatives who are sensitive to being stopped on a “point of order”, especially as Governments have a “right to reply” when they can set out their views. There is no “right to reply” for NGOs. Thus, some States have learned to use “points of order” – as did the notorious U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy in the early 1950s – as a way to break into an NGO presentation and silence the speaker. On this issue, there is wide agreement of solidarity among NGO representatives, even when they may disagree on the content of a statement.
We are providing our statement in full and an exact transcript of what was said by Mr. Hassan – and by you, as President (all that was said is in red ) The comments in blue, as explained, have been added by me. The accuracy of this transcript can be checked on the UN webcast.
I wish to reproduce the words I had stated for AWE at the moment I was ruled “out of order”:
Clearly, many of the States that since 1999 have co-sponsored the resolution ‘Combating defamation of religions’ overlook repeated cases where Islamic clerics defame other religions. A recent case is very typical and there was no apology after an Al-Jazeera…
I am including (in the documentation provided herein) the exact translation from MEMRI of the “Defamation of Religions” by an Islamic cleric on 9 August 2008, to which I was referring (“I say to the People of the Book [i.e. Christians and Jews]: The Books you have are forgeries.”)
Also enclosed are two more recent TV translations, again from Arabic (MEMRI), which confirm what we were saying about the constant religious defaming of other religions and an endemic Arab-Muslim Judeophobia/Antisemitism, all of which is within the parameters of item 9.
In fact, Mr. Hassan made other points of order: he attempted to have me ruled “out of order” when reading a most relevant statement for Rabbi François Garaï, on behalf of the World Union for Progressive Judaism. Here, you took no heed of this reiterated call. [cf. transcript]
In this precise context, our written statement to the 62nd session (final) of the Commission is pertinent: General Comments on the Human Rights Commission and a future Council – “A riddle, wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma” (E/CN.4/2006/NGO/1). In it, we referred to these frequent ad hominem attacks (there were several other cases on that day, and others): Freedom of speech: end personal attacks on Special Rapporteurs and NGO representatives.
There, we quote Argentine Ambassador Leandro Despouys, Chairman of the 57th session of the Commission (2001) who – in his statement to the plenum on 12 April 2001 – referred to the ‘Main Rules and Practices’ (article 16 of the paper: E/CN.4/2001/CRP.1), covering ad hominem attacks on Special Rapporteurs. He included NGOs in it. There is a quote from the chairperson of the 50th session (8/3/1994), stating that: “it is the duty of the Commission on Human Rights to ensure that, while respecting the right to freedom of expression and the right to disagree, the character and integrity of its Special Rapporteurs are not called in question.”
His appeal was understood and noted by all on that occasion. We also quoted, in that text, a remarkably pertinent recommendation by Libyan Chairperson, Ambassador Najat A-Hajjaji, when she addressed Special Rapporteurs, Representatives and Independent Experts and others at the their 10th session (23-27 June 2003). This was after the 59th Commission, when she had announced – at the first plenum meeting – that she would not tolerate personal attacks on speakers. This followed an appeal we had made to her (at an NGO meeting) not to allow ad hominem attacks on NGOs, nor on Special Rapporteurs, and observers. She did exactly that and was highly successful. There were no ‘incidents’. Her words are worth quoting here:
Speak freely as you have done in the past. Continue to do so in the interest of truth, of justice, irrespective of the pressure that is brought to bear upon you by Governments. Even if what you say is contrary to the interests of the Government, there are thousands, millions of victims, who look upon the Commission, the special procedures as the conscience of humanity… Stand firm; let nothing stand in the way of truth.
In view of the comments above from two of your predecessors, and the gravity of this matter, we are appealing to you to provide us with comprehensive answers to our queries and, we hope, put the Council back on track with a decision that will remove misunderstandings on this matter of “freedom of expression and the right to disagree” on the one hand, and “the character and integrity” of all representatives on the other hand.
Yours respectfully,
David G. Littman
Representative of the Association for World Education to the UN (Geneva)
———————————————————————————————–
Text approved by René Wadlow, Main Representative to the UN (Geneva):
Association for World Education and Association of World Citizenscc. H.E. Ms. Navanethan Pillay, High Commissioner for Human Rights
* * * * *
H.E. Mr. Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi
President of the Human Rights Council
Palais des Nations. Geneva
10 November 2008
[handed to his assistant same after afternoon]
Dear Mr President,Freedom of Expression at the Council and the dangers of ad hominem ‘points of order’
I am writing to you six weeks after our two-page letter of 1 October, which I handed to you and the HCHR at the start of the Expert Seminar at the Palais des Nations on 2 October.
After a month passed, I called your assistant, who kindly informed me that a reply was being drafted and would be sent to me “within a week or ten days.” Nothing has arrived.
As I shall be assisting at the Meeting of the Committee of NGOs on Human Rights this afternoon, I shall be raising this issue before my NGO colleagues, as what happened at the last session of the Council – and in earlier sessions – affects all NGOs and not just one or two.
As we stated in the previous letter: “There are many NGO representatives who are sensitive to being stopped on a ‘point of order’, especially as Governments have a ‘right to reply’ when they can set out their views. There is no ‘right to reply’ for NGOs. Thus, some States have learned to use a ‘point of order’ (…) as a way to break into an NGO presentation and silence the speaker. On this issue, there is wide agreement of solidarity among NGO representatives, even when they may disagree on the content of a statement.
We wish once again to quote the words of the current president of the “Durban Review Conference”, Libyan Ambassador Najat A-Hajjaji, when she addressed Special Rapporteurs, Representatives and Independent Experts and others over five years ago (23-27 June 2003):
Speak freely as you have done in the past. Continue to do so in the interest of truth, of justice, irrespective of the pressure that is brought to bear upon you by Governments. Even if what you say is contrary to the interests of the Government, there are thousands, millions of victims, who look upon the Commission, the special procedures as the conscience of humanity (…). Stand firm; let nothing stand in the way of truth.
In view of the gravity of this matter, we are once again appealing to you to provide us with comprehensive answers to the questions in our letter dated 1 October 2008 – and a decision that will clearly address the question of “freedom of expression and the right to disagree” on the one hand, and “the character and integrity” of all representatives on the other hand.
Yours respectfully,
David G. Littman
Representative of the Association for World Education to the United Nations (Geneva)
—————————————————————————————–
Text approved by René Wadlow, Main Representative to the UN (Geneva):
Association for World Education and the Association of World Citizenscc. H.E. Ms. Navanethan Pillay, High Commissioner for Human Rights
* * * * *
Office of the President
Human Rights Council
11 November 2008Dear Mr. Littman,
I write to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 1 October 2008.
On several occasions during the ninth session of the Council I called upon all stakeholders to make their statements in dignity and respect for each others’ views. I also called upon everybody to be decent and respectful of the beliefs and values of every person participating in the work of he Council. I wish to reiterate my firm commitment to ensuring that the proceedings of Council are conducted in an orderly and dignified manner.
You have my assurances that I will continue to duly apply the rules of procedures as I did in the circumstances you referred to in your letter.
Yours sincerely,
Martin I. Uhomoibhi
President of the Human Rights Council* * * * *
H.E. Mr. Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi
President of the Human Rights Council
Palais des Nations. Geneva
17 November 2008Dear Mr. President,
Freedom of Expression at the Council and the dangers of ad hominem ‘points of order’
I handed my letter of 10 November to your assistant at the Palais des Nations that same afternoon and informed him that I had read it out in full at the Meeting of the Committee of NGOs on Human Rights an hour earlier, since we maintain that what happened at the last session of the Council – and at earlier sessions – affects all NGOs. Our 1 October letter to you (with written statement 2006/NGO/1) was made available to those present as we feel strongly that this is a very sensitive subject that should be examined by UN legal experts. This major point of principle was understood by the NGO community members present.
I acknowledge reception of your reply dated 11 November and wish to confirm that I wrote to you in my capacity as a representative of the Association for World Education and that both my letters, as indicated, were approved by Mr. René Wadlow, main representative to the UN (Geneva) of the Association for World Education (AWE) and the Association of World Citizens (AWC). Your letter is addressed to me personally – without mention of my AWE accreditation. I am also the representative of the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ) in Geneva, but my two above letters were sent in my capacity as representative for AWE.
We note what you write that all speakers should make their “statements in dignity and respect for each others’ views,” and that you call “upon everybody to be decent and respectful of the beliefs and values of every person participating in the work of the Council.” You conclude that you “will continue to apply the rules of procedure”, which is what you maintain was done in regard to my oral statement of 23 September for AWE.
We would appreciate knowing which ‘rule of procedure’ was followed by you on that occasion – or was it merely the right of the president to act as he feels is correct? Since everyone may obtain access to the UN webcast – and this particular ‘exchange’ has been seen in several versions and posted on blogs – it is clearly evident that Egyptian delegate Amr Roshdy Hassan again attacked me personally, even suggesting that I “find a hobby or grow a moustache or something,” without any reaction emanating from a Council member – or by you as Council President. Here is the precise moment when you ruled me ‘out of order’.
Clearly, many of the States that since 1999 have co-sponsored the resolution Combating Defamation of Religions overlook repeated cases where Islamic clerics defame other religions. A recent case is very typical and there was no apology after an Al-…” [The precise place of your ‘out of order’ ruling, yet my full text was available via the Secretariat – and it provides irrefutable proof that this point was a perfectly legitimate statement to be made at the Council ] Jazeera TV interview with a prominent Egyptian geologist and cleric Dr.Zaghloul Ragheb. His crude defamation of Judaism & Christianity on 9 August was blatant. On 28 August an indignant presenter on Al-Hayat TV criticised such double standards strongly: His words are in our text. [Our oral statement is attached, with a transcript of all interventions by Mr. Hassan and you, as president.]
We maintain that, for the Council and other UN sessions, “freedom of expression and the right to disagree”, and “the character and integrity” of all representatives should merit an official UN ‘legal ruling’. Creative work in the Council is only possible, as you have pointed out, with mutual respect which we can only encourage, but all forms of official or self-censorship should not become the norm, thus contradicting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose 60th anniversary (10 December 2008) will be celebrated at the United Nations – and worldwide.
Yours respectfully,
David G. Littman
Representative of the Association for World Education to the United Nations (Geneva)
——————————————————————————————————–
Text approved by René Wadlow, Main Representative to the UN (Geneva) of AWE and AWC
——————————————————————————————————–
cc. H.E. Ms. Navanethan Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights* * * * *
H.E. Ms. Navanethan Pillay
High Commissioner for Human Rights
OHCHR, Palais Wilson, Geneva
17 November 2008Dear Madam High Commissioner,
Freedom of Expression at the Council and the dangers of ad hominem ‘points of order’
On 2 October, after the Expert Seminar at the Palais des Nations on the subject of “Freedom of expression and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”, we personally handed to you a copy of our letter of 1 October to Council President Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi, as well as full documentation on this crucial matter for NGOs in regard to “freedom of expression” at the Council and at other UN bodies.
This was followed by a second letter to the Council president on 10 November, also sent to you and duly recorded by your secretary following my conversation with her on this matter.
I am faxing you a copy of the reply received by President Uhomoibhi, dated 11 November, as well as my response to him today, and the transcript of my oral statement (with interruptions) of 23 September 2008, which will allow you to understand why the Association for World Education feels that this grave matter of principle cannot be simply brushed under a table.
We would be grateful if this matter can be referred to the appropriate person in your office who is competent to examine the jurisprudence concerning this major question about the ‘Rules of Procedure’. We made a similar appeal on a totally different subject ten years ago to HCHR Mary Robinson and received a clear and authoritative answer from her legal expert.
We would welcome an opportunity of discussing this matter with you well before the symbolic 10 December date, if your time schedule would allow such a meeting in the coming fortnight.
Yours respectfully,
David G. Littman
Representative of the Association for World Education to the United Nations (Geneva)
Text approved by René Wadlow, main representative to the UN (Geneva) of AWE and AWC
* * * * *
STATEMENT by Representative David G. LITTMAN – Tuesday (11:50) 23 September
UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL – Ninth Session (8-26 September 2008)
President of the Council: Ambassador Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi (Nigeria)Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and…Combating defamation of religions (item 9)
[The words in square brackets were not pronounced during the 3 minute oral statement]This text contains the original statement indicating what was actually pronounced by the speaker; what was originally in brackets – as further documentation; the ‘point of order’ by Egypt; and the two interventions by the President of the Council.
[Everything in red type is a verbatim transcript of what was said by the president and by the representative of Egypt; the passages in blue type are ‘comments’ from the speaker]
—————————————————————————————————————–
Thank you Mr. President.On the subject of Racism, many may remember the words of contrition by former Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the genocide in Rwanda, delivered here on 7 April 2004 to the 59th Commission:
[“We must never forget our collective failure to protect at least 800,000 defenceless men, women and children who perished in Rwanda 10 years ago…we must all acknowledge our responsibility for not having done more to prevent or stop genocide.”].
Rwanda was a flagrant case of genocide, but also of racism and ethnic cleansing.
As an example, a similar horror is now taking place in a region of Africa known to all [Darfur] and this may well become a Council litmus test: Two months ago, the Prosecutor of the Inter- national Criminal Court (ICC) filed a request for an indictment against the president of that State – for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. To those charges we would add the term ‘racism’.
Sir, we regret that the number of omissions on different forms of racism covered in the last Report of the Special Rapporteur [A/HRC/9/12] cries out. “Islamophobia” – covering three pages – is again the main theme. “Christianophobia” only merits one page and grave cases of xenophobia in the Arab-Muslim world are simply linked to “evangelical groups”, despite rampant discrimination and a mass Christian exodus from Middle Eastern countries, especially from Iraq [that is well-documented by UN bodies and many competent NGOs who are deeply concerned by this tragic religious cleansing of historic dimensions]. [See: “Egypt”, U.S. Department of State: Int. Religious Freedom Report (19/9/08) www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108481.htm]
In his final report, Mr. Doudou Diène only touches on Antisemitism / “Judeophobia” in Europe and South America, referring vaguely to…. “Africa”. Yet, despite a mass of documentation, he makes no mention whatsoever of this endemic indigenous phenomenon in the Arab-Muslim world that is being nourished by a general ‘culture of hate’ steadily growing in Europe and beyond. It is confirmed by all reliable sources – very recently by the PEW group [Research Centre].
[A recognised expert on racism, Director of Research at the CNRS in Paris, Pierre-André Taguieff, has described this in great detail in three books in French: La Nouvelle Judéo-phobia (Paris, 2002) ; Prêcheurs de haine: Traversée de la judéophobie planétaire (Paris, 2004); L’Imaginaire du complot mondial. Aspects d’un mythe moderne (Paris, 2007)]
As an example, sir, we have here a 12,000 word article – an English translation from Arabic – of a major work by Al-Azhar Grand Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi. It speaks volumes on The Children of Israel in the Qur’an and the Sunna. Clearly, many of the States [the 57 OIC countries] that, since 1999, have co-sponsored the resolution ‘Combating defamation… [1st interruption: President]
[Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi,The Children of Israel in the Qur’an and the Sunna / Banu Isra’il fi al-Qur’an wa al-Sunna (Cairo: Zahraa’ lil-l’laam al-‘Arabi, 1986-87), pp. 107-26, 129-46).Council President (Nigerian Ambassador Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi: A point of order from Egypt:
Egypt (Counsellor Amr Roshdy Hassan, speaking in English):
Mr. President, it is never my intention to dignify this statement with a comment. I just thought to share with the Council what the speaker has repeatedly said to our delegation that he is grateful for us…for drawing attention to his statements. That’s why his statements are being delivered – to get attention. And we all know what attention means and what for the attention….[This is an ad hominem attack with an allusion to some kind of benefit. In fact, DGL had jokingly ‘thanked’ Egypt’s ambassador for the ‘media attention’ provided on 16 June by his Counsellor.]
Mr. President, here in the Council, we’re here to promote religious freedom. We can discuss religious freedom, but we cannot discuss religion. We cannot discuss the basic tenets of religion. I argue that except for the distinguished representative of the Holy See, nobody in this Council is qualified to discuss theology. So if we go in analysing the statements made by Sheikh Al-Azhar [i.e. Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi] – I don’t think the speaker or even me can make the analysis, and I don’t think this is a part of the item we are discussing today. And we have here… said repeatedly, and the next statement [the Egyptian delegate pointed toward the list of NGOs on the screen, indicating the World Union for Progressive Judaism for which DGL was listed to speak reading a statement by Rabbi François Garaï] … we have the same statement read before. We have heard the same, the same speaker three days ago calling this Council a Commission. [He is alleging that DGL said ‘Commission’, instead of ‘Council’] So we are just recycling our old statements or redelivering the statements we delivered repeatedly.
[On 18 September the speaker had read a text under item 7 (on Gaza and Hamas) for AWE’s main representative, René Wadlow; on 19 September, he delivered a statement under item 8 for AWE on “violence against women” (FGM, “honour killings”, death by stoning, disfiguration of women by acid, marriage of female children). Neither statement had anything to do with the subject under item 9.]
Really we should find something more interesting to do in life, like find a hobby or grow a moustache or something. [Mr. Amr Roshdy Hassan is easily recognizable by girth and a thick black moustache]. This will be beneficial, but we cannot tolerate this abuse of the time allocated to NGOs. We welcome NGO participation in the work of this Council, but we do not welcome anyone trying to waste our time. I am sorry, Mr. President, but I will have to insist that the statement just read is ‘out of order’.
President:(speaking in English – verbatim transcription): I thank the distinguished representative of Egypt for his statement, and I would agree with you that we are not
Imam, Bishop, Archbishop…except you wear the title. And I always, as a person, and I’ve made this very clear from day one, that I think we must learn to be humble and modest and professional in the way that we conduct our business. We cannot speak on a high moral pedestal and look and think that we are more human than the other person, and think that you hold a monopoly of knowledge and truth over matters that are entirely not within your own purview. So please, I would once again like to make it clear that we should try to treat each other with some respect, and we can afford to be decent, we can afford to be respectful of the beliefs and values of every single person in this hall. This is a human rights Council. It’s a Council dedicated to the protection and defence of every single individual in this hall. And as the distinguished [Archbishop] Desmond Tutu said the other day…we are not just… we are God-carriers – please, we carry God in our person , we carry dignity in our person; whether you are black, whether you are white, whether you are a man, whether you are a woman, whether you are abled, whether you are disabled is totally irrelevant .[The President is referring to the 15th meeting on 18 September (a.m.) when Archbishop Desmond Tutu referred to man and woman being made in the image of God – a reference to Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” This was during his oral statement without notes that can be seen on the UN webcast, whereas the extranet source has his formal text.]
So, please, may I implore you once again, there is need for decency, there is need for decorum, there is need for respect and there’s need to treat me as you would like to treat yourself. I think this is the bottom line. This is not a new philosophy, this is not a new dogma; every culture on earth has this. It’s not the preserve of any one group or person or individual. And I hope, please, that we will regard this as a very humble contribution and a view and a position which I take very seriously and very passionately. I thank you.
I give the floor back to the distinguished David Littman.
Speaker: Thank you, Mr. President, for your words of wisdom.
Clearly, many of the States [the 57 OIC countries] that, since 1999, have co-sponsored the resolution ‘Combating defamation of religions’ [- adopted on 18 Dec. 2007 by the UN General Assembly -] overlook repeated cases where Islamic clerics defame other religions. A recent case is very typical & there was no apology after an Al-
[2nd interruption just before the speaker finished saying … “Al-Jazeera”]President: I’m afraid that I shall have to rule that “out of order”.
Speaker: [astonishment shown on his face] Sir?
President: And I give the floor next to the representative of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies.
[The reference to the Al-Jazeera interview contained not only a blatant defamation of Judaism and Christianity, but also the following ‘opinion’ on what the president had just said, when he referred to Archbishop Tutu’s reference to humanity being created in the ‘image of God’ (Genesis 1:27).
Al-Jazeera interview:
Al-Naggar: “The things the Old Testament says about the creation of Man are completely wrong.”
Interviewer: “For example?”
Zaghloul Al-Naggar: “It says there that Allah said: ‘Let us create Man in our image.’ This has corrupted people’s concept of God. No creature can be in the image of its Creator.”]
[http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1849.htmhttp://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD205508
– MEMRI Video and Special Dispatch Series – No. 2055, 18 September 2008].* * * * *
[The concluding passages were left unsaid and excised from the speaker’s extranet text.]Al-Jazeera TV interview with a prominent Egyptian geologist and cleric, Dr. Zaghloul Ragheb. His crude defamation of Judaism and Christianity on 9 August was blatant. On 28 August, an indignant presenter on Al-Hayat TV criticized such double standards strongly: His words are in our text.
[“If a Christian said similar things [about Islam], the next day he would be led to the slaughterhouse.” See in: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1849.htm
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD205508
– MEMRI Video and Special Dispatch Series – No. 2055, 18 September 2008].And there is no mention of the greatest of all defamations of religion – when chapter and verse of holy texts is cited by Jihadists to justify their calls to kill in the name of Allah and of Islam. Is it not high time for the OIC to insert into its next co-sponsored resolution: ‘Combating Defamation of Religions’ a single phrase: – “to condemn all calls to kill in the name of God or religion – any religion”? Not to do so, would send a serious negative image throughout the world.
[See joint written statement: Appeal to Condemn all calls to kill in the name of God ( A/HRC/6/NGO/5)]
Thank you, Mr. President.