UN trying to criminalize 'defamation of Islam'

[R_not]

UN trying to criminalize ‘defamation of Islam’

And of course, that means any discussion of the history of Jihad which is in the koran 97% violent and the other 3% somewhat peaceful (supporting violence isn’t really that peaceful in my mind).

When they bring up how muslims are anti-semetic - well, here is a video: silencing critics of anti-semitism

Mr. Littman giving his followup on his being interupted at the UN.

minister beaten up after heated argument with muslims

Since many muslims don’t read the links I have to quote the whole article.

“Geneva, March 11, 2009 – A new U.N. resolution circulated today by Islamic states would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law. (See full U.N. text below.)”

“UN Watch obtained a copy of the Pakistani-authored proposal after it was distributed today among Geneva diplomats attending the current session of the UN Human Rights Council. Entitled “Combating defamation of religions,” it mentions only Islam.”

“While non-binding, the resolution constitutes a dangerous threat to free speech everywhere. It would ban any perceived offense to Islamic sensitivities as a “serious affront to human dignity” and a violation of religious freedom, and would pressure U.N. member states – at the “local, national, regional and international levels” – to erode free speech guarantees in their “legal and constitutional systems.””

“It’s an Orwellian text that distorts the meaning of human rights, free speech, and religious freedom, and marks a giant step backwards for liberty and democracy worldwide.”

“The first to suffer will be moderate Muslims in the countries that are behind this resolution, like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan, who seek international legitimacy for state-sanctioned blasphemy laws that stifle religious freedom and outlaw conversions from Islam to other faiths.”

“Next to suffer from this U.N.-sanctioned McCarthyism will be writers and journalists in the democratic West, with the resolution targeting the media for the “deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons.””

“Ultimately, it is the very notion of individual human rights at stake, because the sponsors of this resolution seek not to protect individuals from harm, but rather to shield a specific set of beliefs from any question, debate, or critical inquiry.”

“The resolution’s core premise – that “defamation of religion” exists as legal concept – is a distortion. The law on defamation protects the reputations of individuals, not beliefs. It also requires an examination of the truth or falsity of the challenged remarks – a determination that no one, especially not the UN, is capable of undertaking concerning any religion.”

“Tragically, given that Islamic states completely dominate the Human Rights Council, with the support of non-democratic members like Russia, China, and Cuba, adoption of the regressive resolution is a forgone conclusion. E.U. diplomats hope at best to win over a handful of wavering Latin American states to the dissenting side.”

 

[Eucharisted]

Let’s pray they don’t succeed.

 

[Rocky]

If they do succeed, let’s pray that the resolution will be amended to include other religions—Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.— so that Muslim Imams would be under the same constraint when they preach— they could never point out what they perceive to be errors in any other faith----

 

[Agabriel]

If they do succeed, let’s pray that the resolution will be amended to include other religions—Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.— so that Muslim Imams would be under the same constraint when they preach— they could never point out what they perceive to be errors in any other faith----

It wouldn’t matter if they did succeed to include the other religions. The muslims don’t obey any UN sanctions. They don’t obey the one to stop slavery, they don’t obey the one to stop abusing women, they don’t obey to stop human rights abuses - so what makes anyone think they would obey one to stop dehumanizing others so they don’t feel so guilty about doing atrocities against them? (that is where the human rights abuses come in - killing, torturing, persecuting, enslaving etc of others all starts with dehumanizing them)

And ok - they don’t obey - and no one cares. Not our left wing liberals, not our governments, and not anyone except people like Mr. Spencer (jihadwatch.org), Ayan Hirsi Ali, etc - and they are bashed, or shouted out by the left wing liberals and muslims/muslimettes whenever they go to colleges to speak about these abuses. Conservative talk radio talks about these abuses every so often, but not very often. They mostly talk about the jihad issues. I have never heard them talked about on any of the news medias on TV.

 

[Agabriel]

The interesting video is the one about the man trying to bring up the fact that the muslims are very guilty of anti-semitism and how he is told to ‘shut up’.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Fascinating.

 

[chrisse]

If they do succeed, let’s pray that the resolution will be amended to include other religions—Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.— so that Muslim Imams would be under the same constraint when they preach— they could never point out what they perceive to be errors in any other faith----

Well, here’s where I see an interesting dilemma for Islam. It is so full of hate, abuse and criticism of Christianity/Judaism and Christians and Jews - it should be banned under this resolution.

 

[chrisse]

Actually, it was Pakistan who first brought up the resolution in 1999. At that time the only “religion” mentioned WAS islam. It was correctly knocked back and they’ve been bringing it back with modifications ever since. Now it is all religions, but the only “religion” specifically mentioned is Islam.

It would be a non-binding resolution, therefore not enforceable for signatories. However, it would be used against non-muslims in islamic majority countries to further persecute them - and they’ll claim it is as per the UN.

Disgusting resolution by a disgusting group supporting an even more disgusting cult - Islam.

 

[Sam_777]

2 Corinthians 4:4
“The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”

 

[Sister_Amy]

Actually, it was Pakistan who first brought up the resolution in 1999. At that time the only “religion” mentioned WAS islam. It was correctly knocked back and they’ve been bringing it back with modifications ever since. Now it is all religions, but the only “religion” specifically mentioned is Islam.

It would be a non-binding resolution, therefore not enforceable for signatories. However, it would be used against non-muslims in islamic majority countries to further persecute them - and they’ll claim it is as per the UN.

Disgusting resolution by a disgusting group supporting an even more disgusting cult - Islam.

I was wondering whose idea it would be. Pakistan 1999–why is it in discussion again?

 

[chrisse]

I was wondering whose idea it would be. Pakistan 1999–why is it in discussion again?

It never left the discussion, the resolution kept being put up with modifications to make it more palatable, ie by including all religions but not mentioning any except Islam. So far it has been rejected. It will probably be passed this time at the UN, as the OIC has now a majority vote in the General Assembly. However, the General Assembly resolutions are non-binding on the nations who are signatories to UN resolutions.

The immediate impact will be on those countries where shariah law is the law, or is the basis of the law - all, or almost the majority of islamic majority countries. They by this abuse of the UN, and totally against the charter of the UN and the UNDHR of 1948, will be able to persecute non-muslims in their countries.

This OIC bloc is already preventing almost any discussion of human rights abuses at the UN if it involves a muslim majority country. This OIC bloc is already preventing the NGO’s from presenting their reports on human rights abuses at all, or fully, and even preventing the NGO’s from entering muslim majority countries to report.

This resolution is a total contradiction of the UNDHR (United Nations Declaration of Human Rights) 1948 and the fact that it is even being proposed, let alone if it get passed, is yet another example of why the UN is called the Useless Nations.

 

[jakasaki]

Fascinating.

Can you tell us / or me what reply you posted this against, and what is “fascinating” to you as you understand this topic.

And have you heard about this new UN hearing regarding islam?

Thanks!

 

[chrisse]

Read Chris Hitchens article Push to criminalise criticism of Islam about “giving Islam the religion the same rights as a real person”.

A religion or any ideology is not a person, and is not subject to protection under the United Nations. This resolution is effectively destroying the purpose that the United Nations was set up for in the first place.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Can you tell us / or me what reply you posted this against, and what is “fascinating” to you as you understand this topic.

And have you heard about this new UN hearing regarding islam?

Thanks!

I never heard about this until I read this thread. And it is the entire thread (not any particular post) that I found fascinating.

I doubt something like this would be passed. I just think it’s kind of interesting and amusing.