OIC Opens Office in Brussels to Fight “Islamophobia” in Europe

download (2)by Soeren Kern:

The OIC Secretary General appears to be laying the diplomatic groundwork to persuade non-elected bureaucrats at EU headquarters to enact hate-speech legislation that would limit by fiat what 500-million European citizens — including democratically elected politicians — can and cannot say about Islam.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an influential bloc of 57 Muslim countries, has officially inaugurated a Permanent Observer Mission to the European Union (EU).

The primary objective of the OIC, headquartered in Saudi Arabia and funded by Islamic countries around the world, has long been to pressure Europe and the United States into passing laws that would ban “negative stereotyping of Islam.”

The establishment of a permanent OIC presence in Brussels implies that the group intends to redouble its lobbying efforts aimed at outlawing all forms of “Islamophobia” [a term invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1990s] within the 27-member EU, where restrictions on free speech regarding Islam-related issues are already commonplace (see hereherehere and here).

OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu opened the mission to the EU during a formal inauguration ceremony in Brussels on June 25; it was attended by diplomats, EU officials and dignitaries from Europe and across the Muslim world.

In his inaugural speech, Ihsanoglu declared, “There is a growing and developing interest at the highest level in the EU to cooperate with the OIC… I think our relations with the European Union on the different agenda items that we share will benefit all of us. There is a need for cooperation between the Muslim world and Europe, and the OIC, as a collective voice of the Muslim world which stands for modernization and moderation, will be the proper institution to deal with the EU.”

Ihsanoglu — who recently said in an interview with Al Jazeera Television that his number one job is to combat the religious persecution of Muslims in the West — added, “We need to seriously fight against Islamophobia to further strengthen ties between the Islamic world and Europe and to eradicate the unnecessary sensitivities.”

Since the late 1990s, the OIC has been promoting the so-called Istanbul Process, an aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam. The explicit aim of the Istanbul Process is to enshrine in international law a global ban on all critical scrutiny of Islam and Islamic Sharia law.

In recent years, the OIC has been engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.” (Analysis of the OIC’s war on free speech can be found here and here.)

Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011 (with the support of the Obama Administration) — together with the OIC-sponsored Resolution 66/167, which was quietly approved by the 193-member UN General Assembly on December 19, 2011 — is widely viewed as marking a significant step forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.

The OIC scored a diplomatic coup when the Obama Administration agreed to host a three-day Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC on December 12-14, 2011. By doing so, the United States gave the OIC the political legitimacy was seeking to globalize its initiative to ban criticism of Islam.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

 

Some 100,000 Christians killed per year over faith, Vatican says

Egypt Blast (1)

A car exploded last November in front of a Coptic Christian church in Alexandria, Egypt, as worshipers emerge from a New Year’s Mass, killing more than 20 people and prompting a clash with Muslims at a nearby mosque

By :

A staggering 100,000 Christians are killed annually because of their faith, according to the Vatican — and several human rights groups claim such anti-Christian violence is on the rise in countries like Pakistan, Nigeria and Egypt.

“Credible research has reached the shocking conclusion that an estimate of more than 100,000 Christians are violently killed because of some relation to their faith every year,” Vatican spokesman Monsieur Silvano Maria Tomassi said Tuesday in a radio address to the United Nations Human Rights Council.

“Other Christians and other believers are subjected to forced displacement, to the destruction of their places of worship, to rape and to the abduction of their leaders, as it recently happened in the case of Bishops Yohanna Ibrahim and Boulos Yaziji, in Aleppo [Syria],” Tomassi said.

While several human rights groups could not comment specifically on the Vatican’s number, organizations, like Persecution.Org, said the persecutions of Christians have been on the rise in places like Africa and the Middle East over the last decade.

“Two-hundred million Christians currently live under persecution. It’s absolutely on the rise,” Jeff King, the group’s president, told FoxNews.com.

“It’s easing in the old Communist world and it’s rising in the Islamic world,” King said, noting in particular countries like Egypt, Pakistan and Nigeria. King said that the first major killing spree in recent years happened between 1998 and 2003, when he claims 10,000 Christians were murdered in Indonesia alone during those years.

Read more at Fox News

 

The Dhimmitude of American Jewry: From Georgetown 2002 to Great Neck 2013

dhimmitude_1_xlargeby Andrew Bostom:

October 20, 2002, Bat Ye’or (Gisele Littman), the great historian of  dhimmitude—the humiliating, liberty-crushing, non-citizen pariah status “afforded” non-Muslims who survived the violent jihad conquests of their indigenous homelands by Muslim invaders—spoke to a group of (predominantly, as it turned out) Muslim, and Jewish students at Georgetown University about the living historical legacy of jihad war, and its corollary, uniquely Islamic institution, dhimmitude. Bat Ye’or was accompanied that day by her late husband, David Littman (d. May, 2012),  another gifted and courageous historian, who addressed the modern human rights depredations Islamic law (Sharia) wrought based upon his vast experience as an advocate making regular presentations at the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Then National Review writer and columnist Rod Dreher, who attended the 10/20/02 seminar, wrote a series of blogs (hereherehere)  and an essaydescribing what occurred.

A coalition of Jewish and Christian student groups at Georgetown invited the historian and her husband, historian David Littman, to deliver a lecture…on the stated topic of “Ideology of Jihad, Dhimmitude and Human Rights” — which was the title of the speech, according to flyers the event organizers produced….

[David] Littman says he decided to present a version of a talk he had given at the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, and provided a copy to the organizers. For her part, Bat Ye’or says it is impossible for her to believe that she would have been invited to speak by students who were unfamiliar with her work.

Of her lecture, Bat Ye’or says, “I explained the roots of jihad according to Muslim theologians and jurists, its aim, strategy, tactics and rules. This was followed by a short description of the jihad war of conquest on three continents over a millennium: from Portugal to India, from Budapest to Sudan, as those war operations, victories and conquests were described in Muslim and Christian chronicles. Dhimmitude is the direct consequence of jihad. It embodied all the Islamic laws and customs applied over a millennium on the vanquished population, Jews and Christians, living in the countries conquered by jihad and therefore Islamized. Then I spoke of the return of the jihad ideology since the 1960s, and of some dhimmitude practices in Muslim countries applying the sharia [Islamic] law, or inspired by it. I stressed the incompatibility between the concept of tolerance as expressed by the jihad-dhimmitude ideology, and the concept of human rights based on the equality of all human beings and the inalienability of their rights.”

The Littmans found the rude reaction of the Muslims student audience unacceptable, but worse still the craven,  dhimmi-like behavior of the Jewish students who had invited them to speak.

Bat Ye’or was stunned to see how far the self-dhimmitization of Americans has already progressed, at least on elite American college campuses…[S]he said about three-quarters of the students who turned up to hear her speech were Muslims, and they responded abusively. All they could say was that she was defaming Islam; they couldn’t argue the facts with her. But that didn’t surprise her. Said her husband, David Littman, who was there to speak on human rights under Islam, “The amazing thing is the local Jewish group [at the university] had become dhimmis. Their leader was absolutely panicked when he saw the shouting of the Muslims. He told me he’d rather I not speak. I refused.”

David Littman confided to me shortly after these events that in exasperation he stated plainly, in private, to one of the Georgetown Jewish students who had tacitly accepted the dhimmi mindset, “If you continue to behave this way, you’ll perish!”

Fast forward to the evening of April 10, 2013, some 11.5 years after the “Georgetown affair,” when it was announced that The Great Neck Synagogue in Nassau County, NY, cancelled a talk scheduled for Sunday, April 14, 2013, by writer-activist Pamela Geller, entitled,  “The Imposition of Sharia in America.” The fearful cancellation announcement by the synagogue—a consequence of relentless, defamatory pressure, and frank intimidation by the same alliance of dhimmi Jews and mainstream Sharia-promoting Muslims evident at Georgetown in October, 2002—is pathognomonic of the abject dhimmitude now pervasive across the American Jewish community, which extends well beyond university campuses:

“As the notoriety and media exposure of the planned program this Sunday have increased, so has the legal liability and potential security exposure of our institution and it’s [sic] member families. In an era of heightened security concerns it is irresponsible to jeopardize the safety of those who call Great Neck Synagogue home, especially our children, even at the risk of diverting attention from a potentially important voice in the ongoing debate. Accordingly, the Great Neck Synagogue Men’s Club will no longer be sponsoring the appearance of Pamela Geller this coming Sunday, and no event will be taking place in our facility.” Executive Board Great Neck Synagogue

Read more

Pamela Geller to Speak at Two  Synagogues On Sunday (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)

 

 

ACT! for America Launches National Free Speech Campaign

freedomOfSpeech

On September 25, 1789, Congress passed the Bill of Rights, anchored by the very important First Amendment. Today, our cherished right of freedom of speech is under assault. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) wants to criminalize speech that “denigrates” Islam. Muslim Brotherhood connected organizations and their politically correct enablers regularly engage in name calling and character assassination to silence those who dare speak out about the threat of radical Islam.

This is why, on September 25, 2013, 224 years after the passage of the Bill of Rights, patriots across America will host events and educate the public about how freedom of speech is under attack – and what we all can do to protect it.

Free_Speech_Day

 

WHEN: SEPTEMBER 25, 2013

 

WHAT: HIGHLIGHTING AMERICA’S COMMITMENT TO FREE SPEECH AND THE ONGOING EFFORTS BY THE OIC AND THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TO STRIP US OF THAT FREEDOM.

signup

  1. Commit to host the event on September 25, 2013.
  2. You must hold the event in an indoor location where a video can be shown and access can be controlled (versus an outdoor venue), such as:
    - Meeting in your home
    - In a church, synagogue or other house of worship
    - In an American Legion, VFW, or similar hall
    - A public library
    - A hotel meeting room
  3. You also have the option during the day on September 25th to hold up signs and hand out printed materials at public venues, such as street corners.
  4. You will be provided instructions and materials to use at your indoor event and at outdoor public venues (if you choose that additional option).
  5. Commit to this being an educational event, not a confrontational event. Our goal is to help people understand how their free speech rights are under assault, not to get into confrontations with those who disagree with us.
  6. Put the word out and get RSVP’s for the indoor event so you will know how many to expect, to ensure your venue is adequate.

ACT! for America will announce how many “Freedom of Speech Day” events will take place and will advertise exact locations of each venue for those hosts who confirm to us that they want us to.

 

In this series of national webcasst, ACT! for America documents the growing worldwide clamor for suppression of speech perceived as “offensive” to Islam, and what ACT! for America is doing to combat this increasingly serious threat to the First Amendment:

Part One with Brigitte Gabriel and Guy Rodgers:

 

Part Two with Deborah Weiss:

 

Part Three with Guy Rodgers:

 

 Sign ACT! for America’s letter opposing this threat to free speech!

An Open Letter to Members of the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, and the State Legislatures 

Oppose the Implementation of UN Resolution 16/18:
A Threat to Free Speech

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an organization of 56 Muslim states and the Palestinian Authority, has been trying for more than a decade to win UN-wide support of a resolution that calls on nations to prohibit speech that allegedly “defames” religion.

However, the evidence is clear that the OIC is concerned primarily about any speech it views as being critical of Islam, what it calls “Islamophobia.”

In the past, the United States has opposed such resolutions, correctly asserting that they are contrary to our First Amendment right of free speech.

In 2011, at the U.S.’s request, the OIC drafted a new resolution that would supposedly balance America’s constitutional protection of free speech with OIC concerns about “Islamophobia.” This resolution passed, with U.S. backing.

This new resolution, UN Resolution 16/18, no longer uses language such as “defamation,” but instead uses European-style hate speech language that has been used to criminalize speech critical of Islam in countries such as Austria and the Netherlands.

The OIC is now aggressively working to implement its definition of the resolution. Its position is clearly spelled out in a February 18, 2013, article in the Saudi Gazette entitled “OIC gears up to get denigration of religions criminalized.”

Given that the OIC is now pushing for nations to criminalize speech that it views as “Islamophobic,” we, the undersigned, call on our legislators to pass resolutions opposing the implementation of UN Resolution 16/18 as both unnecessary and a threat to America’s constitutional protection of free speech.

UN Confirms Hamas Rocket Kills BBC Reporter’s Son

WaPo-Cover-540x377by IPT News  •  Mar 8, 2013 at 5:09 pm

Hillary Clinton’s legacy

HCCenter for Security Policy | Jan 22, 2013

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

This week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will be making her swan song appearance on Capitol Hill, providing at last to Senate  and House panels her testimony about the Benghazigate scandal. Under  the circumstances, legislators may feel pressured to be deferential and  to keep their questions more limited in scope and superficial rather  than probing. For the good of the country, it is imperative that they  resist going soft.

After all, the hearings Wednesday before the  two chambers’ committees responsible for foreign policy oversight afford  the final opportunity to examine with the sitting secretary of state  her legacy with regard not only to the fiasco that left four Americans  dead in Benghazi last Sept. 11, but with the policies that led up to  that event – policies that are roiling the region today and that will  afflict us for many years to come.

In other words, the object of the exercise must be to understand how we got to the point in Libya  where Shariah-adherent jihadists felt able to attack American  facilities and diplomatic personnel murderously and with impunity.  Consequently, Mrs. Clinton’s interlocutors need to go beyond exploring the record of repeated rejections of requests from Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and others to enhance security at the “mission” in Benghazi and the lack of U.S. response once the attack was launched.

Legislators must ensure that the following issues, for example, are also addressed:

Who  was responsible for devising and executing the policy of engaging,  legitimating, empowering, funding and arming Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood? It appears to date back to at least March 2009, when the United States first co-sponsored a Shariah-driven United Nations Human Rights Council resolution criticizing expressions that offend Islam. What role did Mrs. Clinton play in that initiative and in the broader policy of which it was a leading indicator?

What responsibility did Mrs. Clinton have for the serial Team Obama decisions that helped bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt? Is she concerned that, by so doing, Islamists determined not only to foster hatred for Israel but to pursue its destruction are now in a position to try again, for the first time since 1973? How does Mrs. Clinton justify, under such circumstances, sending to the Egyptian military  additional U.S.-made fighter planes and tanks – weapons whose use, as a  practical matter, can only be for waging war against the Israelis?

Does Mrs. Clinton recognize that the wholly predictable effect of overthrowing Moammar Gadhafi was to unleash al Qaeda-linked forces like Ansar al Shariah in Libya and arm them and their counterparts in places like Mali and Algeria?  Was Ambassador Stephens in Benghazi on Sept. 11 in connection with the  transfer of such weapons from Libyan sources to Syrian “rebels” – who  include elements like the al Nusra front that even the State Department  has designated a terrorist organization?

Who was responsible for promoting the fraudulent narratives that al Qaeda  is basically the only enemy we face and that it is, as President Obama  repeatedly declared during the campaign, “on the path to defeat”? Does Mrs. Clinton  agree with either of those statements, let alone both, in the face of  abundant evidence that Islamists of various stripes are trying to  destroy us (some of whom associate themselves publicly with al Qaeda, many of whom do not) and that such Islamists are at the moment in the process of taking over countries, in whole or in part?

Does Mrs. Clinton  support the release of the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdul Rahman, from federal  prison where he is currently serving a life sentence, as a further  gesture of support for Mohammed Morsi? Since her department authorized a  visa last year so that a designated terrorist, Hani Nour Eldin, could  visit the White House to discuss such a release, does she believe that  step would reduce or increase the jihadists’ conviction that they are  winning? If the latter, wouldn’t it merely have the effect of prompting  them to redouble their efforts to make us, in the words of the Koran,  “feel subdued,” meaning more violent jihadism?

Surely the Islamists’ have perceived as further proof of their ascendancy the so-called “Istanbul Process” over which Mrs. Clinton  has personally presided. This multinational diplomatic exercise has as  its objective bringing about convergence between Shariah’s blasphemy  laws, which prohibit expression that offends Islam and its adherents,  and our First Amendment, which guarantees our right to engage in it,  among other types of speech, writings, videos, etc.

Mrs. Clinton  aggressively promoted the line that just such an offensive video was  responsible for the attack in Benghazi and that the video maker must be  subjected to, in her words, “shaming and peer pressure.” Now that we  know that was not the case, does she regret finding a pretext to  incarcerate him for a year and fostering the Istanbul Process that  threatens the freedom of expression of every other American?

Finally, The Washington Post reported in 2007 that “[Huma] Abedin  is one of Clinton’s most-trusted advisers on the Middle East. When Clinton  hosts meetings on the region, Abedin’s advice is always sought.” Has  that continued to be the case during the past four years in which Ms.  Abedin served as the secretary of state’s deputy chief of staff? If so,  what role has she played in the development and adoption of the  foregoing, misbegotten policies?

The American people need to know the answers to such questions. Congress has a duty to ensure they are asked.

The OIC: Quietly Islamizing the West

imagesCA5SCGM8by Baron Bodissey

The of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation is the polite face of the Great Jihad. It represents the entire Islamic community, Sunni and Shi’ite, and acts as the political arm of the Ummah. It is in essence the nascent global Caliphate.

Professor Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu is the Secretary General of the OIC. He epitomizes those characteristics that Islam prefers to display to a gullible Western public. He is urbane, well-educated, soft-spoken, and eminently reasonable.

Below are excerpts of an interview in Arabic with Prof. İhsanoğlu. It took place in Jeddah in November 2012, and appeared on Saudi TV just after the U.S. elections. In it the professor discusses the OIC’s ten-year plan for eradicating the slander of Islam in Western countries, and presents the usual taqiyyah about what Islamic law actually means to women, dissidents, and non-Muslims.

Dr. İhsanoğlu also confirms what I have long contended in this space: the OIC and the Muslim Brotherhood object to violent terrorist factions within Islam not because the objectives of those groups are wrong, but because they are counter-productive. Islamic violence against infidels tends to waken the kuffar from their slumber and arouse their resistance. Therefore, with an eye on the long-term goal, it is to be avoided.

The OIC believes it can accomplish the same end — the establishment of the World Caliphate — without detonating any bombs or slitting even a single infidel throat.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Some samples from the interview:

…the most important point here is that we have succeeded in the period since 2005 (the publishing of the Danish cartoons) succeeded internationally in that we issued reports from the Human Rights Council of the UN on how to deal with such issues… and these reports we have adopted in agreement with the US and European countries that were objecting to these reports.

…At this moment we have the resolution 16/18 which was issued last year at the UN which forms a legal groundwork for criminalising such actions that could lead to violence… there is in the international agreement for civil and political rights (year 1966 paragraph 18) A provision that would allow us to put limits on the misuse of freedom of speech including misuse of freedom of the press, freedom of thought, the misuse of these freedoms towards others, in a sense that it would encourage to violence and to hatred based on religious belief. We have these legal bases… bases that existed for some time and new bases that we developed and the international community accepts; all we are now missing is some steps that would allow enforcement of these laws.

And:

… there is indeed cooperation between us and the U.S. government, there is a cooperation with the Islamic Development Bank, and it is one of the OIC foundations… There is cooperation between us and the Bill Gates Foundation.

People who are preoccupied with what Obama does, or what Cameron does, or what Gillard does — or even with what Anjem Choudary and Imam Rauf do — are missing the center of the action. The most crucial components of the plan to Islamize the West were conceived in conferences and meetings within the OIC. They are being implemented continuously and quietly — and successfully.

For video and transcript go to Gates of Vienna

See also:

Threat to Free Speech (counterjihadreport.com)

The Political Warfare Campaign Against U.S. Counter-Terrorism Experts

By Katharine Cornell Gorka:

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation has laid out a strategy for preventing reference to terrorism in association with Islam. They are targeting training and education for the military and law enforcement, and pursueing their strategy by working through NGOs, think tanks and international organizations to label as Islamophobes those counter-terrorism trainers who were not approved by specific front-organizations. This article looks at the most recent initiative in this campaign of political warfare: a report by the Muslim Public Affairs Council entitled Not Qualified: Exposing the Deception Behind America’s Top 25 Pseudo Experts on Islam.

As Sun Tzu pointed out, the greatest warrior is one who can win without having to fight. Political warfare—operations designed to influence the perceptions or beliefs of one’s adversary—is thus an invaluable tool because it is a way of winning a conflict without having to use force.  The Soviets knew this well, as did numerous other totalitarian regimes, and the OIC is now using this form of attack to shut down crucial counter-terrorism experts and training in the United States.  This meets both a theological and a strategic imperative for the OIC.  Theologically, the campaign of psychological warfare against CT experts helps to shut down criticism of Muhammad and of Islam, which is deemed forbidden, based upon several different verses of the Koran.  Strategically, it is an advantageous approach because it neutralizes those who have become most knowledgeable on the Islamist threat, thus allowing even greater impunity for agents working to undermine U.S. national security.

The strategy to shut down critical analysis of Islam by declaiming Islamophobia was made public in 2005.  That year, The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), with its 56 member nations, stated that Islamophobia would be a major focus for the coming decade:

A Ten-Year Programme of Action has been developed, which reviews the most prominent challenges facing the Muslim world today…establishing the values of moderation and tolerance, combating extremism, violence and terrorism, countering Islamophobia, achieving solidarity and cooperation among Member States, conflict prevention, the question of Palestine, the rights of Muslim minorities and communities, and rejecting unilateral sanctions.”[1]

In order to combat Islamophobia, the report stated, the OIC would take a number of steps:  it would establish an observatory to monitor all forms of Islamophobia, work with the UN to adopt a resolution to counter Islamophobia, and urge states to enact laws to combat it.  The broad conclusions of the 2005 meeting were these: Islam can never be criticized and Islam must be de-linked from terrorism.

The OIC campaign scored its first big success with the March 2007 publication of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) “Resolution 4/9 on Combating Defamation of Religions,” which stated, “the council expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations.”  The resolution further stated that the Council would urge member states to ensure that “public officials, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect different religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief, and that any necessary and appropriate education or training is provided…”  The UNHRC document specifically points to education and training for law enforcement and the military as the target of these efforts.

By the following year, the Islamophobia Observatory was up and running, and in March 2008, The 1st OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia was published.  The report stated: “…the proponents of Islamophobia continue their campaign in defaming Islam and Muslims.” In laying out a strategy to prevent and preempt this perceived Islamophobia, the report stated that members would work with think tanks and NGOs in the US, the UK and Europe, to monitor and counter the “anti-Islam campaign” (sic).  What followed was a series of reports and articles attacking the alleged critics of Islam. In much the same way the Soviet Union used peace movements, trade organizations, and unions as front groups for their anti-American activity, so the OIC and individual Muslim funders worked through international and Western organizations for their purposes.  The first notable example was the University of Exeter’s Report entitled, Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hate Crime: A London Case Study. Published in January 2010, the study called on the UK government to evaluate its current policies, asserting that “counterterrorism strategy still wrongly conflates the al Qaeda threat with other Islamist groups which in turn licenses anti-Muslim hate crimes.” The study was funded by Muslim sources:  Islam Expo, the Cordoba Foundation, founded by Anas al-Tikriti, son of a Muslim Brotherhood leader inIraq, and Sultan bin Mohammed al-Qasimi, a member of the Supreme Council of theUnited Arab Emirates and current ruler of the Sharjah emirate.

In the United States, the funding behind similar studies was never made public, but the themes are strikingly similar to those set forth by the OIC:  concerns over Islamophobia, defamation of Islam, and the need to change the counter-terrorism policies and practices of law enforcement and military.  Among the relevant studies in the United Statesis the Washington Post’s major story entitled Top Secret America.  Published in July 2010, the Post openly stated that more than a dozen WP journalists spent two years developing the study, a significant commitment of resources for a newspaper today.  The report was a wide-scale condemnation of the way theUnited States had addressed terrorism post-9/11.  But what is most interesting about the report is its close adherence to the OIC strategy of targeting the trainers of law enforcement and the military: “Seeking to learn more about Islam and terrorism, some law enforcement agencies have hired as trainers self-described experts whose extremist views on Islam and terrorism are considered inaccurate and counterproductive by the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies.”

Read more at the Westminster Institute

Katharine Cornell Gorka is Executive Director of The Westminster Institute, a non-governmental think tank whose mission is to promote individual dignity and freedom for people throughout the world, with a particular focus on the threat posed by extremism and radical ideologies.  kcg@westminster-institute.org

When Criticizing Religion (Read: Islam) Becomes a U.S. Criminal Offense

by:  Meira Svirsky

While testifying to the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, U.S. Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez refused to say that the U.S. would never advance a proposal that criminalizes the right to free speech in regards to criticizing religion.

When asked over and over again the question by Rep. Trent Frank (R-AZ): “Will you tell us here today that this Administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?” Perez balked at answering any such question.

Here’s the background:

For ten years, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) pushed for a U.N. resolution to make defamation of religion a criminal offense. The Saudi-based, 57-member group’s purpose was to make an international law that would criminalize freedom of speech and freedom of expression when it comes to matters deemed critical of or offensive to Islam or Muslims. Standards for the resolution were (naturally) drawn from Islamic, Sharia, law.

In March, 2011, the OIC finally got their way (partially) when the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted by “consensus,” but without a vote, Resolution 16/18. The resolution is titled, “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”

Although the resolution doesn’t mention any religion in particular, it’s intention remains that of the OIC: To curb criticism of Islam. The resolution is part of the so-called “Istanbul Process,” and aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam.

The Obama administration fully supported the resolution, whose mandate also calls for “a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures.”

Putting its full weight with the OIC, in December, 2011, the State Department and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hosted a closed-door conference in Washington titled, “Expert Meeting on Implementing the U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18.” The purpose of the conference was to establish international standards for criminalizing “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.”

Recognizing that the resolution has no weight unless backed by the West, OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu praised the role played by the Obama administration in adopting the resolution: “I particularly appreciate the kind, personal interest of Secretary Clinton and the role played by the U.S. towards the consensual adoption of the resolution.”

The European Union, was quick to jump on the bandwagon and offer the next international summit on the subject. According to OIC’s Ihsanoglu, the EU’s recent offer to host the next summit  represents a “qualitative shift in action against the phenomenon of Islamophobia,” according to the International Islamic News Agency (IINA), the OIC’s official news and propaganda organ.

The Assistant Attorney General’s refusal to answer Rep. Frank’s question, which would guarantee Americans their constitutional right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, is a reflection of where this international resolution is heading.

To understand more fully the implications of the statements by the Assistant Attorney General, see the following articles by RadicalIslam.org.’s Senior Fellow Clare Lopez:

Criticism of Islam Could Soon Be a Crime in America

Islam Unplugged

Muslim Brotherhood Takes Charge of FBI Counterterrorism Training

Syria Candidate for U.N. Human Rights Council and Iran Elected to UN Arms trade Treaty Post

No, this is not a joke

Radical Islam:

Perhaps as part of his PR firm’s advice, Bashar Assad has made his intention known to become a member of the world’s highest human rights body, the U.N. Human Rights Council. If elected, he would join the ranks of previous members such as Libya – home to Col. Muammar Gaddafi — and Sri Lanka, whose army was responsible for killing thousands of civilians. The body also has the distinction to have convened an emergency session to mourn the death of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, founder of Hamas.

According to U.N. Watch, Syria’s election to the group is virtually assured, due to the system of fixed slates. Syria is part of the 53-nation Asian group whereby “regional groups orchestrate uncontested elections, naming only as many candidates as allotted seats.”

The U.N. Watch reports also notes that this very same system is how human-rights abusers such as China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia won their current seats, and how Pakistan and Venezuela are about to do the same.

Syria’s election to the council, scheduled for 2013, prompted the U.S. and the European Union to make an unprecedented move, calling for a resolution that would give the council the power to disqualify a candidate even before an election for failing to meet the standards of the U.N. body.

The seemingly straight-forward resolution was met with resistance by Cuba, China, Egypt, Russia and India, among others.

This seems to be in the realm of normal, as U.N. Watch reports that “this past November Syria won unanimous election to two human rights committees of UNESCO, the U.N.’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Despite the suspension of Assad’s regime from the Arab League, the very same nations’ UNESCO ambassadors in Paris refused to allow objections to a country’s human rights record to interfere with their backroom rotation deals—lest one day the precedent be used against them. They nominated Syria, and it was duly elected.”

Also see UN Watch: Iran elected to UN Arms Trade Treaty post:

“Right  after a UN Security Council report found Iran guilty of illegally transferring guns and bombs to Syria, which is  now murdering thousands of its own people, it defies logic, morality and common  sense for the UN to now elect this same regime to a global post regulating the transfer of guns and bombs,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN  Watch, a non-governmental monitoring group based in Geneva.

“This  is like choosing Bernie Madoff to police fraud on the stock market. And the  U.N.’s scandalous choice of Iran is exactly why we fear that Syria’s declared  bid for a U.N. Human Rights Council seat is not  impossible.”

 

 

The Struggle for Civil Rights, 2012

Center for Security Policy | Feb 27, 2012
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

As we witness surging Muslim violence against non-Muslims in Afghanistan, Egypt and even here, the response seems increasingly that the victims must apologize to the perpetrators.  In particular, the United States government – from President Obama on down – has been assiduously seeking forgiveness for giving offense to Islamic sensibilities by accidentally burning Qurans.  This was felt necessary even in a case where the books had been defaced by captured Afghan jihadis as a means of encouragingtheir comrades to further acts of violence against us.
 
It seems that Christians are also widely considered to be at fault for having churches, Bibles and religious practices that offend the ascendant Islamists in Egypt, Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.  Certainly, no apologies are forthcoming when the Christians are murdered or forced to flee for their lives, their churches and sacred texts put to the torch, etc.
 
And in America last week, a Pennsylvania judge felt the need to dress down a man assaulted for parading in a Halloween costume he called “Zombie Mohammed.”  Far from punishing the perpetrator, a Muslim immigrant, Judge Mark Martin sympathized with him for the offense caused, noting – seemingly without objection – that it was a capital crime to engage in such free expression in some countries.
 
Worse yet, the judge suggested that the victim in this case had exceeded the “boundaries” of his “First Amendment rights.”  Such a view seems to track with the Obama administration’s collaboration with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in fashioning international accords that would prohibit “incitement” against Islam. 
 
This is a short step from – and enroute to – the OIC’s larger goal of banning and criminalizing any expression that offends Muslims or their faith.  As such, it poses a mortal peril to the Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech.
 
What is going on in country after country, in international forums like the UN Human Rights Council and even in some American courts is a calculated effort, backed by terrifying violence or its threat, to make us “feel subdued,” as the Quran puts it.  The idea is to use Western sensibilities and civil liberties, notably, respect for the free practice of religion, to deny the rest of us our fundamental freedoms.  These include the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and, yes, freedom of religion.
 
The trouble is that when we accommodate such demands, it is seen by Islamist enemies of liberty as evidence of our inevitable submission.  According to the doctrine of shariah, they must, under such circumstances, make a redoubled effort to achieve their ultimate triumph, including through the use of violence.
 
So, far from alleviating the threat posed by shariah’s adherents when we accommodate, apologize and appease, we are actually exacerbating it, at home as well as abroad.
 
In short, we find ourselves in what is, properly understood, the civil rights struggle of our time.  Those who stand up for freedom against shariah are quite literally protecting the rights of women, children, people of faith, homosexuals and other minorities sure to be abused by its misogynistic, intolerant and domineering doctrine.  That means protecting, as well, Muslim Americans who have come to this country to escape the long arm of shariah law.  In due course, though, shariah’s repressive strictures would not simply be a threat to these communities.  They would be a toxic blight upon all of us.
 
Ironically, today it is defenders of our freedoms who are being denounced as “racists,” “bigots” and “Islamophobes.”  Such terms are, in truth, being used in much the same way and for precisely the same purpose as the Ku Klux Klan’s members reviled an earlier generation of civil rights activists for loving Negroes: to defame, threaten and isolate their opponents.  We cannot, and certainly must not, tolerate the Islamists’ intolerance.
 
Muslims are, of course, free to practice their faith in America like anyone else – provided they do so in a tolerant, peaceable and law-abiding way.  What they are not entitled to do, in the name of religious practice, is subvert our Constitution, deny us our rights or engage in sedition without facing concerted opposition – if not prosecution.
 
Today, every bit as much as in the civil rights struggles of the past, there are those who are prepared to go along with what they know is wrong, in order to get along.  Now, as then, the few who recognize that any such accommodation makes more certain the ultimate triumph of evil, may be vilified and even harmed.  But now, as then, more and more Americans are emerging who see the danger posed by our time’s totalitarian threat – shariah – and who will do their part to secure freedom against it, both here and, as necessary for that purpose, elsewhere.
 
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

D.C. Islamophobia Conference Was a Bad Idea

Flag of OIC-2

Image via Wikipedia

By Nina Shea at NRO:

Yesterday marked the opening of the international conference announced by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a high-level meeting on Islamophobia that she co-chaired, held last July in Istanbul and hosted by the Saudi-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). At the time, Secretary Clinton described this week’s conference as a move to implement U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 on “combating [religious] intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization.”

This State Department conference, entitled “The Istanbul Process,” is proving to be a very bad idea. It remains to be seen whether speech limitations to protect religion generally and Islam specifically will be officially endorsed by the conference — similar recommendations have already been adopted by the OIC and by the EU conference participants — but, judging from the opening session, at least some of my misgivings seem well founded.

The three-day conference was closed to the public, but I was invited to its opening session (as well as to the closing session to be held on Wednesday) by virtue of my being a commissioner on the official but independent U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. “Chatham House Rules,” which State directed us to abide by, forbid releasing anything about a specific delegation or quoting for attribution.

To speak more generally, then: Legal and security officials of a delegation which will remain unnamed gave a sweeping overview of American founding principles on religious freedom and how they have been breached time and again in American history by attacks against a broad variety of religious minority groups — including now against Muslims. A raft of current cases were mentioned; America’s relative exemplary and distinctive achievement in upholding religious freedom in an emphatically pluralistic society was not. That same speaker reassured the audience, which was packed with diplomats from around the world, that the Obama administration is working diligently to prosecute American Islamophobes and is transforming the U.S. Justice Department into the conscience of the nation, though it could no doubt learn a thing or two from the assembled delegates on other ways to stop persistent religious intolerance in America.

Across the room, smirking delegates from some of the world’s most repressive and intolerant regimes could be spotted, furiously taking notes.

The Saudi Justice Minister was recently in the U.S. but unfortunately departed before the conference opened and won’t be making any presentation on how the Saudis stop religious intolerance. Nor will his delegation be making any apologetic mention of the Saudi ban on churches, its repression of its large indigenous Shiite population, its textbooks teaching that Jews should be killed, or its beheading yesterday of a woman for sorcery, in addition to another recent beheading of a Sudanese man for the same crime.

Meanwhile, at U.N. headquarters in New York, a new resolution following on 16/18 has been introduced by the OIC and will soon be voted on by the General Assembly, where it will no doubt passed with U.S. approval. It singles out for praise regarding the promotion of religious tolerance one state — Saudi Arabia.

— Nina Shea is director of Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom and co-author with Paul Marshall of Silenced: How Apostasy & Blasphemy Codes Are Choking Freedom Worldwide.

Obama Administration Welcoming Islamic Group to Washington for Discussion on ‘Tolerance’

 

OICSecretary of State Hillary Clinton with OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu at a meeting in Istanbul last July to promote the “tolerance” resolution. (Photo: State Department)

(CNSNews.com)– The Obama administration says a meeting in Washington next week seeks to make progress in combating religious intolerance, but critics say the U.S. is pandering to an ideological agenda aimed at restricting speech critical of Islam.

 According to the State Department the aim is to find ways to combat religious hate without compromising freedom of expression. Detractors are skeptical that this can be done, and they suspect that free speech will end up the loser.

Among those criticizing the event are GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, the Traditional Values Coalition, and scholars at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom.

The State Department-hosted meeting is the latest step in a process stemming from a resolution on “combating intolerance based on religion,” adopted by consensus at the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) last March.

The move marked the first time in more than a decade that the U.N.’s top human rights body did not pass an annual “defamation of religion” resolution, sponsored by the bloc of Islamic states, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

Many rights advocacy groups regard the OIC campaign as an attempt to outlaw valid discussion of Islamic teachings – to extend to democratic societies the type of blasphemy provisions enforced in some Islamic states.

The new resolution, known as “resolution 16/18,” called on countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization” based on religion, without seeking to criminalize speech – except in cases of “incitement to imminent violence.”

The administration characterized it as a significant breakthrough: “[T]he Council took an important step away from the deeply problematic concept of defamation of religion by adopting a constructive new resolution that promotes tolerance for all religious beliefs, promotes education and dialogue and is consistent with U.S. laws and universal values.”

Some human rights and religious freedom advocacy groups opposed to the “religious defamation” drive also praised the development.

Others were skeptical, noting that the OIC had watched its defamation resolutions receive less and less support each year and may view resolution 16/18 as an alternative route towards achieving the same end.

OIC leaders themselves did not help to allay these suspicions, stressing that the Islamic bloc had not abandoned its agenda of “protecting” Islam and insisting that the “religious defamation” campaign was not dead.

On the sidelines of a first meeting held to advance resolution 16/18, in Istanbul last July, Pakistan’s U.N. ambassador Zamir Akram said that the OIC would not compromise on three things – anything said or done against the Qur’an, anything said or done against Mohammed, and discrimination against the Muslim community. (Akram represents a government overseeing some of the Islamic world’s most controversial blasphemy laws, where “blaspheming” the Qur’an or Mohammed carries the death penalty.)

At that Istanbul meeting, co-chairs Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu issued a statement urging countries “to take effective measures, as set forth in Resolution 16/18, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat intolerance, discrimination, and violence based on religion or belief.”

Next week’s gathering in Washington is a follow-up to the one in Istanbul, and it aims at “implementation.”

From the OIC’s viewpoint, resolution 16/18 is clearly part of the defamation campaign: “Washington plans to host a meeting on resolution opposing defamation of religions,” the OIC’s official news agency reported last August.

Ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom Suzan Johnson Cook says the meeting will bring together international organizations, including the OIC, European Union, Arab League and African Union, as well as law enforcement and justice officials representing some 30 foreign governments.

The meeting will “discuss best practices for two of the recommended actions from resolution 16/18: engagement with members of minority religious communities and enforcement of laws that prohibit acts of discrimination on the basis of religion or belief,” she said.

The State Department would afterwards submit a report on “best practices identified during these sessions” to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and for public distribution.

‘Americans never signed on to submit their sovereignty to the U.N.’

The administration argues that the way to find a middle road between combating religious hate speech and upholding free speech is to use the tools of education, public debate and interfaith dialogue rather than legal prescriptions.

Naming and shaming is also part of the arsenal, with Clinton at the Istanbul meeting speaking of using “some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming.”

Also in Istanbul, U.S. permanent representative to the HRC, Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, gave an OIC publication an example of the type of action regarded as effective, citing the administration’s condemnation of Florida pastor Terry Jones’ Qur’an-burning demonstration.

“When you have the president, the secretary of state and public figures jointly condemning that, it will be more effective than throwing that pastor in jail,” the OIC Journal quoted Donahoe as saying. “I believe the same is true for the hateful [Mohammed] cartoons. We should all be joining together in conveying our disgust with such intolerance.”

Critics question the wisdom of partnering with an organization with a troubling agenda. They also wonder why the administration is cooperating with an OIC effort to give legal teeth to what is a non-binding resolution.

“President Obama should put a stop to this nonsense and declare that in free societies all views and religions are subject to contradiction and critique – and the OIC must learn to tolerate that,” Hudson Institute Center for Religious Freedom director Nina Shea and senior fellow Paul Marshall in a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week.

Former House speaker and Republican presidential hopeful Gingrich also voiced concern.

“Just days after chastising Israel for ‘unfair’ treatment of women, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will welcome a Saudi-based Islamist group, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to Washington for a conference on ‘tolerance,’” he wrote in a Human Events column on Wednesday. “Far from a tolerant organization, however, a primary mission of the OIC is to restrict free speech critical of Islam.”

The Traditional Values Coalition has requested permission to be admitted as an observer to next week’s meeting, and says the State Department has so far refused.

In a letter to Clinton Thursday repeating the request, TVC President Andrea Lafferty wrote that not allowing the organization to observe would only “lead to the conclusion that the objective of this meeting is not religious liberty and toleration, but rather a concert designed to chill, contain, and curb religious liberties and free speech.”

“Why is it that the U.S. Constitution must come second when representatives from Islamic counties such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan demand we must curb our religious liberties and free speech?” Lafferty asked in a statement.

“Americans never signed on to submit their sovereignty to the United Nations, nor should they be expected to submit to the will of Islamic countries whose human rights record against women, Christians, and other persecuted minorities continues to shock the world.”

Criticism of Islam Could Soon be a Crime in America

By Clare Lopez at Stop Radical Islam:

When President Obama delivered his much-anticipated speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University in June 2009, the free world trembled while the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) gushed with praise and begged for a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The OIC is the largest head of state organization in the world after the United Nations (UN) itself and comprises 56 Muslim countries plus the Palestinians. It claims  to be the “collective voice of the Muslim world,” i.e., the ummah, and speaks on its behalf in effect as the seat of the next Islamic Caliphate. In 1990, the OIC membership adopted the “Cairo Declaration ,” which officially exempted all Muslim countries from compliance with the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights and replaced it with Islamic law (shariah).

One of the fundamental laws of Islam deals with “slander ,” which is defined in shariah as saying “anything concerning a person [a Muslim] that he would dislike.” At the OIC’s Third Extraordinary Session, held in Mecca, Saudi Arabia in December 2005, the organization adopted a “Ten-Year Programme of Action  to Meet the Challenges Facing the Muslim Ummah in the 21st Century.” A key agenda  item of that meeting was “the need to counter Islamophobia” by seeking to have the UN “…adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.” The word “Islamophobia” is a completely invented word, coined by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) front group. OIC adoption of the term reflects the close operational relationship between the OIC and the Ikhwan.  

Six years later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due to host OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Washington, DC in mid-December 2011 to discuss how the United States can implement the OIC agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam. Cloaked in the sanctimonious language of “Resolution 16/18,” that was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in April 2011, the WDC three-day experts meeting is billed as a working session to discuss legal mechanisms to combat religious discrimination (but the only religion the Human Rights Council has ever mentioned in any previous resolution is Islam). The UN Human Rights Council, which includes such bastions of human rights as China, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, introduced Resolution 16/18 to the UN General Assembly (UNGA), where it was passed in March 2011.

The Resolution was presented to the UNGA by Pakistan (where women get the death penalty for being raped and “blasphemy” against Islam is punished by death). Ostensibly about “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and…incitement to violence against persons based on religion or belief,” the only partnership mentioned in the text is the one with the OIC. The U.S., whose official envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussain, helped write Obama’s Cairo speech, actively collaborated in the drafting of Resolution 16/18. 

Now, the OIC’s Ihsanoglu will come to Washington, DC, the capital of one of the only countries in the world with a Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and a judicial system that consistently defends it, with a publicized agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam. His agenda, and, apparently that of his host, the U.S. Department of State, seek to bring the U.S. into full compliance with Islamic law on slander, as noted above. 

Events in the nation’s capital seemed timed to ensure Ihsanoglu a warm welcome. The Center for American Progress (CAP), a think tank aligned with the Democratic Party and Obama White House, published “Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America”  in August 2011. Disturbingly specific in naming individuals associated with speaking truth about the doctrinal foundations of Islamic terrorism, the report is a blatant assault on the First Amendment and free speech in America—at least as far as Islam is concerned. 

The Justice Department soon got on board the “Islamophobia” bandwagon. In the wake of the cancellation of a number of scheduled official training sessions at national security agencies by deeply knowledgeable scholars of Islamic doctrine, law, and scriptures, such as Stephen Coughlin, Steven Emerson, William Gawthrop, John Guandolo, and Robert Spencer, Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole  confirmed at an 11 October 2011 press conference that the Obama administration was pulling back for review all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities in order to eliminate all references to Islam that Muslim Brotherhood groups have found offensive.

No doubt much encouraged by national capitulation at such a level, Salam Al-Marayati, the president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), an Islamic organization that shares the jihadist agenda and ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, wrote an op-ed  piece that was published in the Los Angeles Times on 19 October 2011. In his piece, Al-Marayati openly threatened the FBI with “collapse of a critical partnership with the Muslim American community.” Later that same day, the Justice Department convened a meeting with Muslim shariah advocates at George Washington University in WDC, chaired by its civil rights division chief, Tom Perez. Dwight C. Holton , the U.S. Attorney in Oregon who was also present, announced that, after speaking with Attorney General Eric Holder, he wanted “to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”

A phobia is an irrational fear. It is not irrational to give warning of an ideology resolutely committed to eradication of free belief, expression, speech, and even thought. It is suicidal for a free society willingly to collaborate with those, like the Muslim Brotherhood and the OIC, which are determined to destroy Western civilization from within—and have told us so, repeatedly, consistently, and publicly. Further, collaboration in such an anti-freedom campaign represents abrogation of the professional oath of office of every federal official who has sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Silencing those who would warn of impending catastrophe only ensures victory to the enemy and loss of our most rare and precious inheritance: the American love of liberty. 

Clare M. Lopez, a senior fellow at the Clarion Fund, is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on Middle East, national defense, and counterterrorism issues.

Recommended Reading

From the Westminster Institute: White House Review Threatens Counter-Terrorism Operations

Obama Administration Bans the Truth About Islam and Jihad

From the Homeland Security Network: Obama administration pulls references to Islam from terror training materials, official says

 

Obama’s War on Free Speech: Partnering with the OIC Caliphate on “Religious Tolerance”

From Atlas Shrugged:

“The caliphate is alive and growing within Europe. . . .  It has advanced through the denial of dangers and the obfuscating of history. It has moved forward on gilded carpets in the corridors of dialogue, the network of the Alliances and partnerships, in the corruption of its leaders, intellectuals and NGOs, particularly at the United Nations.” Bat Ye’or

Clinton_071511July 15, 2011: Shown here are Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu at a meeting in Istanbul. Such prominence is given to this totalitarian organization. The photo reminds me of Neville and Adolph.

The respect and deference the United States is paying to the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) is deeply troubling. OIC: Oppression and Submission. The very idea that the OIC is meeting to discuss “religious tolerance” is monstrous, considering the complete and utter absence of “religious tolerance” of non-Muslims living in Muslim countries under the sharia.

What this really is, in the ongoing onslaught of deceit and obfuscation, is the restriction of free speech in Islam’s war on the West. Muhammad said, “war is deceit.”

“Respect and empathy and tolerance,” coming from the most brutal and oppressive ideology on the face of the earth, reminds me of “peace and equality”promised in the campaign posters of the Nationalist Socialist Workers (Nazi) party.

Free Speech Concerns Ahead of Meeting With Muslim Nations on Religious Tolerance FOX news

A looming meeting with Islamic leaders hosted by the State Department has religious scholars and advocacy groups warning that the United States may “play into” the push by some Islamic nations to create new laws to stifle religious criticism and debate.

The meeting on religious tolerance, which is scheduled for mid-December, would involve representatives of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — a coalition of 56 nations which more or less represents the Muslim world.

Critics describe the get-together — the first in a series — as a Trojan horse for the long-running OIC push for restrictions on speech. They note the track record of nations that want the dialogue, including Egypt, where recent military action against Coptic Christians raised grave concerns about intolerance against religious minorities.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton originally announced the meeting this past July in Turkey, where she co-chaired a talk on religious tolerance with the OIC. The event was billed as a way to foster “respect and empathy and tolerance” among nations. Delegates from up to 30 countries, as well as groups like the European Union, are also invited.

A State Department official told FoxNews.com this week that the meeting is meant to combat intolerance while being “fully consistent with freedom of expression.”

A key worry is that the meeting could become a platform for Islamic governments to push for hate-speech laws which, in their most virulent and fundamentalist form, criminalize what they perceive as blasphemy.

While Clinton has drawn a line in the sand, saying nations should not “criminalize speech,” the upcoming meeting is seen by some as a misstep on a very sensitive issue….

Jacob Mchangama, director of legal affairs for Denmark’s Center for Political Studies, noted that the U.S. has resisted following Europe with hate-speech laws, but the Obama administration may be willing to “relax” its approach. He noted the administration co-sponsored a resolution with Egypt in 2009 that expressed concern about “negative racial and religious stereotyping,” and said the upcoming December conference lends credibility to the OIC agenda.The push by Islamic nations, especially Pakistan, for global religious sensitivity on its surface sounds innocuous. But the debate often pits their cause against free speech, and western officials have long complained the nations spearheading the push are keen on shielding Islam specifically from criticism.

In some countries, perceived protections against religious insult are used as license to threaten, bully and attack those who offend, intentionally or not. Most recently, the office of a French satirical newspaper was attacked after it published a Muhammad cartoon. That follows widespread 2006 protests over the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper.

And in Pakistan, whose blasphemy laws are internationally renowned for their broadness and severity, the legal protections on religious insult are used most often to protect Islam. Being charged with a blasphemy offense — or criticizing the laws themselves — can open the door to intimidation, or worse. Earlier this year, two Pakistani officials who had been critical of the laws were assassinated.

The OIC, looking for international cooperation on the issue of religious tolerance, has pushed for so-called “defamation” resolutions before the United Nations for over a decade. Those resolutions were Islam-focused and called on governments to take action to stop religious defamation.

Though the OIC took a pass on the resolution this year, the U.N. Human Rights Council in March approved a watered-down version that expresses concerns about religious “intolerance, discrimination and related violence.” The adoption was generally seen as a successful move by the U.S. to replace the far-tougher resolutions the OIC has pushed over the past decade.

But the upcoming meeting has been hailed by some OIC officials as a way to craft a tougher approach to curbing religious criticism.

An August article from the International Islamic News Agency cited OIC “informed sources” saying the meetings were meant to develop a “legal basis” for the March resolution.

The State Department official noted that the Human Rights Council’s resolution does not call for limits on free speech or provide support for defamation or blasphemy laws.

“Instead, the text notes the positive role that the free exchange of ideas and interfaith dialogue can have in countering religious intolerance,” the official said. “We believe that implementing the specific, appropriate steps called for in the resolution will help to undercut support for such restrictions on expression and religious freedom.”…

The meeting has been set for Dec. 12-14, and is expected to be hosted by Suzan Johnson Cook, the U.S. ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom. It’s unclear whether Clinton will attend. The meeting was announced around the same time as the Norway terror attacks, carried out by an individual said to harbor anti-Muslim views.December’s meeting is the first in a series — focusing on engaging religious minorities and training officials on religious awareness, as well as “enforcing laws that protect against” religious discrimination, according to the State Department.

Lindsay Vessey, advocacy director with Open Doors USA, said her group is “cautiously optimistic” about the meetings. Vessey, whose organization advocates for persecuted Christians and has criticized the “defamation” resolutions in the past, said her organization remains hopeful the upcoming conference will turn out to be a “good thing.”

The conservative Traditional Values Coalition last month sent a letter to Clinton asking that the group be included as part of the discussion. President Andrea Lafferty told FoxNews.com her organization is “very concerned” the administration is becoming “cozy” with the OIC, which she claimed wants to “silence” voices critical of Islam.

Bat Ye’or on the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation, formerly Organization of the Islamic Conference):

OIC and the Modern Caliphate 

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is a religious and political organization. Close to the Muslim World League of the Muslim Brotherhood, it shares the Brotherhood’s strategic and cultural vision: that of a universal religious community, the Ummah, based upon the Koran, the Sunna, and the canonical orthodoxy of shari’a. The OIC represents 56 countries and the Palestinian Authority (considered a state), the whole constituting the universal Ummah with a community of more than one billion three to six hundred million Muslims.

The OIC has a unique structure among nations and human societies. The Vatican and the various churches are de facto devoid of political power, even if they take part in politics, because in Christianity, as in Judaism, the religious and political functions have to be separated. Asian religions, too, do not represent systems that bring together religion, strategy, politics, and law within a single organizational structure.
Not only does the OIC enjoy unlimited power through the union and cohesion of all its bodies, but also to this it adds the infallibility conferred by religion. Bringing together 56 countries, including some of the richest in the world, it controls the lion’s share of global energy resources. The European Union (EU), far from anticipating the problems caused by such a concentration of power and investing in the diversification and autonomy of energy sources since 1973, acted to weaken America internationally in order to substitute for it the U.N., the OIC’s docile agent. In the hope of garnering a few crumbs of influence, the EU privileged a massive Muslim immigration into Europe, paid billions to the Mediterranean Union and Palestinian Authority, weakened the European states, undermined their unity, and wrapped itself in the flag of Palestinian justice, as though this would supply some protective system against the global jihad, which it endeavored to focus on Israel.
Religion as the main aspect of the OIC emerges from its language and its targets. It seems that the OIC is restoring in the 21st century the Caliphate, the supreme controlling body for all Muslims. In their Charter (2008), Member States confirm that their union and solidarity are inspired by Islamic values. They affirm their aim to reinforce within the international arena their shared interests and the promotion of Islamic values. They commit themselves to revitalizing the pioneering role of Islam in the world, increasing the prosperity of the member states, and — in contrast to to the European states — to ensure the defense of their national sovereignty and territorial integrity. They proclaim their support for Palestine with al-Quds Al Sharif, the Arabized name for Jerusalem, as its capital, and exhort each other to promote human rights, basic freedoms, the state of law (shari’a), and democracy according to their constitutional and legal system — in other words, compliance with shari’a.
They also undertake to stimulate noble Muslim values, to preserve their symbols and their shared heritage, and to defend the universality of the Islamic religion — simply put, the universal propagation of Islam (da’wa). They state that they are promoting women’s rights and encourage their active participation in all walks of life, in accordance with the laws of the Member States. They agree to inculcate Muslim children with Islamic values and to support Muslim minorities and communities outside the Member States in order to preserve their dignity and their cultural and religious identity.
The Charter’s strategic targets seek “[t]o ensure active participation of the Member States [of the OIC] in the global political, economic and social decision-making processes to secure their common interests” (I-5) and “[t]o promote and defend unified position on issues of common interest in international forums” (1-17).
Among its targets, the OIC Charter specifies the propagation, promotion, and preservation of Islamic teachings and values, the spread of Islamic culture, and the preservation of the Islamic heritage (I-11). Article I-12 promotes the protection and defense of the true image of Islam, the fight against its defamation, and the encouragement of dialogue between civilizations and religions. The other objectives deal with protecting inherent Islamic family values (I-14) and the preservation of rights, dignity, and religious and cultural identity of the Muslim communities and minorities in non-Member States (I-16). This issue points to the OIC authority over immigrants abroad and its pressure on the governments of the non-Muslim host countries through the channel of dialogue, including the Alliance of Civilizations, whose Report backs OIC programs, and interfaith and immigration networks.
The OIC supports all the jihadist movements considered to be resisting “foreign occupation,” including those in “occupied” Indian Kashmir, and condemns the “humiliation and oppression” of Muslims in India.
The Charter stipulates that the International Islamic Court of Justice shall become the Organization’s main legal body (Chap. X, Art. 14) and that “[t]he Independent Permanent Commission on Human Rights shall promote the civil, political, social and economic rights enshrined in the organization’s [OIC] covenants and declarations and in universally agreed human rights instruments, in conformity with Islamic values” (Art. 15). It implies that the covenants which do not conform with Islamic values will not be followed.
One can note that Sudanese President Omar al Bashir, accused (according to Western criteria of justice) of genocide committed in southern Sudan and Darfur, has not been troubled by the Islamic Court of Justice. His colleagues at the OIC do not consider him in any way a criminal and receive him with great respect, as does Turkish PM Erdogan.
The Islamic Court of Justice has an international mandate and could try foreigners, both Muslims and non-Muslims (blasphemers, apostates, resisters to jihad) who have broken the laws of shari’a anywhere. Moreover, the claim by the OIC to be the guardian and protector of Muslim immigrants living in all countries that are not members of the OIC implies an extension of its jurisdiction and political influence over all the Muslims of Europe, North and South America, and the other non-Member States. This situation exacerbates the danger incurred by non-religious European Muslims, whether atheists, apostates, or free thinkers.       
Within its organization, the Charter presents characteristics similar to those of the EU; however, in terms of its spirit, functions, principles, and objectives, it is the EU’s very antithesis. Even if it employs the language of international organizations, the meaning of the words is different by their being rooted in the conceptual world of the Koran, which contradicts the basis of secular Western thought. Thus, Article 32-2 states, “The Council of Foreign Ministers [of OIC countries] shall recommend the rules of procedures of the Islamic Summit.” This implies an Islamic view and understanding on policy.
Such a combined political and religious institution is at the very outer rim of Western thinking, anchored as it is in the separation between politics and religion. Even if interference between the two fields has persisted, the principle of such separation has facilitated emancipation in the intellectual and political arenas from religious authority and the development of critical thought.
Present-day aspiration of the Ummah to submit to a caliphate which embodies a combined political-religious institution can only surprise the Westerner and highlight the gap that separates the two. Rooted in individualism, Europeans cultivate the search for happiness and cherish freedom of thought and of rational, scientific exploration, which are perceived as a human being’s greatest privilege and finest adventure.
Conversely, aspiring to the Caliphate indicates the longing for a supreme authority owing its infallibility to Allah and his human intermediary, Mohammed. According to Ibn Khaldoun, this institution placing politics at the service of worldwide, religious expansionism was created as instrument for the mandatory Islamization of mankind. Faced today with this political archaism, a divided and broken West seeks refuge in denial and grasps at the demise of tiny Israel as though at a lifebelt. Taking in water from every side, this West that abandons its own identity for multilateralism and multiculturalism and ruins its citizenry by buying security has little chance of survival.