Tag Archives: United Nations Human Rights Council

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

Posted on by
3

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 (here, here, here)  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

Posted on by
1

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

 During Israel’s Operation Pillar of Defense, media outlets jumped on a report about innocent Palestinian casualties at the hands of the Israeli military. One episode, thedeath of a BBC reporter’s infant son, included heart-breaking images of the grieving father cradling his dead child.

“Spare a thought for Omar, 11-month son of our BBC Arabic Service colleague in Gaza, killed in today’s Israeli air strike,” BBC Washington correspondent Paul Adamswrote in a Twitter post.

The Elder of Ziyon blog reports on a little-noticed investigation by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), which determined that Omar Mishrawi died as a result of a Hamas rocket that fell short of Israel. The UN report also made clear that Hamas repeatedly violated international human rights law by launching rockets from densely populated neighborhoods in Gaza and firing “the vast majority” of its rockets at civilian communities. Palestinian terrorists admitted “that their intended targets were civilians or large population centres in Israel, or objects that are prima facie civilian objects, such as Israel’s parliament, in clear violation of international humanitarian law.”

Elder of Ziyon called the Hamas criticism “pretty astonishing” since it came from “the notoriously anti-Israel UN Human Rights Council.”

The report cites a second case of a child, Mahmoud Sadallah, whose death was blamed on Israel but was in fact caused by Hamas.

Palestinian exploitation of casualties is nothing new. In the past, many incidents have been proved to be fabricated or conducted by the Palestinians themselves. This tactic, commonly referred to as “Pallywood,” is vital for the Palestinians to wage the increasingly crucial media war against Israel in an effort to win the hearts and minds of the international community.

While there were civilian casualties, the UN report notes the Hamas rocket fire was coming from residential areas. And it settles the debate over who was responsible for the toddler’s death, showing the BBC and other outlets incorrectly jumped to blame Israel.

 

Pallywood – truth in the middle east hollyland, what goes behind the scenes:

 

Related articles

Hillary Clinton’s legacy

Posted on by
3

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

Posted on by
7

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

Posted on by
1

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

Posted on by
2

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

Posted on by
3
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.