No, Trump: The UN’s problem is not ‘bureaucracy,’ it’s despotism

Conservative Review, by Jordan Schachtel, Sept. 18, 2017:

President Trump delivered remarks at the United Nations Monday morning, arguing that the international body has yet to reach its “full potential” because there is simply too much “bureaucracy and mismanagement” in its current structure.

“The United Nations was founded on truly noble goals,” President Trump said in New York City, before getting to the heart of his message. Despite an increase in U.N. funding, Trump said, “we are not seeing the results in line with this investment.”

“We seek a United Nations that regains the trust of the people around the world. In order to achieve this, the United Nations must hold every level of management accountable, protect whistle-blowers and focus on results rather than on process,” Trump said.

But “bureaucracy and mismanagement” have little to do with the U.N.’s failure to reach the aforementioned goals. Over the past few decades, the United Nations has merely served as cover for rogue states with totalitarian ambition. These nations and groups now utilize the U.N. as a pulpit to harass and bully nations that don’t subscribe to authoritarian regional agendas.

The U.N.’s inherent flaw comes in its foundationally collectivist, idealistic structure. Following the horrors of World War II, the U.N. was founded on the noble cause of maintaining international peace and security. But with its one-country, one-vote system, the United Nations will act as a body that enables iron-fisted regimes so long as unfree countries continue to outnumber free countries.

Even if it was running with 100 percent efficiency, the institution would still be churning out resolutions and reports that undermine freedom and prosperity.

Moreover, the veto power included in the UN Security Council cannot do much to produce powerful sanction packages and/or human rights initiatives, due to the adversarial nations of China and Russia having a permanent seat at the table.

Totalitarian nations with common interests have used the U.N. as a machine to advance their collective agenda. One such prominent group, the 57-state Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), is notorious for pushing U.N. policy that adheres to Islamic supremacist ideals. The OIC blocks discussion on issues such as Islamic terror and the human rights abuses that occur inside Muslim-majority countries.

But it’s not just outside bodies that cause problems at the U.N. Its longstanding institutions have been corrupted to their cores.

The U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC), Turtle Bay’s most influential U.N. body, has turned into a tool for notorious regimes. Several dictatorial nations maintain good standing on the council, including Venezuela, Cuba, Qatar, and other nations with horrific domestic human-rights records. Instead of promoting human rights, the UNHRC churns out resolution after resolution attacking the nation of Israel, while ignoring the real atrocities being committed across the globe on a daily basis.

In its heyday, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was revered as an agency dedicated to the preservation of important global institutions. Today, UNESCO acts as an Islamic supremacist propaganda machine, attacking Jewish and Christian claims to holy sites in Jerusalem.

Other agencies, such as the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), has promoted the destruction of Israel and helped perpetuate Arab-Israeli hostilities. During Israel’s 2014 war with Hamas, UNRWA-owned construction materials were found in Hamas terror tunnels. The terrorist group also utilized UNRWA schools to stockpile its missiles.

Despite its anti-American agenda, the United States continues to contribute about $3 billion annually to the United Nations — about a quarter of its annual budget. U.S. citizens also keep the U.N. subsidiaries afloat (e.g. UNRWA, UNESCO, UNHRC) via hundreds of millions in donations.

According to Freedom House, 67 countries suffered net declines in overall freedom last year (while 36 registered gains). “Bureaucracy and mismanagement” is not the problem at the United Nations, as Trump believes. The problem at the United Nations is the fact that totalitarian nations outnumber the free ones, and control its agenda.

Jordan Schachtel is the national security correspondent for Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @JordanSchachtel.

Also see:

Now Western media face wrath of Islamic blasphemy laws

WND, by Leo Hohmann, August 1, 2017:

A group of international Islamist organizations led by the Saudi-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, recently held a two-day conference on countering “Islamophobia” in which it recommends imposing Islamic blasphemy laws on the media worldwide.

Under Islamic law, it is considered a serious offense to criticize Allah, Muhammad or Islam. In countries like Pakistan, a Muslim can take a non-Muslim to court and claim he was “offended” by something that was said, resulting in a trial and jail time, even death, for the non-Muslim.

Christians in Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, Sudan and other Muslim-dominated countries with significant Christian minorities have been the targets of brutal persecution, with the blasphemy laws often serving as the catalyst for their incarceration. Christians have been jailed, stoned, beheaded, and even had acid thrown in their faces for violating the blasphemy laws.

But the OIC, which consists of 57 Muslim-majority countries and boasts the largest voting bloc at the United Nations, is not satisfied with its own people living under threat of arrest for offending Islam by something that is said, written or posted on the Internet.

The July 15-16 symposium, held at London’s Central Mosque Trust and Islamic Cultural Center, was attended by lawyers, media leaders, politicians, academics from European universities and diplomats from various embassies. It was titled: “Mechanisms to challenge Islamophobia legally and through the media.”

Organizers spoke of the need for a new media strategy, citing there is usually a surge in “hate crimes” against Muslims following terrorist acts perpetrated by Muslims, such as the London Bridge attack and Manchester concert attack earlier this year.

But, as noted by the Barnabas Aid Fund, a group that advocates for persecuted Christians, the conference organizers’ reference to “Islamophobia” should not be confused with actual crimes of violence against Muslim people.

One of the three central themes of the conference was the legal status of “defamation of religion.” This is a term the OIC has previously used as part of its decade-long campaign to make criticism of Islam a criminal offense – even in Western democracies where free speech is a staunch tradition.

In fact, the section on “Islamophobia” in the OIC’s “10-year strategic action plan” published in 2005 only uses the word in this sense and makes no reference to countering hatred of Muslims as people.

So, when the London conference organizers spoke of looking at  countering Islamophobia from a “legal perspective,” this should be taken as a serious threat. In fact, only last December the OIC met in Saudi Arabia and launched a new media strategy, part of which aimed “to tackle Islamophobic discourse in the U.S., U.K., and European media.”

“Barnabas Aid strongly condemns all forms of anti-Muslim hatred,” the Christian-aid agency said in a statement Monday. “However, we also condemn the attempt to use the suffering that has resulted from recent terrorist attacks to advocate the introduction of what is, in effect, a backdoor Islamic blasphemy law.”

As Barnabas Aid has previously reported, there are attempts being made by Pakistan, and 27 other governments who are OIC members, to introduce global Islamic blasphemy laws. In fact, as Barnabas Aid points out, the Palestinian Authority recently enacted just such a law.

“These actions represent a serious threat not only to Christians in the world’s 57 Muslim-majority countries, but also to Christians in the West, particularly those who have fled persecution in Islamic countries and found sanctuary in Western countries,” Barnabas Aid stated.

It is particularly disturbing that the proposals from the Pakistan government seek to criminalize social media posts critical of Islam that are uploaded in Western countries.

So, although Dr. Mahjoub Bensaid of the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization spoke at the conference of “the real and true image of Islam as a religion of peace which advocates tolerance,” what he appears to have meant is that non-Muslims should “tolerate” the introduction of an Islamic blasphemy law that prohibit any criticism of Islam by the media, and anyone who does not tolerate the blasphemy laws is labeled “Islamophobic.”

Philip Haney, co-author of the whistleblower book “See Something Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad,” says the OIC’s recent “recommendation” should not be viewed in a vacuum but as the latest in a series of moves by the international community aimed at criminalizing all criticism of Islam, which is being positioned as the global elites’ most favored religion. The end result will be the implementation of Islamic blasphemy laws worldwide.

Here is the timeline for the international effort to criminalize anti-Islam speech in accordance with Shariah law:

  • First came the OIC 10-year strategic plan (2005)
  • The United Nations Human Rights Council passed Resolution 16/18 (March 2011), with the help of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The resolution’s stated goal is “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.” It calls on all member states to consider adopting laws to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief. Other recommendations include creating government programs to promote inter-religious tolerance and dialogue, training government employees to be sensitive toward people’s religious sensitivities, which sounds reasonable were it not for the fact that Islam is by far the most sensitive of all the world’s faiths to criticism in the public square.
  • In July 2011, the OIC launched the Istanbul Process in cooperation with the U.S., led by Secretary of State Clinton to come up with a plan to help nations implement U.N. Res. 16/18 into law.
  • November 2011, under the leadership of former National Security Council chair John Brennan, the U.S. scrubs all references deemed offensive to Islam from its FBI counter-terrorism training manuals.
  • In December 2015, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in the wake of a terrorist attack in San Bernardino in which two Muslims killed 14 Americans, threatened to arrest and prosecute any American who posted comments that “edged toward violence” against the Muslim community.
  • Governments of Germany, U.K. and Canada have all passed or tried to pass laws over the last two years criminalizing speech deemed offensive to Islam.
  • In December 2016 the OIC issues its “Media strategy in countering Islamophobia and its implementation mechanisms” with special focus on media in the U.S., U.K. and Europe.
  • In January 2017, U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres stated at a joint news conference with the Saudi foreign minister that “Islamophobia and Islamophobic comments…in some parts of the world” are the “fuel” that ignites global Islamic terrorism.
  • In April 2017, the U.S. Senate passed Resolution 118, co-sponsored by Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., and Susan Collin, R-Maine, which critics say lays the foundation for future banning of anti- Islam commentary as “hate speech.”
  • In July 2017 the Palestinian Authority adopts so-called Abbas Blasphemy Law. This law applies to all social media postings. Anyone “sharing” or even “liking” a Facebook post that the PA disapproves of will be arrested and jailed.
  • In July 2017 a court in New Jersey bars anyone speaking at a public hearing regarding a mosque project from mentioning “Islam” or “Muslims.”

“The OIC has put a lot of effort into criminalizing speech critical of Islam, along with solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,” Haney said. “Those two issues have been at the top of their agenda for the last 10 years, and I’d say they’ve made plenty of progress.”

Read more

UTT Special Report: U.S. Submits to Islam

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, May 25, 2017:

Not understanding the Global Islamic Movement and what drives its actions is the reason America lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Since 9/11, military generals, Presidents, National Security Advisors, Members of Congress, and others have been too busy to stop and actually do what the law and their Oath of Office require them to do – know all enemies or do due diligence to know all enemies.  You cannot “protect and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic” if you do not do this.

Last weekend, May 21, 2017, the President of the United States participated in a “Summit” in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia speaking to the leaders of every muslim nation on earth, except Iran, about how to deal with the growing threat of “terrorism.”

When this event is viewed from the perspective of the Islam, the United States submitted to the objectives of the Global Islamic Movement in this current phase of their efforts.

In order to understand the magnitude of this, the language used in this summit must be understood the way the muslim world understands it through the filter of sharia – which is the only source through which Islamic leaders understand anything.

We know this because Kings and Heads of State of all OIC nations were present at the summit when the King of Saudi Arabia spoke.  The OIC – Organisation (sic) of Islamic Cooperation – is the largest international organization in the world second only to the UN, consists of all muslim nations on earth, and is the largest voting block in the UN. The OIC holds Extraordinary Summits every three (3) years at which the Heads of State and Kings of every muslim nation meet and decide strategic directions for the muslim world. In 1990, the OIC Extraordinary Summit approved the “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.”  It states, in part, life cannot be taken “except for a Shari’ah prescribed reason,” and goes on to say in Article 19, “There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for a in the Shari’ah.”

Finally, the last two articles of the Cairo Declaration, Articles 24 and 25 state:

“All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.” (Article 24)

“The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.” (Article 25)

The Cairo Declaration was officially served to the UN by the OIC in 1993. This means the entire world was put on notice in 1993 that when leaders of the muslim world use the phrase “Human Rights” they mean “the imposition of sharia law,” and sharia is the only filter through which they understand the language they use when discussing any issues.

In his speech, which preceded President Trump’s comments, Saudi King Salman made many references to “terrorism” and “extremism” and the need to eradicate it from the planet.  Specifically, he said the world must  “stand united to fight the forces of evil and extremism whatever their sources are in response to the dictates of our Islamic religion…Terrorism is a result of extremism.”

When muslim leaders use words, those words must be understood as they are defined in Islam, not as they are understood in the West.  “Terrorism” is defined in Islam as “killing a muslim without right.” Under sharia muslims may be killed if they apostasize from Islam, kill another muslim without right, or if they violate any other law under sharia for which there is a capital crime. Otherwise, to kill a muslim is to be a “terrorist.”  “Extremism” in Islam is to exceed ones ability – to move the Islamic Movement ahead too quickly, thus putting the muslim ummah (global muslim community) in danger because this risks losing muslims who do not understand their duties under sharia and exposing Islam’s true intentions to the non-muslim community thus bringing violence upon muslims – terrorism.

Saudi King Salman spoke at the summit yet he sent two messages:  one for the muslims and one for the non-muslims.  Americans and the rest of the non-muslim world heard the King say he is going to eradicate “terrorists” from the planet and thought he was talking about ISIS and Al Qaeda.  The muslim world heard that the United States was providing hundreds of millions of dollars and weapons to support the Islamic world’s effort to destroy anything on the planet that stands in the way of the complete implementation of sharia – a command from Allah in the command and reflected in the words and actions of Islam’s prophet Mohammad.

Therefore, since President Trump has already killed muslims without right under sharia by ordering the U.S. military to launch strikes against Syria and elsewhere, Islam views him as a “terrorist,” and the Saudi King is speaking about the U.S. President and the United States when he says “Terrorism” must be eradicated.  The Saudi King was not referring to muslims who bomb an arena in Manchester, England or kill Americans in an Orlando, Florida bar or muslims who fight on battlefields in Iraq or Afghanistan when he uses the word “terrorist.”

Understanding this necessarily completely changes America’s perspective of what took place in Saudi Arabia last weekend.  The President of the United States is being given counsel and advice from U.S. officials who appear to lack any understanding of any of this, which will lead America’s to defeat.

Exactly the Islamic world’s objective.

For UTT’s complete analysis of the speeches by King Salman and President Trump please click HERE.

***

Also see: UTT Victory in Arizona and help to bring this training to your town.

***

Stealth jihadists use language deceptively. Learn the definitions of Islamic terms here: Islam’s Deceptive Use of Western Terminology

Free Speech Champions Fight Back Against OSCE ‘Islamophobia’ Industry

Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf

Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf

Center for Security Policy, by Clare Lopez, October 13, 2016:

The ‘Islamophobia’ industry’s all-out assault on free speech was on full display at the recent annual meeting of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM) in Warsaw, Poland. The Center’s VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez and Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin attended the 26-27 September 2016 session, along with Debra Anderson, ACT! For America Chapter leader in Minnesota, Dave Petteys, ACT! Chapter leader from Colorado and key European colleagues Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf from Austria, Henrik Clausen from Denmark, and Alain Wagner from France.

Center VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez

Center VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is a 57-member regional security organization with representatives from North America, Europe and Asia. It describes itself as a ‘forum for political dialogue on a wide range of security issues’ whose approach encompasses ‘politico-military, economic and environmental, and human dimensions’. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) is an office within the OSCE that claims to be dedicated to democratic elections, respect for human rights, rule of law, tolerance, and non-discrimination.

Their stated overall objective is helping governments protect and promote human rights, fundamental freedoms and tolerance and non-discrimination, as well as to improve and strengthen democratic practices and institutions. Except that the actual theme of the two-day proceedings had a lot more to do with countering ‘hate crime,’ criminalizing ‘hate speech,’ and demonizing ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Islamophobes’ than it did with genuinely championing the right to believe, live, and speak freely.

Of course, the campaign to shut down free speech when it’s about Islam is very much in line with the top agenda item of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), which is to achieve the criminalization of criticism of Islam in national legal codes. Gagging criticism of Islam is also what the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 tries to do. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked hard to make that happen in the U.S. and around the world when she promoted the Istanbul Process. The idea is to use existing laws against ‘incitement to violence,’ but in a novel way that applies a so-called ‘test of consequences.’ That is, if someone, somewhere, sometime decides what somebody said somewhere, sometime is offensive and then launches a ‘Day of Rage,’ or goes on a lawless rampage destroying property, injuring or killing people, guess whose fault that would be? Under the ‘test of consequences’ speech code, that would be the speaker.

Center Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin

Center Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin

Notably, though, the Islamophobia crowd seemed to be very much on the defensive at this OSCE meeting. Their crouch-and-whine posture most likely had to do with the accelerating numbers of horrific Islamic terror attacks, whose trail of carnage and destruction is splashed across screens around the world for all to see. Along with those visuals comes increasing awareness on the part of more and more ordinary people that when they yell ‘Allahu Akbar,’ it doesn’t mean ‘Hail to the Redskins’: it means they are committing that attack in the name of Allah and Islam.

The ‘Islamophobia’ industry has neither the ability nor actual wish to stop jihad but it sure does wish so many were not putting ‘Allahu Akbar’ and Islamic terror together and then speaking out about it. The only recourse left to them is trying desperately to shut down free speech—including places like the U.S. where free speech is Constitutionally-protected. As CSP Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin puts it:

This is a direct extraterritorial demand that non-Muslim jurisdictions submit to Islamic law and implement shariah-based punishment over time. In other words, the OIC is set on making it an enforceable crime for non-Muslim people anywhere in the world—including the United States—to say anything about Islam that Islam does not permit.

In other words, what they’re trying to do is enforce shariah’s law on slander – on us, on everyone, whether Muslim or not.

That effort at the Warsaw OSCE meeting went at it by various means: there was a great deal of emphasis on equating Islamophobia with ‘racism’ (but a new kind – not based on skin color), ‘bigotry,’ and violation of ‘human rights.’ Pouty complaints were heard about ‘feeling discriminated against,’ ‘marginalized,’ and the object of ‘hard looks’ because of wearing a hijab. When legal eagle Steve Coughlin and Danish defender Henrik Clausen demanded a specific legal definition of the term ‘Islamophobia,’ they were assailed for…you guessed it, ‘Islamophobia’! Needless to say, there was no legal definition forthcoming (because ‘everybody knows what it means’).

‘Islamophobia’ hysteria reached peak during the OSCE’s second day plenary session, where the Turkish General Secretary of the European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion (EMISCO), Bashy Qurayshi, came unglued with a plaintive wail that ‘Islamophobes’ who’d been permitted to infiltrate the OSCE were “lying, ranting and attempting to spread hatred at this conference.” He even threw in a reference to such ‘Islamophobes’ as ‘Nazis,’ at which point senior representatives at the OSCE head table actually broke into applause.

By way of counterpoint, however, it must be added that many delegates from Civil Society organizations throughout the OSCE membership area—including atheists, Baha’is, Christians, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons—firmly pressed the case for free speech. We know that they took encouragement from our presence and outspokenness, even as we did from theirs.

The ‘Islamophobia’ crown went home from Warsaw in the sure knowledge that their attempts to silence free speech about Islam have stirred a gathering force of liberty’s champions who will not be silenced.

For more coverage of this year’s OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, including photos and video, please see Gates of Vienna at https://gatesofvienna.net/

Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy

***

You can also see all the videos here

Hillary Clinton officially on record as supporting the implementation of sharia over the Constitution

Understanding the Threat, by John  Guandolo, October 6, 2016:

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is the largest voting bloc in the United Nations (UN), and is comprised of all Islamic States on the planet – 56 states plus Palestine which they consider an equal.

57 states.  Ring any bells?

The OIC is considered the “Collective Voice of the Muslim World.”

In 1993, the OIC officially served the Cairo Declaration to the UN.  It was approved by the Heads of State and Kings of the Islamic nations in the world.

The Cairo Declaration begins with:

“Recognizing the importance of issuing a Document on Human Rights in Islam that will serve as a guide for Member states in all aspects of life.”

The Cairo Declaration ends with:

ARTICLE 24:  All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.

ARTICLE 25:  The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

At the Head of State and King level, the entire Muslim world under the OIC legally told the world that “Human Rights” in the Muslim world is defined by sharia (Islamic law).  Meaning:  killing those who leave Islam, homosexuals, and those who fail to convert or submit to Islam is all a part of the Islamic understanding of “human rights.”

The OIC “Ten Year Programme of Action” (2005) calls for governments of the world to Combat Islamophobia, which is hammer to implement the Islamic law of Slander (“To say anything about a Muslim he would dislike”).  Slander in Islam is a capital crime.

Specifically, paragraph VII “Combating Islamophobia” sub paragraph (3) reads:

“Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.” (emphasis added)

UN Resolution 1618, approved in March 2011, is a non-binding resolution which calls on governments to outlaw all speech that “constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” toward religion, on the rationale that such speech could provoke “religious hatred” in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution and Federal Code.

Who advocated on behalf of the OIC for silencing “Islamophobia?”  Mrs. Clinton.

Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary General of the OIC Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu

Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary General of the OIC Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu

On July 15, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking to the OIC in Istanbul, Turkey stated:  “I want to applaud the Organization of Islamic Conference and the European Union for helping pass Resolution 1618 at the Human Rights Council…So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing anti-discrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”

In December 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the “Istanbul Process” a major initiative and partnered with the OIC to directly support UN Resolution 1618.

Hillary Clinton is, therefore, officially on record as supporting the implementation of sharia (Islamic Law) over the Constitution and U.S. Federal Code, and silencing all those who speak up about the dangers of Islam and sharia.

EMISCO and the Ongoing Push Against “Islamophobia” by the OSCE

emisco-isis

Gates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey Sept. 26, 2016:

The following report was written by the Counterjihad Collective after several members attended an EMISCO side event today at the OSCE/HDIM conference in Warsaw.

bulentsenayThe forum was structured so that the closing statements, given by Bülent Şenay, were delivered after the question-and-answer period to ensure a final word. The panel seemed defensive, with panel members making strident statements about various political parties, labeling them as “racist” and “Islamophobic”. Building on narratives emphasized in 2014, their efforts were aimed at escalating the Islamophobia rhetoric in the guise of racism and gender, with all of the women appearing in head coverings, amid a constant reference to the wearing of headscarves. Also of note was a peculiar omission: the materials associated with side event did not provide the names of the briefers.

Because EMISCO and the Turkish complement were force to acknowledge that the term “Islamophobia” lacks a definition, this question was presented again in this forum. The other question concerned the definition of “new form of racism not based on skin color” and “manifestations of racism” as well. The panel did not answer the question on racism. Quraishy answered that Islamophobia was not about reasonable disagreements. In his closing remarks, however, Bülent Şenay became visibly agitated, went off his prepared notes (he said) and forcefully declared that our asking the question was both Islamophobic and ridiculous because “we all know what it means” and hence “I won’t define it.” He went on to insist, however, that “we must define Islamophobia as a crime.” Of course, defining Islamophobia is an issue because criminalizing an activity that lacks a definition is a serious civil rights and verges on the criminalization of thought.

Professor Bülent Şenay speaks under color of some authority, which makes his observations something more than just the comments of a professor. The professor sits on the OSCE Human Rights Advisory Council, is a founding member of the Governing Board of EMISCO, and was the Diplomatic Counsel¬or for Religious and Cultural Affairs at the Turkish Embassy in The Hague from 2008 to 2012. In September 2013, Professor Şenay oversaw the drafting of a declaration that defined Islamophobia as “a groundless fear and intolerance of Islam and Muslims” that is “detrimental to international peace” such that there “should be recogni¬tion of Islamophobia as a hate crime and Islamophobic attitudes as human rights violations.” The declaration was written for the “International Conference on Islamophobia: Law & Media” in Istanbul, which was co-sponsored by Turkey’s Directorate General of Press and Information and the OIC. At the conference, Turkish President Erdoğan stated that “Islamophobia” is a “kind of racism” that is “a crime against humanity.” In 2014, Şenay felt comfortable chiding the Western audience by saying, “if I were to present a particular favor, this would be the title, ‘A New Cultural ISIS — International Strong Ignorance Syndrome’” as he presented his briefing with the title, “Is¬lamophobia in the 21st Century: International Strong IgnoranceSyndrome in Europe (ISIS).” In doing so, Şenay was suggesting that the extremism was in the reactions of the West, not in the acts of ISIS.

***

Stephen Coughlin at OSCE today by Vlad Tepes

Some may remember Stephen Coughlin’s intervention at a 2015 OSCE meeting where they openly admitted that hate speech should be a criminal matter and that the truth can indeed be hate speech.

Stephen went back to the OSCE “Human Development Implementation Meeting” today and spoke again to this committee, who seem bound and determined to use the language of cultural-Marxism to turn free societies into totalitarian Marxist and communist ones.

***

Clare Lopez on Islamic antisemitism at the OSCE – Turkish response follows by Vlad Tepes

This is Clare Lopez’s presentation at the OSCE, the European body that seeks to criminalize criticism of Islam as hate speech, today in Warsaw.

According to those watching the conference via live stream, this odd set of remarks by the Turkish delegate was a response to Clare’s presentation, as well as the rest of the interventions by Center for Security Policy personnel.

***

Elisabeth Sabaditsch Wolff OSCE Human Dimension Implementation meeting Warsaw 2106

***

Tundra Tabloids:

At the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe in Warsaw Poland, Atheists Ireland spokesman denounces the term “Islamofauxbia” as a fraudulent term.

***

Vlad Tepesblog:

Dave Petties OSCE presentation September 27 2016

***

Vlad Tepesblog:

Stephen Coughlin OSCE Sept 27

Stephen Coughlin: Yes, the Truth May Constitute Hate Speech

truth-is-the-new-hate-speechGates of Vienna, by  Baron Bodissey, August 27, 2016:

On August 21, the American Freedom Alliance sponsored a conference in Los Angeles, “Islam and Western Civilization: Can they Coexist?” One of the speakers was Major (ret.) Stephen Coughlin, the author of Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.

Note: In his talk, Maj. Coughlin refers to OSCE events that he attended. The response by CSP and ICLA to the use of the term “Islamophobia” at OSCE is here. The video of his encounter with the globalist enforcers of the OSCE narrative is here.

Many thanks to Henrik Clausen for recording, and to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

***

Here is a longer presentation given recently at an Act! For America event in San Antonio, TX :