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)