The UN passed a resolution calling for criminalization of criticism of Islam. As Obama plans to stock his administration with Muslims, it will be telling how he handles the implementation of OIC strategy to impose Islamic supremacism on the world. What will Obama do and say about this resolution, which seeks to protect Islam and criminalize criticism of it (as determined by the OIC)? Dr. History points out that nothing is said about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Ba’hai, Zorastrianism, Buddhism etc.
And considering how anti-semitic the Quran is, as are Islamic teachings, does this legitimize Jew hatred and make it a crime to speak out against it?
Islam is the only religion specifically named as deserving protection. India's Ambassador Gopinathan Achamkulangare said the resolution "inappropriately" linked religious criticism to racism.
And that includes, of course, any honest examination of how jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to make recruits. So not only does this herald the death of free speech, but it also leaves us mute and defenseless before the advancing global jihad.
"UN body OKs call to curb religious criticism," by Frank Jordans for AP, March 26 (thanks to Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi):
GENEVA (AP) — The U.N.'s top human-rights body approved a proposal backed by Muslims [sic] nations Thursday urging the passage of laws around the world protecting religion from criticism.
The proposal by Pakistan had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies.
A simple majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution. Eleven mostly Western nations opposed it and 13 countries abstained.
The resolution urges states to provide "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general."
It sounds good until you realize that "incitement to religious hatred" includes such acts as quoting the Qur'an passages that jihadists use to recruit and motivate terrorists.
"It is individuals who have rights and not religions," said Canadian diplomat Terry Cormier. Canada's criticism was echoed by European Union countries, all of which voted against the proposal.
That's good, and unexpected.
The council is dominated by Muslim and African countries. Muslim nations have argued that religions, in particular Islam, must be shielded from criticism in the media and other areas of public life. They cited cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as an example of unacceptable free speech.
"Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," the resolution said.
By Muslims. By Islamic jihadists. But it is not they who are targeted by this initiative.
A coalition of more than 100 secular and faith groups had called on governments to oppose the resolution, warning that it could lead to accusations of defamation among different faiths.
The United States did not vote on the resolution because it is not a member of the council. The Bush administration announced it was virtually giving up on the body and would participate in debates only if absolutely necessary because of the council's anti-Israel statements and its failure to act on abuses in Sudan and elsewhere.
That will doubtess be reversed soon.
India, which normally votes along with the council's majority of developing nations, abstained in protest at the fact that Islam was the only religion specifically named as deserving protection.
India's Ambassador Gopinathan Achamkulangare said the resolution "inappropriately" linked religious criticism to racism.