UN resolution on the ‘defamation’ of Islam

[revwardoc]

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.c...-of-islam.html

The General Assembly of the United Nations busied itself over the Christmas period with a raft of human rights-related motions, even calling for a moratorium on the death penalty. While no-one really takes any notice of the conceited self-importance of this body, it cannot be denied that resolutions passed by it possess at the very least a certain symbolic significance which occasionally resonates around the world.

But the most concerning development is its increasing tendency to express its desire for limitations on the freedom of expression, and its decision to pass a resolution against ‘defamation of religions’ is a coup for the Islamic countries which proposed it. It means, of course, that the UN now officially opposes ‘speaking the truth about the elements of Islamic teaching that jihadists use to incite to violence’.

The motion on defamation of religions has been a priority for the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) since September 11th 2001. It acquired fresh impetus following a Danish newspaper's publication in 2005 of cartoons satirising Mohammed.

Introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the OIC, it passed by a 108-51 margin, with 25 abstentions. As with many of the other votes, the US lined up with democracies in Europe, Asia and elsewhere against developing nations, including repressive regimes. Although the resolution contains much with which any modern liberal democracy would find fault - referring generically to the defamation of ‘religions’ - it is highly significant that Islam is the only religion named in the text. It also takes a swipe at counter-terrorism security measures by talking about ‘discrimination’ against Muslims, ‘ethnic and religious profiling’, and ‘laws that stigmatise groups of people belonging to certain religions and faiths under a variety of pretexts relating to security and illegal immigration’. The resolution decries ‘the negative projection of Islam in the media’ and voices ‘deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism’. All of this perpetuates the carefully-honed perception of Arab and Islamist ‘victimhood’.

The fact that the terrorists themselves profess Islam and routinely commit atrocities with the Qur’an in one hand and a bomb in the other, proclaiming Islamic teachings with cries of ‘Allahu Akbar’, is an inconvenient fact to which one may no longer refer. Is it really 'defamation' if it is substantiated truth?

OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu addressed an international conference last year on ‘Islamophobia’, and told the gathering that freedom of expression was being used as a cover in the West to promote anti-Islam sentiment. It is therefore imperative that such freedom be restricted.

The OIC now has the official support of the UN in the global propagation of the theology and political philosophy of the Dar al-Islam; that it is wrong to resist the jihad not only physically, but also in speech and print. In passing this resolution, the UN has shown itself to be utterly deficient in both its discernment and diplomacy, for any special protection of the Islamic religio-political worldview can only be made at the expense of the Christian one. It eschews objectivity and truth, and constitutes an unacceptable moral inversion.

[reconeil]

What can you or any American expect?
A good half or better of all UN Officials or Pompous Dignitaries are: "Jihadists" towards
America or despise US,...to one degree or another.

Doesn't matter one iota how much U.S.Taxpayer Monies are Taken From US & wasted or
pissed-away on Grandeose Foreign Aids for such ingrates.

Besides, it's just plain stupid of government believing that friends Can Be Bought anyway,...
and especially by those fearing Radically Fanatical Islam MUCH MORE than fearing US (both ways).

Neil

[darrels joy]

It means, of course, that the UN now officially opposes ‘speaking the truth about the elements of Islamic teaching that jihadists use to incite to violence’.

57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference

Hmm 57 where have I heard that number before?

[Keith_Hixson]

Now is time to propose a similar resolution for Christianity, Judaism, etc. The Muslims will refuse to do it and their hypocrisy will be exposed. The U.S. Representative would be under the gun if he didn't support it by conservative Christians. A Great Idea.

Talk about the destruction of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. And our new representative voted for it. Stupid.

Keith

[revwardoc]

Keith,

The US rep voted against it as well as the reps from all the Western European nations and several Asian nations.

[1CAVCCO15MED]

Talk about profiling, just be a Christian in Darfur or a Jew or Christian in Iran. It is good to know the UN is concerned about their welfare. NOT

[Keith_Hixson]

The UN is a JOKE!

[1CAVCCO15MED]

Calling someone a "crusader" is profiling.

[revwardoc]

1CAV,

There's a cricket team in England that was forced to drop its nickname, "The Crusaders", because (and get this) 1 Jew and 2 Muslims complained that it was an insult to Judaism and Islam because it glorified the Crusades! A goddam cricket team! So instead of telling them to go s**t in their collective hats, they caved.