The efforts to ban criticism of Islam through human rights law at the UN is not yet legally binding, but is making progress.
This so-called “defamation of religions” – or as they’re now calling it “vilification of religion” – U.N. resolution, proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (a group of 56 Islamic nations), would create a global blasphemy law, which will ensure criticism of Islam is legally censored.
The efforts to ban criticism of Islam through human rights law at the UN is not yet legally binding, but is making progress.
Be warned, this is an Islamic assault on global freedom of speech.
[.....]
Opponents noted that support had fallen and opposition increased since last year, when the Third Committee vote was 81-55 with 43 abstentions. The 192-nation General Assembly is expected to formally adopt the measure next month.
[.....]
U.S. envoy John Sammis told the Third Committee Washington believes the amendments are inadequate.
“We are disappointed to see that despite our efforts and discussions on this resolution, the text once again seems to take us farther apart, rather than helping to bridge the historical divides,” he said.
“The resolution still seeks to curtail and penalize speech,” he said. “The changes … unfortunately do not get to the heart of our concerns — the text’s negative implications for both freedom of religion and freedom of expression.”
He also said it was wrong to try to apply international human rights laws to religious beliefs, since human rights are intended to protect individuals, not governments or religions.
Islamic states say such resolutions do not aim to limit free speech but to stop publications like those of the Danish cartoons showing the Prophet Mohammed, which sparked bloody protests by Muslims around the world in 2005.
There’s an excellent article on this over at the New American.
[.....]
Open Doors and its allies fear that the ultimate goal of the OIC is the inclusion of the text of this latest anti-defamation initiative in the greater anti-racism restrictions already in place. The amending of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination to include religion would essentially criminalize the preaching of Christianity in Muslim nations. Proselytizing would be interpreted as an attempt to encourage one to change religions, thus representing an attack on Islam, which would be illegal as a form of racism.
A particularly fearful clause in the measure would “emphasize that States have an obligation to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish acts of violence against persons belonging to religious minorities; failure to do so may constitute a human rights violation.” That is to say, the plain language of the initiative being proposed would grant the imprimatur of the United Nations to the official persecution by member states of those who profess religious beliefs contrary to those of the majority. In many Islamic nations, this would provide legal cover for the perpetuation of the assault on Christians and Christianity. In fact, any statement that could be interpreted as “blasphemous” to the dominant religion would be punishable as an attack on the civil rights of anyone hearing the statement and claiming oppression under the terms of the proposed measure.




November 24th, 2010 at 9:24 am
As bad as it is, the resolution is not the real threat. At the end of November, an ad hoc cmte of the HRC will meet to inject the resolution into ICERD through a protocol that will give it the force of law. Please refer to the International Qur’an Petition and its supporting documentation.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Please take time to inform yourselfs of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s case.
Lawfare in Austria: Is Truth Illegal?
In Defence of Free Speech
November 24th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
ACTS ADOPTED UNDER TITLE VI OF THE EU TREATY
COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2008/913/JHA
of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law
November 25th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
The prosecutions of Winter, Wilsders & Wolff and the persecutions of Hector Aleem & Asia Bibi illustrate with perfect clarity why hate speech legislation can not be tolerated.
The state which can not identify and accurately describe its enemy can not defend itself.