Thursday, May 5, 2011

OIC Pursues International Shariah-Based-Blasphemy-Hate Speech Law ~ to Shield Islam From Scrutiny

This global blasphemy law is being pursued by states that either have no religious diversity ~ because it is illegal no to be a Muslim ~ and or the perpetuate the subjugated class of non-Muslims ~ as started by the Prophet as a way to spare their lives [when he killed the idolaters who refused to convert]. For example there is no penalty in Iran for killing a Bahai. And it looks very similar for Hindus and Christians in Pakistan and Copts in Egypt. In the Malidives, not to be left out ~ revokes the citizenship of any individual found to have changed their religion from Islam.

But it is deemed 'hateful' to cross examine the continuation of these long standing Islamic practises in the modern world. If people were dhimmis or slaves a long time ago ~ fine ~ but today this can no longer be.

This proposal paves the way for Islamic law in every country ~ of the subjugating kind. In the west ~ if for ex. some moderate Muslim starts a political party [they have denounced violence and everyone is hanging off their coattails ~ delighted] but what if their political platform included laws which they believe in ~ based on the Koran and the way Islam operates or is interpreted in most Muslim countries ~ women half the rights ~ Christians and other limited rights and freedoms ~ but to question it ~ as you would any political ideology put forward ~ would be deemed 'hateful'. Then you will have the Muslims along with the remember-the-colonial-days-we must-feel-sorry-for-this-groupies shouting down what would otherwise be a normal political challenge.

It is a free ride that freedom doesn't afford.


Instead of 'hate speech' ~ it is surprising that the OIC [Muslim group of nations] did not go with the 'racist' lead ~ as well!!

All those who don't agree with Islam are 'racist' and 'hateful' ~ approach ~ it has become a terrible joke.



Leo worries that the language of that measure, adopted in 2009 without a vote, “opens the door” to new laws that would make it a crime to criticize the behavior of religious believers.

“The problem is, 'hostility' could arguably encompass a much broader category of speech and conduct,” Leo said. “The U.S.-Egypt resolution said that countries should take actions to prevent incitement, hostility, or discrimination. Now, what is 'hostility'? We don't know.”

The same can be said of Islamophobia ~ what is it? You left Islam ~ you no longer like it ~ now you are an Islamophobe. You learned about some of the things Muhammad did to spread Islam in Arabia ~ and you don't like it ~ now you are an Islamophobe. You have seen people arrested for leaving Islam ~ you don't like it ~ now you are an Islamophobe.

It certainly looks like an encroachment on individual freedoms ~ of which Muslim nations ~ these deluded centers ~ have no trouble with.



McGuire believes the new resolution's central flaw is its failure to distinguish between speech that some may find offensive or provocative, and speech that constitutes an incitement to violence against members of a religion.

“Incitement to violence is something that's already condemned in international law,” she said.


Right now we are allowing this to control or to needle us ~ but what we have got to do is to change our language and forcefully go after what they are doing. The treatment of women, religious freedoms, the long-standing apartheid system for non-Muslims. We should in turn make proposals that put them ~ and the things under the canopy of Shari'a ~ under the magnifying glass. Exposure is a good thing. Needling needn't be harsh. Where are all the Muslim women at the Olympics, for example. Should men only teams be allowed? Why can't a Christian be President in a Muslim majority country? Why can't non-Muslims join the military in Pakistan?



Washington D.C., May 5, 2011 / 05:49 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Muslim countries may seek a United Nations resolution that would brand criticism of Islam and other religions as “hate speech,” a top U.S. religious freedom official is warning.

Earlier this year, Islamic nations lost their most recent bid to pass a resolution against “defamation” of “vilification” of religions in the U.N. Human Rights Council. Now they appear to be pursing a new tactic, said Leonard Leo, a presidential appointee who chairs the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

“My concern is that the Organization of the Islamic Conference will now try to get 'defamation of religions' and 'blasphemy' resolutions passed through the back door – that is to say, by pushing the 'hate speech' issue,” he told CNA.

The Islamic conference was lobbying the U.N. for what Leo called a “global blasphemy law,” which would have condemned “defamation of religions” and urged member states to pass laws against it.

Although the measure failed, Leo said Islamic states may have better luck using broader “hate speech” language that some Western countries already accept.

The Islamic states' new approach, he believes, will be “to move away from the 'defamation of religions' framework” they have relied on in the past, and move toward “a broader, more amorphous 'hate speech' framework.”

Many European nations already have laws against “hate speech” and a U.N. international covenant on civil and political rights also encourages prohibitions against it.

Leo said the Islamic nations’ shift in strategy may build on a vaguely-worded 2009 resolution that Egypt and the United States co-sponsored in the U.N. Human Rights Council.

Both countries endorsed a statement “which talked about governments taking appropriate actions against 'hostility' as well as incitement to violence” on religious grounds.

Leo worries that the language of that measure, adopted in 2009 without a vote, “opens the door” to new laws that would make it a crime to criticize the behavior of religious believers.

“The problem is, 'hostility' could arguably encompass a much broader category of speech and conduct,” Leo said. “The U.S.-Egypt resolution said that countries should take actions to prevent incitement, hostility, or discrimination. Now, what is 'hostility'? We don't know.”

A U.N. resolution against religious “hate speech” or “hostility” would not bind member states to outlaw these kinds of expression.

The real problem, said Leo, is that such a resolution would lend the appearance of international legitimacy to existing laws outlawing religious criticism – such as those in Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran, and many other Muslim-run states. It would also signal international acceptance of new laws that would have similar effects.

Since 1999, U.N. human rights subgroups have passed resolutions every year that incorporated the Islamic states' preferred language against “defamation of religions.”

But these proposals declined in popularity, especially after two opponents of Pakistan's blasphemy law were murdered by Islamic extremists in 2011.

This year, for the first time since 1999, there was no U.N. resolution urging governments to repress either “defamation” or “vilification” of religions.

Instead, the U.N.’s Human Rights Council adopted a resolution condemning religious intolerance.

Leo called the rejection of this year's anti-“defamation” proposal “good news.”

He said the resolution against religious intolerance made it clear that “you shouldn't have laws that criminalize anything other than incitement to violent acts.”

Other international observers are less confident about this latest U.N. action.

Ashley McGuire, program director of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said the new resolution includes language “recycled” from earlier efforts to pass a global blasphemy law.

This language, she told CNA, remains “very problematic,” as in the case of phrases like “incitement to hatred.” Such a language, McGuire said “could be interpreted quite widely” to suppress legitimate criticism.

In one passage of the new resolution, the council “urges states to take effective measures … to address and combat” incidents of “religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence.” However, another portion of the same provision seems to suggest further government measures against “incitement to discrimination” or “hostility.”

McGuire believes the new resolution's central flaw is its failure to distinguish between speech that some may find offensive or provocative, and speech that constitutes an incitement to violence against members of a religion.

“Incitement to violence is something that's already condemned in international law,” she said. “But to say things that are religious in nature, and provocative, is an entirely different thing. What continues to be the problem is the conflation of the two.”

McGuire also noted that the new resolution's failure to condemn blasphemy laws would allow Islamic states to continue claiming a U.N. mandate for such measures.

Zamir Akram, Pakistan's ambassador to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the new resolution “does not replace the (Islamic conference’s) earlier resolutions on combating defamation of religions, which … continue to remain valid.”

Catholic News Agency

No comments: