"First, they came for the socialists,
and I did not speak out
because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one
left to speak for me."
- Martin Niemoller (1892-1984)
I suppose it was only a matter of time before the one worlders in the UN decided to launch an attack on freedom of religion. Actually, they have been doing it for a while, but they are tightening the noose with greater and greater pressure on countries who believe it is in their best interest to bend the knee to the almighty UN. The one of the more recent abominations is the "UN Resolution on Defamation of Religion." The link goes to a UN press release about the monstrous document.
This is the brainchild of the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference). The OIC started ramming the idea down the throat of the world after 9/11 and increased the pressure after the infamous Mohammed Cartoons. According to Pakistani President Musharraf, it was necessary due to "desperation and injustice" felt in the Muslim world because of the cartoons, counter-terrorism measures, immigration laws and the like. The non-binding document passed 108 to 51, with 25 abstentions. The US was one of those who voted against it.
Leo said it was because 'this resolution is incomplete inasmuch as it fails to address the situation of all religions. We believe that such inclusive language would have furthered the objective of promoting religious freedom. We also believe that any resolution on this topic must include mention of the need to change educational systems that promote hatred of other religions, as well as the problem of state-sponsored media that negatively targets any one religion, or people of a certain faith.'
Well, he does partially get it.
The resolution benignly states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. All well and good, everyone does have that right. However, the document is not a call to tolerance of all faiths. In addition, it is filled with lies. While pointing out a 'negative projection of Islam in the media,' it also says that 'Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.'
OK, so Buddhists and Jews populate Al-Quieda, I suppose. And I suppose that people in the Sudan are not enslaved and tortured for their beliefs? I suppose it is not a human rights violation to arrest a woman for being alone with the men who raped her. Right and I am a tiger lily.
The fact is that acts of torture under Islamic rule are verified, discrimination against non-Muslims takes place in many Islamic countries on a regular basis and non-Muslims are frequently persecuted in the name of the prophet. It is true that not every Islamic country persecutes actively. Kuwait is pretty tolerant, and Turkey as well. However, Muslims around the world need to acknowledge that there are places out there that do these things in the name of their faith.
And another thing, as pointed out by bloggers who were as diverse as the rainbow (such as Pagans, Christians, and Humanists), WHAT exactly is defamation?
Is it defamation to point out that the man who committed an honour killing last week was a Muslim? Is it defamation to mention that Mohammad had people killed if they disagreed with him? Is it defamation to criticise the tenants of Islam by doing a critique of the Koran? Without a definition, many atrocities could take place and persecution could result in countries that were not outwardly Muslim if a Muslim managed to be offended too strongly.
I know it has nothing to do with freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof as defined in the US Constitution. It does not take a rocket scientist to deduce this if you look at those who voted in favour of this resolution. Muslim countries could not possibly have meant to criticize their own behaviour; they could not have wanted to embarrass their own governments. Included in the list of those who voted for the resolution are: Bhutan: No idea what freedom of religion is. China: Not Free (they regulate everyone from Christians to Feng Shui experts) Cuba: not free for years Pakistan: They cannot even decide if it is ok for other Muslims to play instruments Russia: Not as bad as they were before, but the noose is tightening again. Saudi Arabia: Very oppressive. My ex could not buy a coke when he was stationed there because the company was 'owned by Jews' and magazines would be cut to pieces by censors before they arrived by anything other than military mail.
Not only this but the document sez what while 'everyone has the right to freedom of expression,' it should be 'exercised with responsibility and may' (there had to be a *but* in here somewhere) 'be subject to limitations as provided by law and necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals...' Ahem. In other words, freedom of religion can be regulated to death in the name of public order.
This is how non-secular Muslim nations behave now. And the hidden agenda of the whole exercise is to make it politically impossible to criticise Islam. And considering the fact that simply converting to another faith, belonging to another faith, or evangelising for another faith is illegal and punishable in many Muslim countries, it makes sense that defamation includes all of the above. Converting is a criticism of Islam. If Islam were fine, one would not leave it. Believing in another faith indicates that one does not put faith in Mohammad or the Koran, which indicates that you see error. In addition, evangelism often includes apologetics, which is a direct criticism, and involves at least one and possibly two of the other 'attacks' listed above even if no discussion of comparative religions actually occurs.
Therefore, you see, this resolution is an attempt to put a muzzle of the free expression of religion all over the world. (What the Muslims dont get is that eventually, in the New World Order, they will be outlawed too. Those who wish to dominate the world have no problem indulging 'fanatics' for a time in order to achieve their goals.) Judging from the blogs I have read, running the gamut including Pagan, Christian and Humanist, I think that many people have figured the first part of this out. And I am glad of it.
What few officials discuss, however, is the attack on national sovereignty this piece of work actually is.
The document states: The Council also strongly urges States within the framework of their own legal and constitutional systems to provide adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance.
In other words, the UN gets to tell other people what laws need to be enacted to make sure nobody picks on Muslims. We do not get to keep our own constitutions, unless of course they make the right provisions.
Then, the document 'urges States to closely control all public officials including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, so that in the course of their official duties, they respect different religions … and that training is provided to this effect.'
In other words, making stupid, unenforceable documents like the UN Resolution are not acceptable on a national level. Actual nation-states are supposed to create or train a thought police.
It is non-binding, of course. However, everyone knows that on the world stage, once the UN speaks people are expected to listen. And they have started to do so.
- Award-winning author Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two
Canadian Human Rights Commissions of vague allegations of "subjecting Canadian
Muslims to hatred and contempt" for comments in his book, "America Alone"
- In the United Kingdom, police announced plans to arrest a bloggers for
- In the United States, a plaintiff sued his Internet service provider for refusing "to prevent participants in an online chat room from posting or submitting harassing comments that blasphemed and defamed plaintiff's Islamic religion."
The US needs to kick the UN off US soil and withdraw. Unfortunately, unless more people think like Ron Paul, it will not happen.
Sources for further reading:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/hrcn1082.doc.htm (the original document)
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=13958&Cr=religion&Cr1= (Un Press Release)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69163 (WorldNet Daily Article)
https://www.aclj.org/petition/Default.aspx?AC=DNE0807017&SC=3359 (American Center for Law and Justice Petition ot the UN)
http://www.iheu.org/node/2816 (international humanist and Ethical Union Article)
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/un-resolution-protects-only-islam-from-defamation (Sweetness and Light - Scroll down to the "Ask the Imam" section, where an Imam describes what "Freedom of expression" and "Freedom of Religion" means in an Islamic State)
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1170874980.shtml (Interesting political theory about this topic)
http://www.aina.org/news/2008079165111.htm (The Assyrian take on it)
Labels: Defamation, Freedom, Freedom of Religion, Islam, National Sovereignty, New World Order, United Nations