|
United Nations Declaration of Religion? A controversial resolution at the UN called "Defamation of Religion," ultimately aims to enforce recognition of Islam under the guise of racism and xenophobia. Even though sponsors of the resolution maintain it is for all religions, the wording says quite the opposite. For starters, the title of the resolution substantiates disingenuousness, using the singular, "Religion" rather than the plural "Religions." Islam is the only religion that the resolution mentions by name, and sponsors of the U.N. Defamation of Religion view Islam as the only true religion. The Defamation of Religion resolution seeks to protect a totalitarian legal system-with mandatory beliefs and rituals-from question, debate, or critical inquiry worldwide. Using Orwellian vernacular to distort the true and expected definition of human rights and religious freedom, the Defamation of Religion resolution might more appropriately be titled "The Declaration of Religion." The totalitarian ideology of Islam only recognizes Shari'ah Law, which violates the Constitution in several ways. Islamic Shari'ah Law violates the First Amendment granting freedom of speech and the press, and the separation of church and state. It violates the Fifth Amendment requirements for a grand jury and due process of law. It violates the Sixth Amendment granting legal council and an unbiased jury for criminal offenses. It violates the Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. And finally, since rights in Islam are only relative to Shari'ah Law, it violates the tenth amendment guaranteeing that powers not delegated to the federal government belong to the states or to the people. The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), a group of 57 Muslim majority nations, holds the largest voting bloc in the UN. The OIC Secretary General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, is the one who congratulated Obama on his inauguration, and appealed for the new president's help to work out problems that face the Muslim world. In 1990, the OIC adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam at the nineteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers on August 5, 1990 dictating that Islam is the only legitimate religion. "(a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to protect this right from any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari'ah prescribed reason. (b) It is forbidden to resort to such means as may result in the genocidal annihilation of mankind. (c) The preservation of human life throughout the term of time willed by God is a duty prescribed by Shari'ah. (d) Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Sharia-prescribed reason."[1] The OIC and its allied organizations have aggressively engaged in efforts to expand Islamic Shari'ah law in the West. If adopted, the UN Defamation of Religion resolution would make it illegal in Islamic dominated countries, and countries that reach them via the Internet, to hold discussions, to debate, have opinions, or point out historically accurate information that describe Islam unfavorably. Cruel and unusual Islamic punishment methods of stonings, hangings, amputations, honor killings, punishments for blasphemy, executions of apostates, sanctioned wife-beatings, female genital mutilations, and the legitimization of modern Islamic slavery could be practiced worldwide regardless of ones religious persuasion. The OIC's Declaration on Human Rights in Islam makes it clear that the UN Defamation of Religion resolution is based on, and would adhere to Islamic Shari'ah law, legalizing discrimination against women and non-Muslims, criminalizing free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience. In persistent efforts by the OIC, the so far non-binding UN Defamation of Religions resolution has received landslide votes every year since 2005. The OIC has declared its intention to seek a binding resolution requiring UN member states to criminalize criticism of Islam. The Defamation of Religion resolution is rightly viewed by concerned non-Muslims as contradictory to human rights. The purpose of the UN as set forth in its charter is "to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these ends." Peace, security, and human rights are for people, not belief systems, therefore religious opinion is not susceptible to the dictates of the UN. On March 28, 2008, the U.N. Human Rights Council voted for a Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression to report on cases where freedom of expression is "abused." Such "abuse" of freedom includes using free speech to analyze Islamic doctrine, and criticizing Islamic doctrine that somehow "justifies" violence against non-Muslims. The U.S., Canada, and European countries abstained from voting on the 2008 Special Rapporteur Resolution, but no nation voted against it. What would cause them to not take a stand? Perhaps they do not take Islamic doctrine at its word, or perhaps they are intimidated by the presence of OPEC nations. Any sane human being would have to wonder if they are terrified cowards, the recipients of bribery, dangerously naïve, extorted; or all of the above. The UN resolution threatens those who try to inform others about the Islamic manifesto to Islamize the world. Geert Wilders, a Dutch Parliamentarian, is an example of a victim of the twisted definition of freedom of expression. GeertWilders lives in hiding for producing "Fitna," a forthright documentary that accurately reveals the aggressive Islamic manifesto to make the world submit to Islam according to the dictates of the Koran. Geert Wilders and Robert Spencer wrote an article together when Geert Wilders was prosecuted by the Amsterdam Court of Appeals for his statements about Islam. Wilders and Spencer wrote that: "Civilized states have no business participating in a forum that has been hijacked by the Islamic-supremacist agenda to replace fundamental human rights with the barbaric strictures of sharia." [2] Justifiable concerns are that the resolution will eventually criminalize the practice of Christianity and Judaism under international law. According to the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), a United States non-profit organization that launched a campaign to defend freedom of religion worldwide, anti-defamation started as a plan to specifically ban defamation of Islam, but wording in the document was later modified to sound like it includes all religions. [3] An article, "U.N. Schemes to Make Christians Criminals," by Bob Unruh, dated September 10, 2008, for World Net Daily, said that the ACLJ's European division, the European Center for Law & Justice (ECLJ), submitted arguments in June 2008 to the UN opposing the proposal: "The position of the ECLJ in regards to the issue of ‘defamation of religion' resolutions, as they have been introduced at the U.N. Human Rights Council and General Assembly, is that they are in direct violation of international law concerning the rights to freedom of religion and expression." The brief noted that in Islamic dominated countries, the laws protect Islam and harass religious minorities with penalties up to and including execution. Unruh's article revealed concerns of many who understand the definitive consequences of the resolution, citing an ECLJ quote that said: "The implementation of domestic laws to combat defamation of religion in many OIC countries reveals a selective and arbitrary enforcement toward religious minorities, who are often Christians. Those violations are frequently punishable by the death penalty." The ACLJ said, in promotion of its petition opposing the resolution, that: "They're attempting to pass a sinister resolution that is nothing more than blatant religious bigotry." "This is very important to understand. This radical proposal would outlaw Christianity ... it would make the proclamation of your faith an international crime." [4] The resolution draft submitted in March 2008 only claimed discrimination against Muslims specifically. It condemned a growing trend of "Islamophobia," which is itself a derogatory term for those who oppose Islamic standards. It hypocritically expressed concern over negative stereotyping, urging a provision of "adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion results from the defamation of any religion." Without mentioning any other religions, it would make the proclamation of other faiths an international crime because in Islam, it is a crime to have any other faith except Islam. This is itself an act of hatred, discrimination, intimidation, coercion. Actually, it is extortion. Durban I, a committee preparing for a conference held in Durban, South Africa, April 2009, was principally incompatible with U. S. interests and the Constitution because the plan contained offensive references to limits on free speech, contained anti-Israel and anti-Jewish provisions while alleging the victimization of Muslims are a result of counter-terrorism "racists." The U.S. and Israel walked out of Durban I-but without standing up for the U.S. Constitution and Israel. Durban II was held in Geneva in April 2009. Its planning committee consisted of a Libyan chair, an Iranian vice-chair, a Cuban rapporteur, with Russian Yuri Boychenko presiding.[5] Anne Bayefksy, an observer of the UN who runs the EyeontheUN.Org website, wrote about the U.S. State Department team Barack Obama sent to the February 2009 planning conference for Durban II in a Forbes column: "The Obama administration's decision to join the planning of the UN's Durban II ‘anti-racism' conference has just taken a new twist: ‘cover-up'. On Friday, State Department officials and a member of the American Durban II delegation claimed the United States had worked actively to oppose efforts to brand Israel as racist in the committee drafting a Durban II declaration. The trouble is that they didn't. The Feb. 20[2009] State Department press release says the U.S. delegation in Geneva ‘outline our concerns with the current outcome document' and in particular ‘our strong reservations about the direction of the conference, as the draft document singles out Israel for criticism." Baefsky wrote further that a member of the delegation told The Washington Post that Obama's delegation did not object to framing Israel in "an anti-racism manifesto that makes no other country-specific claims." Baefsky also wrote that: "Obama's Durban II team slipped easily into the UN's anti-Israel and anti-Jewish environs, taking the approach that ‘fitting in' was best accomplished by staying silent."[6] European states to boycott Durban II were undermined when the US agreed to participate. France, England, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands were considering boycotting but found it unrealistic for ally countries to disengage because U.S. participation effectively legitimized it. A Human Rights Council session in March 2009 preparing for Durban II opened with Human rights authorities from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Venezuela, Russia, Yemen, the Arab Group, the African Group, Malaysia, Bahrain, Senegal, and the OIC. The opening statement given by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Secretary-General of the Durban II Conference had a demeaning tone: "The Review Conference has also been the target of a disparaging media and a lobbying campaign on the part of those who fear a repetition of anti-Semitic outbursts. This, in my view, is completely unwarranted...Narrow, parochial interests and reflexive partisanship must be cast aside in the interest of a greater common good." Iran's representative who spoke next, contradicted himself by saying: "The Islamic Republic of Iran welcomes the timely decision of the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council for holding the Durban Review Conference in 2009. We are of the view that the Durban Review Conference and its preparatory process can provide the international community with an ample opportunity to take stock of the Durban commitment as well as to further strategize in the global fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance and to address their contemporary forms and manifestation with a view to adopting further initiatives and actions. The struggle against racism has led to a persisting manifestation of racism and intolerance including racial and religious profiling and the rise of Islamophobic incidents in certain parts of the world." The last statement is illogical and hypocritical, as it clearly says the struggle against racism begets more racism. It further labels those who disagree with Islam as "Islamophobes", while blurring the distinction between race and religion. At the exclusion of followers of every religion except Islam, the draft adopted in March 2009 mentions the word "Muslim" four times, and the plural "Muslims" one time. Near the end of the document, a request was made for the Special Rapporteur to report cases of Islamophobia in particular. Then, the April 2009 Durban Review Conference, or Durban II, did not include the word religion in its name as it previously had. Its official name was "World Conference Against Racism" (WCAR). The conference was boycotted by Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, and even the United States. Twenty-three European Union countries sent low-level delegations, and the Czech Republic discontinued its attendance on the first day. Concerns were that the conference would be used to promote anti-Semitism and laws contrary to free speech. On the first day of the conference, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a speech condemning Israel as "totally racist." Ahmadinejad's attendence was controversial because of his past statements on Israel and the Holocaust, such as statements accusing the West of using the European Holocaust as a "pretext" for aggression against Palestinians.[7] The UN-sponsored "Alliance of Civilizations" reflects the views of the OIC and mimicks the UN Defamation of Religion resolution. A 2005 statement issued after a summit in Mecca explains the Alliance mission to internationally criminalize defamation of Islam as a form of racism: "The Conference underlined the need to collectively endeavor to reflect the noble Islamic values, counter Islamophobia, defamation of Islam and its values and desecration of Islamic holy sites, and to effectively coordinate with States as well as regional and international institutions and organizations to urge them to criminalize this phenomenon as a form of racism." [8] Along with various sovereign states, members of the Alliance include the OIC, the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (set up by the OIC), the Arab League, and the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization. There is no representation from Israel in the Alliance.[9] Obama was scheduled to attend an Alliance meeting in April 2009, but the White House did not confirm if he actually did. After Bush resisted years of such initiatives at the UN, the Obama Administration is co-sponsoring with Egypt, another anti-free speech resolution at the UN. This resolution has no immediate effect in law but provides Muslim countries with ammunition when they feel central tenets of Islam are being challenged. Approved by the U.N. Human Rights Council in early October 2009, it calls on states to condemn and criminalize "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence." [10] The real hate and discrimination is directed against non-Muslims in the UN Defamation of Religion. The U.S. has no business participating in alliances and organizations that endorse a specific religion or in any way limits free speech. Against all the freedoms enjoyed and valued in the West, if we remain members of the UN, we will not only be assimilated into a one-world government, but a Shari'ah one-world government that dictates everything from finances to personal and religious rights. All that the Constitution stands for is being mocked and abused by even allowing such an organization to convene on American soil. ===================== Mary Christina Love's website and find out more about her book. ======================= REFERENCES [1] "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam," http://www.oicun.org/articles/54/1/Cairo-Declaration-on-Human-Rights-in-Islam/1.html ======================= Book Description: "Walking the Plank: To a Dhimmi Nation" reveals how America has been systematically submitting to Islam for decades as American businessmen and politicians endorse Islamic causes in exchange for oil, money, and power. Mary Christina Love describes Islam as a Russian Doll, with each victory leading to a larger victory. She shows how Islam is exerting increasing influence on America through immigration, oil economics, cultural exchange, education, political correctness, political contributions, and the threat of terror; with 9/11 instrumental in enabling Islamic expansion in the United States by destroying evidence of who the world's real imperialists are, and affording Muslims an affront to feel aggrieved and demand special protection status. Cohorts in what could result in the largest coup d'état ever, Globalists and Islamists are allies that use a potpourri of tactics to eliminate Capitalism and Democracy to create a one-world government. The global warming theory, the recent financial crisis, the bailout, cap and trade, and the health care plan will establish a framework that if successful, will ultimately drive America into generations of dhimmitude. Mary Christina Love describes dhimmitude, a pacifist reaction to aggression, as submission to Islamic demands resulting from cowardice, vulnerability, bribery and extortion. A dhimmi is a non-Muslim entity that accepts the conditions of Islamic law and remains safe by surrendering to Islamic terms. She provides current,and historical examples such as the Barbary Wars, to show how America is submitting to Islam through concession and appeasement under coercion and constant fear of reprisal. |
Posts
