Hints of Compulsory U.N. CensorshipYesterday I received a fund raising email from the American Center for Law and Justice. The following inflammatory

Yesterday I received a fund raising email from the American Center for Law and Justice. The following inflammatory paragraph was included in that missive.

Meanwhile, at the United Nations, a drastic move is reportedly underway to make the anti-Christian measure, ''Combating Defamation of Religions,'' BINDING - MANDATORY - for member nations, including America.

It would criminalize proclamation of the Gospel around the globe. Speaking out against Islam, for example, would be an international crime.

The inordinantly curious can find a copy of the missive at Free Republic. I spent several hours searching for more detailed information with little success. Most of the information traces back to one blog: U.N. May Try to Criminalize Criticism of Islam which contains the following interesting paragraph.

In November, when the most recent version of the anti-blasphemy resolution was introduced, Pakistan's Ambassador Masood Khan told the Human Rights Council the OIC wants to see a "new instrument or convention" that addresses the issue of blasphemy, one that would be binding on member states, according to Canwest News Service.

I was unable to find any evidence of such a message being delivered last November. Instead I discovered a statement delivered by Masood Khan April 1 of '08, which includes the quote cited above. [Emphasis added.]

We fear that such incidents are the tip of the iceberg. We should not let them spin out of control. Collectively, we should use political and legal instruments, and develop new ones, to stop willful and mischievous defamation of religions. The Council should explore new space to address this issue beyond condemnations and adoption of resolutions. The OIC has consistently called for drafting a new instrument or convention to combat defamation of religions. [Statement of Ambassador Masood Khan]*

In reality, the statement on behalf of the O.I.C. only mentions one "incident": the publication of Geert Wilders' Fitna. [First Ed. 03/27/08] Both Fitna and the Danish Cartoons have been alluded to in recent resolutions.

UN Watch issued a press release today.

Geneva, March 11, 2009 — A new U.N. resolution circulated today by Islamic states would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law. (See full U.N. text below.) [Emphasis added by UN Watch.]

While the press release recognizes the fact that the proposal is in the form of a non-binding resolution, it states that the resolution:.

would pressure U.N. member states -- at the "local, national, regional and international levels" -- to erode free speech guarantees in their "legal and constitutional systems."

It is my understanding that U.N. resolutions & conventions are only binding on those states who sign & ratify them. Why should the U.S.A. sign & ratify a blasphemy convention which would contravene the first amendment? Do Islam the U.N.H.R.C. have any pedestal of moral suasion to stand upon?

*[To read my detailed dissection of a previous screed by Masood Khan, visit Islamophobia Exposed and read Jihad Means, Violence is Alien to Islam, Extremism is Integral to Islam, Terrorists Don't Speak for Islam, Violated Islamic Law, Islam Forbids Violence, Spread by the Sword, and Moe's Legacy of Violence.]