With one day remaining for submission of a new draft resolution on combating defamation of religions, none having appeared and two days of private OIC meetings, now comes the "Draft Resolution "Freedom of Religion and Belief" which does not identify its sponsors. This document appears to reflect the American delegation's stated rejection of the defamation concept. I suspect a clever scheme resolving to subvert our right of free expression by consensus, without a vote.Although slightly sanitized, the draft remains obnoxious to life and liberty. It seeks to criminalize all criticism of Islam, subordinating our right of free expression to the Muslim's imaginary 'right' to shield their damnable doctrines from critical examination and exposure. It demands tolerance of the intolerable. It demands that our schools be turned into Islamic indoctrination centers. Like most U.N.H.R.C. resolutions, this draft leans heavily on references to previous documents, those I could locate are listed and linked at the end of the post.
This is a clever ruse: conflating our right to free expression with the freedom of belief. Their freedom to believe must not in any measure diminish our right to express our opinions about their belief system and practices.
safely and to exercise freely their freedom of religion or belief; (NEW)
It is not possible that anyone can have a right to exercise their demon's mandate to invade and conquer us, to rape our widows and enslave our orphans. Such a 'right' abrogates our right to live free from attack. Islam imposes fard al-kifaya which binds all eligible adult male male Muslims to engage in a minimum of one military attack against disbelievers in every year. The obligation is discharged against the community when a sufficient number have answered the call to jihad. This fard is codified in Reliance of the Traveller O9.1 The fard is more clearly expressed in this quote from the founder of the Shafi'ite school of fiqh.
The right to live, safely, free from threat and assault is a given, already stated in existing human rights covenants. The problem is in the last clause: asserting the right of free exercise of religion or belief.
3:2. Allâh! Lâ ilahâ illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists.
If only Allah has the right to be worshiped, then we have no right to worship any other deity. Let that sink in for a moment before examining a crucial part of Shari'ah.
-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;
-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.
Under Islam, rights are a one way street; only Muslims have them.
dialogue among all parts of society and human rights education in particular can
contribute to the elimination of negative stereotypes that often adversely affect
members of religious minorities (new, inspired from HRC/16/53 558);
They want our schools to indoctrinate our children to tolerate the intolerable. Note the key phrase I have highlighted. "Negative stereotypes" is an equivalent alternative to "defamation". That is an indirect reference to knowledge of the fact that terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam. They want that knowledge erased.
choice and the freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest one's religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and
observance, including the right to change one's religion or belief; (PP6/UNGA 64/164)
The restatement of the free practice demand is redundant, but not the highlighted clause in the last sentence. I suspect that clause was inserted as a poison pill because it directly contradicts Islamic law, which prescribes the death penalty for apostasy.
interdependant, interrelated and mutually reinforcing, and stresses further the role
these rights can play in the fight against all forms of intolerance and discrimination
based on religion or belief (OP4, UNGA resol 651122)
Tolerance of Islam is not possible; the demonic mandate to terrorize & conquer is absolutely intolerable, as are rape, pillage & plunder. Freedom of expression includes the right to speak and write the truth about Islam. That right must not be diminished by any law, national or international or any U.N . resolution! The trials of Elizabeth Sabaditch-Wolff and Geert Wilders for speaking truthfully about Islam are proof of the existing abrogation of the right of free expression.
name of religion or belief, as well as violations of the freedom of thought, conscience,
religion or belief; (OP1, RES/14/11) as well as any advocacy of religious hatred that
constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the
use of print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means; (OP3, RES 14/11)
Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:
The first highlighted clause is redundant, look to the second. What is the definition of "advocacy of religious hatred"? The Secretary General let the cat out of the bag when he remarked about the short film by Geert Wilders.
“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”
Fitna describes and demonstrates hate speech & incitement; it is not hate speech neither is it incitement; it is proof of the fact that the Qur'an & hadith are hate speech and incitement. In a just world, it would not be possible to prevent or punish publication of Fitna. The U.N. intends, with high sounding but excessively broad terms, to proscribe truthful expression about Islam. That egregious violation of free speech can not be accepted!
groups across the world. (NEW)
What is terrorism? There is no official definition because Muslims reserve attacks on Jews as "justified resistance"
minorities and should exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish actsof
violence against them, regardless of the perpetrator, and that failure to do so may
constitute a human rights violation (inspired from OP9, UNGA65/211)
Why restate the obvious? Governments have no other purpose; they are for protection from attack. If they do not protect their citizens, they are worthless; part of the problem, not part of the solution. Muslims in Pakistan, Indonesia & Egypt can burn churches, attack and kill Christians with impunity. Everybody knows it and nobody will do anything about it, this resolution to the contrary not withstanding. OP6 is an egregious insult.
effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief to all
without distinction, inter alia, by the provision of access to justice and effective remedies
in cases where the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, or the
right to freely practise one's religion, including the right to change one's religion or
belief, is violated ;
Which freedom is missing from that section? Which constitutionally protected right does A/RES/65/199 demand be abrogated? Get a clue!
connection with a religion or belief and their right to establish and maintain places for
these purposes, and the right of all persons to seek, receive and impart information and
ideas in these areas;
They postulate a right to build mosques, so that we can not proscribe their construction. In reality, mosques are being constructed as outposts from which to mount new attacks.
with internationa human rights law, the freedom of all persons and members of groups
to establish and maintain religious, charitable or humanitarian institutions is fully
respected and protected;
That section is a thinly veiled attack at proscription of fund raising for terrorism, an attempt to reverse the convictions in the Holy Land Foundation case.
standards of human rights, to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of
violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance based on religion or belief,
as well as incitement to hostility and violence, with particular regard to members of
religious minorities in all parts of the world;
This section is redundant but it needs to be addressed again. Islam is intolerable, it is impossible for an informed lover of liberty to tolerate it. "Incitement to hostility and violence", as defined by the Secretary General, is far too broad; unacceptably so as it would outlaw all truthful expression about Islam.