UN embarks on new attempt to criminalize expressions of “defamation of religion”

Loading

Ah the UN… ever the politically correct, Islamic country membership dominated nanny of free speech.

The United Nations saw another shred of its tattered dignity stripped away November 24, when a committee of the General Assembly approved what amounts to a direct assault on Western liberal democracy. In an 85-50 vote, with 42 abstaining, the so-called Third Committee adopted a resolution, submitted by a caucus of Islamic nations, to criminalize expressions deemed to be “defamation of religion,” with special concern for Islam. All U.N. member states would be called on to amend their criminal codes accordingly. The measure’s next stop is the General Assembly, where it is expected to win handily, probably in December.

Evidently this was almost identical measure to on adopted last year by the General Assembly. But this one is set to have more teeth, and far more encompassing ramifications when – after it receives the nod from the General Assembly, it moves to the second World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, scheduled to convene next April in Geneva.

Many legal scholars believe that the decisions of international conferences of this sort can be incorporated into international law, putting them under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Individual nations could not be forced to amend their laws, but they might find Interpol knocking at their doors, serving them extradition requests to hand over their cartoonists and novelists. Stand-up comics and philosophers might find they’re unable to cross international borders for fear of being arrested and remanded for trial in Jordan or Malaysia.

The Geneva conference is planned as a follow-up to the first world conference against racism, which took place in early September 2001 in Durban, South Africa. That meeting did some serious work, but it was memorably upstaged by a parallel gathering of nongovernmental activists, who staged a noisy show of anti-Israel and antisemitic speech-making, rallies and parades, all under U.N. auspices. And, of course, a week later, on September 11, 2001, all hell broke loose.

The years since then have not been kind to the spirit of reconciliation supposedly invoked at Durban. It has been a decade of intense friction between the West and the Muslim world, of invasions and terrorism, of cartoon wars, eavesdropping, beheadings, Guantanamo and intifada. The religious defamation ban is part of an effort by Muslim nations to retake the initiative. The resolution, which is being pushed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, is seen as winning back some of Islam’s lost stature in world opinion and offering some protection to Muslim minorities in increasingly suspicious Western societies. The idea, it seems, is to reduce Western suspicion of Islam by outlawing criticism.

Not content to try to control speech, there’s new and bolder anti-Israel language being sent to Geneva for approval… including accusations against Israel of crimes against humanity, of practicing “a new kind of apartheid” and — apparently for the first time in a formal document — “a form of genocide.” Unless that language is softened, a boycott may be in effect for some western nations. Canada has already refused to attend. France is also boycotting, and Sarkozy is reaching out to other Euro nations to band together in resisting the anti-Israel language.

In the US, Jewish and black representatives are working together to line up support in the administration”.

Saudi Arabia has assumed the middle man role.

Surprisingly, Saudi Arabia is leading its own behind-the-scenes effort, with moderate Arab states, to soften the anti-Israel language and prevent a Western boycott, according to several close U.N. watchers. Saudi King Abdullah is said to view the extreme anti-Israel rhetoric as an Iranian ploy to alienate the West and sabotage the conference. Abdullah favors cooperation with the West, and he fears Iran. That’s why he’s offered his own peace plan, convened an inter-religious dialogue and invited Israeli President Shimon Peres to his recent New York tolerance forum. Abdullah can’t boycott Geneva, but he can work quietly within the Islamic bloc to cut out the worst Israel-bashing. But he needs something to show the folks back home that he is defending the faith. Some diplomats speculate that he might accept a ban with fewer teeth.

Without the western free world, Geneva would be no more than a gathering of the 3rd world countries… and the stakes are high for Europe.

That [boycott] would hurt sub-Saharan Africa, where the Durban process is cherished as a long-delayed acknowledgement of African suffering under colonialism. The prospect of a boycott, then, puts pressure on the Africans to find a way of softening their Muslim allies’ stance.

No one, however, has more to lose than Europe. European leaders view the Durban process as a form of penance for their role in Africa, and they’re anxious to see progress at Geneva.

On the other hand, Europe is home to large and restive Muslim minorities, and the clash of cultures puts tolerance to the test daily. Friction between traditionalist and sometimes militant Muslims and the freewheeling societies of Denmark and the Netherlands has already led to crisis and bloodshed. Legislating absolute protection for religious sensibilities without equal protection for secular, democratic beliefs would tilt the playing field against the European democracies as they struggle to defend their values on their own home turf. But holding firm could undermine Abdullah, arguably the best hope for reconciliation.

As the Muslim population expands, their influence in world body agencies, and state leadership, also grows. Assimilation into their chosen countries by these migrating Muslim communities remains essential… a trend they reject in all too many numbers.

And no one is more aware of the dangers of the national culture divides with their new Muslim population than Euro countries such as the Netherlands and France.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Watch the Lightwalker hurdle tall NYC buildings to be the first to roll over in obedience to this UN ruling.

And our politicians allow these thugs to meet in the United States! Incredible.

By religious defamation they mean against Islam, and only Islam. Christians need to be aware that the U.N. (funded by our tax dollars) cares little if any about you, just watch what you say about Islam. Spit.

OMG… what’s next! And imagine if Obama is sworn in. He said he will always stand with Muslims. At least Canada boycotted the meeting. I agree with Oldpuppymax, I can not understand that the U.S. allows these radicals to meet in your country.

You have to do something about it; those idiots are looking for a Caliphate. Be aware, after all, it has been said that America will be destroyed from within. No other country will be able to come to your rescue. You are all you have.

The UN has nothing to do anymore with what it was at the time of it’s creation. The numbers of seats have been multiplied by 5 and the quasi-totality of the new countries are dictatures. UN, no longer takes respectable decisions anymore. We have to get rid of UN.

Well to be accurate the obamination said if things turned ugly he’d stand with the muslims. I took that to be him pandering to muslims by invoking the whole round up of Japanese-American civilians in WWII thing. It seems he was saying if it happened here again but with muslims, that’s who he would support. He did say that the call to prayer was the most beautiful sound he’d ever heard. Me? I think it sounds like a guy who got his junk caught in his pants zipper.

My concern is that obama is waaaaay too sympathetic to CAIR types and muslim tyrants. God help us if he sucks up to the U.N. like we think he will.

We need to kick the U.N. out of the U.S. and then tell them to piss off. It’s utterly corrupt and little more than a place to bash Israel and America.

FYI, the U.N. made a failed grab for control of the internet earlier this year. You see, they wanted to take it over and tax it. The revenue it would have generated would have freed them from needing member dues.

FYI:

Wikipedia reports – “The total reporting non-Christian religions in 2007 was 4.7%, up from 3.3% in 1990.[137] The leading non-Christian faiths were Judaism (1.7%), Buddhism (0.7%), Islam (0.6%), Hinduism (0.4%), and Unitarian Universalism (0.3%).”

NOTE: Islam .6%!

And, “According to a 2007 survey, 78.4% of adults identified themselves as Christian,[136] down from 86.4% in 1990.” The number of Christians may be going up in 2008 due to the radicalism projected by (violent) Muslims.

NOTE: 78.4% or more Christians in America.

Conservatives have been begging our government since at least the Carter years to give the U.N. a full boot in the butt out of our country. But the only way it’s going to happen is to unceremoniously reform our government by booting out of office legislators who fail to follow the will of the people. We found out quickly with the League of Nations that such worldwide power was a stupid idea. Yet FDR, along with other socialists just had to go there again and offer them a home here.

The biggest problem with it since it’s inception is that each nation-state was given an identically equal voice as all others. Though technically America is an alliance of separate states, each with their own individual Constitution, sovereignty, and the ability to raise military forces. Each of our states do not have an equal voice. Our National Guard troops assigned to each state have been tasked and have participated in U.N. actions, So they’ve paid for their own voice by virtue of shedding their own blood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

Conceivably, the one state, one vote power structure could enable states comprising just eight percent of the world population to pass a resolution by a two-thirds vote.
———————————————————————————————-
With the addition of Montenegro on 28 June 2006, there are currently 192 United Nations member states, including all fully recognized independent states[17] apart from Vatican City, which has observer status.[18]

The United Nations Charter outlines the rules for membership:

1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
2. The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

—United Nations Charter, Chapter 2, Article 4, http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

As noted the biggest problem with the U.N. is Third World Nation voting block. I see no reason why we shouldn’t at least set an ultimatum and demand the U.N. award each sovereign states on this continent and protectorate territory an equal voice or move their offices the hell out of our country. That might at least help resolve the Third World 2/3 majority.