UN Resolution 16/18
The effort by Muslim nations (OIC) to make it an offense for Non-Muslims to Blaspheme Islam. Hilary Clinton is backing this resolution and seeking to get it passed into America
America, our freedom of speech may soon be lost to Islam
America Again Submits to the Istanbul Process
This initiative was started as an inexplicable, gratuitous gift to the Muslim world following the March 2011 adoption of a non-binding U.N. Human Rights Council resolution (16/18) on the same theme. While the Obama administration claims that it doesn’t intend for the process to adopt regulations beyond the American free-speech standard, our partner, the OIC, is only too eager to do just that.
For over a decade within the U.N., the OIC has relentlessly pushed for a universal law to punish blasphemy, or “defamation,” of Islam. This 56-member-state organization, an essentially religious body, is in fact chartered to “combat defamation of Islam.” It issues fatwas and other directives to punish public expression of apostasy from Islam. Its current action plan calls for “deterrent punishments” in all states for “Islamophobia,” a term that encompasses a broad range of constitutionally protected speech, judging from the OIC website’s black list of Americans and other perpetrators of “Islamophobia.” The OIC’s stated understanding of the Istanbul Process is that it will “help in enacting domestic laws for the countries involved in the issue, as well as formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions.”
Corner readers will remember that the Istanbul Process’s first conference was co-chaired by Clinton and the OIC secretary general in July 2011, in Istanbul, with the foreign ministers of the Muslim countries in attendance. The second was held over three days of closed-door meetings last December, at the offices of the U.S. Department of State in Washington. That meeting drew enough controversy within free-speech circles to raise questions about whether the process would continue. But thanks to a leak last week by OIC head Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, we now know the event will go ahead, even if its agenda is still being treated like it’s “classified.”
Judging from the 2011 session I was partially able to observe as a commissioner on the official U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the point of the Istanbul Process is for the governments of the developed West give an accounting to the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, and other key Muslim states on measures taken to stop American and other Western citizens from disparaging Islam. This puts our diplomats.in a tight spot: Unlike virtually every other country represented in the conference hall, America does not protect any religion or any other body of ideas from criticism and ridicule. However, when we’re in the dock this time around, the U.S., represented by Dr. Suzan Johnson Cook, the administration’s severely marginalized ambassador-at-large for religious freedom, will have some measure of “progress” to report.
For example, the U.S.’s top intelligence official and its top commander in Afghanistan were again deployed to suppress blasphemy against Islam in Florida and, this time around, they succeeded. Last year, the efforts of our top authorities to stop Florida micro-church pastor Terry Jones from desecrating a Koran ended in failure. But this year, their resort to the “good offices” of Tampa socialite Jill Kelley proved an effective strategy. Her persuasive emails resulted in Florida talk-show host Bubba the Love Sponge’s standing down from deep frying a Koran, something he had threatened to do on-air. The OIC’s Ihsanoglu would likely rule Bubba was about to “abuse” freedom of expression by not being able (incontrovertibly, I should note) to pass a “responsible use” test.
That leads to our next plea: The administration has also adopted the OIC’s own standard of condemning the “abuse of free expression.” Or at least that is what it appeared to do on the website of the pivotal U.S. embassy to Egypt on September 11 this year. Our embassy declared on its homepage: “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
But perhaps, the best evidence of America’s “implementation” in response to the Istanbul Process is the Justice Department’s dispatching the FBI a couple months ago to investigate Mark Basseley Youssef (a.k.a. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, or Sam Bacile), the California Coptic filmmaker of “Innocence of Muslims,” the YouTube trailer that blasphemed the Muslim prophet. As Ambassador Cook can point out, this investigation has resulted in a creative criminal conviction of Youssef, and his being sentenced by a federal court to a year in prison. All the better for the U.S.’s reputation as implementers is that it will be lost on the conferees that Youssef has been imprisoned on a probation offense, à la Al Capone — though, unlike Capone, his underlying offense, without which he would not have been investigated, was making a crude, insulting video, which is hardly equivalent in American law to gangland massacres or racketeering. It, in fact, is not a crime at all. Thus, most important, the OIC’s take-away will be that in defense of Islam the U.S. government can and will regulate speech.
Nevertheless, none of this is likely to impress the Istanbul Process gathering. On its opening day last December, Saudi Arabia — headquarters to and godfather of the OIC — beheaded a Sudanese woman for “sorcery.” Last week, Egypt sentenced to death Youssef, Terry Jones, and six other Americans implicated in the blasphemous YouTube trailer. For the Istanbul Process that’s “best practices” for “implementation.” Thus, again, America will be judged to have fallen short, indignation will rise, and the Istanbul Process will need to ramp up its pressure.
— Nina Shea is director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom and co-author with Paul Marshall of Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes Are Choking Freedom Worldwide.
___________________________________________________________
UN Resolution to Stop Criticism of Islam – Part 2
Listen Here to Today’s Broadcast
Deborah Weiss unpacks the two resolutions that the UN has passed that are designed to stop any criticism of Islam
You must listen to this broadcast and be informed about what Islamic nations are pushing through the United Nations. The OIC, which is the Organization of the Islamic Conference, votes as a 57 member block in the UN and they have a growing influence in UN resolutions. They desire to make it a crime if anyone blasphemes or speaks critically about Islam. Two dangerous resolutions have been passed to bring about their goal:
- The Defamation of Religion Resolution.
- Resolution 16/18 – Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief
There are a number of alarming things she covers but let me digest a couple of points here for you.
1. Today, Human Rights do not only belong to a physical body or a person, but also to an ideology or a concept.
This is a dangerous move. In the past, you would be in trouble if you defamed a person by saying something that might be libelous for example. Now, these resolutions make it trouble for you if you defame a concept or a teaching or an opinion of someone. In short, they are treating a concept or an ideology as a human being and giving it rights.
2. Truth is no longer a defense.
In Western laws – if you defame something by lying or saying something that is not true, you are guilty. But this resolution removes truth as a defense. Even if you say something true about Islam, and if it is negative and characterizes the religion in a critical or negative light, you are guilty of defamation. For example, if you point out that Muhammad married Aisha at the age of six and consummated that marriage at the age of nine (which is historically true) and suggest that it is pedophilia, which by Western laws it would be, you are guilty of defamation.
So if a non-Muslim blasphemes a prophet of Islam, for example, Muhammad by calling him a pedophile or if one blasphemes another prophet of Islam, such as Jesus, and says that He is the ‘Son’ of God or ascribe deity to Jesus, one could be found guilty of defaming the religion of Islam. Of which I would be guilty!
Already, some European countries are adopting these resolutions as laws in their countries and the more these resolutions get passed, and the longer they remain on the books, they will become ‘Customary International Law’. Once these have been established, countries that are not already compliant will be ‘pressured’ to adhere to them. Folks, this is not a slippery slope but a free fall towards the loss of ‘Freedom of Speech’ and ‘Freedom of Religion.’
Wake Up People!!!
You can read some of Deborah’s articles here.
UN Resolution to Stop Criticism of Islam – Part 1
Listen Here to Today’s Broadcast
Deborah Weiss, a 9/11 survivor, explains the UN Resolution to criminalize the Defamation of Religion, namely Islam.
Deborah is the first person I have met that personally survived the 9/11 attack on our Country by Muslims. Today she shares with us a little of what happened to her that Tuesday morning. We said that we would never forget but I believe many have and I want you to hear her story. We need reminding of this dreadful event and we need to ignite the passion that we had in this nation to stand together to fight off the enemy.
Deborah is an attorney and also a freelance writer for the Washington Times, Front Page Magazine and other journals. She has spoken at many events and even congressional hearings. She is keeping a close eye on the United Nations resolutions and has uncovered the shocking developments of the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) success in getting two dangerous resolutions passed. These resolutions, if adopted by countries, will make it a crime to defame Islam.
Listen as she tells her story and as she introduces this troubling information. In tomorrows broadcast we will unpack these resolutions that will threaten our first amendment rights and our national security.
The Price you pay when you speak out against Islam in Austria
Elisabeth Wolff was found guilty of a crime for denigrating the religion of Islam.
Today, I talk to Elisabeth about her ordeal and the fight she has to clear her name. She has been found guilty in the lower court and recently, the appeal court upheld her conviction.
The criminal thing she did was to say that Mohammad was a Pedophile.
When a grown adult has sex with a child, by definition, this is pedophilia.
The Islamic scriptures are clear. Mohammad married Aisha at the age of six. Mohammad had sex with her when she was nine years old. Even the Austrian court accepted that as fact. It was the courts opinion though that it defames the religion of Islam to call their prophet a pedophile. Even if he is guilty of the action. God figure!
If a religious man did that today in Austria, they would arrest him for pedophilia. But since this was Mohammad, the prophet of Islam, it is a criminal offense to say he is a pedophile. This is what happens when you drink too much of the Kool-aid. The Political Correctness and Appeasement is so strong, that it delivers a death blow to common sense.
Elisabeth needs help with her legal expenses. If this was you, and perhaps in the near future we may find ourselves in this trouble in North America, you would want some help.
You can help by giving to her defense fund. Here is the link to her website where you read more and give to her cause.
CLICK HERE TO HELP ELISABETH WOLFF
Examples from Europe if UN Resolution 16/18 is Implemented in America
U.S., E.U. Spearhead Islamic Bid To Criminalize Free Speech
by Soeren Kern
January 6, 2012 at 5:00 am
Soeren Kern is the Senior Analyst for Transatlantic Relations at, the Madrid-based, Strategic Studies Group.
Up until now, the European Union has kept the OIC initiative at arms-length. But Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary-General of the OIC, says the EU’s offer to host the meeting represents a “qualitative shift in action against the phenomenon of Islamophobia,” according to the International Islamic News Agency (IINA), the OIC’s official news/propaganda organ.
According to the IINA, “The phenomenon of Islamophobia is found in the West in general, but is growing in European countries in particular and in a manner different than that in the US, which had contributed to drafting Resolution 16/18. The new European position represents the beginning of the shift from their previous reserve over the years over the attempts by the OIC to counter ‘defamation of religions’ in the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations.
The IINA report continues: “Officials in the Cultural Affairs Department of the OIC said that the European Union’s offer to host the third meeting (the first was in Istanbul in July and the second in Washington, DC in December) is considered a promising new possibility of solving this problem. The ‘Istanbul Process’ will have an added momentum by holding the meeting in Europe, which is more affected by the phenomenon of Islamophobia and hostility towards Islam.”
The OIC is especially angry over its inability to silence a growing number of democratically elected politicians in Europe who have voiced concerns over the refusal of Muslim immigrants to integrate into their host countries and the consequent establishment of parallel Islamic societies in many parts of Europe.
According to the IINA, “Ihsanoglu said that the growing role of the extreme right in politics in several European countries has become stronger than the capacity of the Organization [OIC], explaining that the extreme right, who [sic] hates Muslims, became leverage in the hands of politicians. He added that the rise of the extreme right through elections has become an issue that cannot be countered, considering the democratic way in which these extremists reach their positions. He pointed out to the referendum held in Switzerland, as an example, which resulted in suspending the construction of minarets there following a vote by the Swiss people.”
In other words, the OIC is now seeking the support of non-elected bureaucrats at the headquarters of the European Union in Brussels to enact pan-European hate speech legislation to limit by fiat what 500 million European citizens – including democratically elected politicians – can and cannot say about Islam.
To be sure, many individual European countries that lack First Amendment protections like those in the United States have already enacted hate speech laws that effectively serve as proxies for the all-encompassing blasphemy legislation the OIC is seeking to impose on the European Union as a whole.
In Austria, for example, an appellate court in December 2011 upheld the politically correct conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife and anti-Jihad activist, for “denigrating religious beliefs” after she gave a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam. The ruling showed that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity in postmodern multicultural Austria, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties.
Also in Austria, Susanne Winter, an Austrian politician and Member of Parliament, was convicted in January 2009 for the “crime” of saying that “in today’s system” the Islamic prophet Mohammed would be considered a “child molester,” referring to his marriage to Aisha. Winter was also convicted of “incitement” for saying that Austria faces an “Islamic immigration tsunami.” Winters was ordered to pay a fine of €24,000 ($31,000), and received a suspended three-month prison sentence.
In Denmark, Lars Hedegaard, the president of the International Free Press Society, was found guilty by a Danish court in May 2011 of “hate speech” for saying in a taped interview that there was a high incidence of child rape and domestic violence in areas dominated by Muslim culture.
Hedegaard’s comments, which called attention to the horrific living conditions of millions of Muslim women, violated Denmark’s infamous Article 266b of the penal code, a catch-all provision that Danish elites use to enforce politically correct speech codes. Hedegaard has appealed his conviction to the Danish Supreme Court, where the case is now pending.
Also in Denmark, Jesper Langballe, a Danish politician and Member of Parliament, was found guilty of hate speech in December 2010 for saying that honor killings and sexual abuse take place in Muslim families.
Langballe was denied the opportunity to prove his assertions because under Danish law it is immaterial whether a statement is true or false. All that is needed for a conviction is for someone to feel offended. Langballe was summarily sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000 Danish Kroner ($850) or spend ten days in jail.
In Finland, Jussi Kristian Halla-aho, a politician and well-known political commentator, was taken to court in March 2009 on charges of “incitement against an ethnic group” and “breach of the sanctity of religion” for saying that Islam is a religion of pedophilia. A Helsinki court later dropped the charges of blasphemy but ordered Halla-aho to pay a fine of €330 ($450) for disturbing religious worship. The Finnish public prosecutor, incensed at the court’s dismissal of the blasphemy charges, appealed the case to the Finnish Supreme Court, where it is now being reviewed.
In France, novelist Michel Houellebecq was taken to court by Islamic authorities in the French cities of Paris and Lyon for calling Islam “the stupidest religion” and for saying the Koran is “badly written.” In court, Houellebecq (pronounced Wellbeck) told the judges that although he had never despised Muslims, he did feel contempt for Islam. He was acquitted in October 2002.
Also in France, Brigitte Bardot, the legendary actress turned animal rights crusader, was convicted in June 2008 for “inciting racial hatred” after demanding that Muslims anaesthetize animals before slaughtering them.
In The Netherlands, Geert Wilders – the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party who had denounced the threat to Western values posed by unassimilated Muslim immigrants – was recently acquitted of five charges of inciting religious hatred against Muslims for comments he made that were critical of Islam. The landmark verdict brought to a close a highly-public, two-year legal odyssey.
Also in The Netherlands, Gregorius Nekschot, the pseudonym of a Dutch cartoonist who is a vocal critic of Islamic female circumcision and often mocks Dutch multiculturalism, was arrested at his home in Amsterdam in May 2008 for drawing cartoons deemed offensive to Muslims. Nekschot (which literally means “shot in the neck,” a method used, according to the cartoonist, by “fascists and communists to get rid of their opponents”) was released after 30 hours of interrogation by Dutch law enforcement officials.
Nekschot was charged for eight cartoons that “attribute negative qualities to certain groups of people,” and, as such, are insulting and constitute the crimes of discrimination and hate according to articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch Penal Code.
In an interview with the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant, Nekschot said it was the first time in 800 years in the history of satire in the Netherlands that an artist was put in jail. (That interview has since been removed from the newspaper’s website.) Although the case against Nekschot was dismissed in September 2010, he ended his career as a cartoonist on December 31, 2011.
In Italy, the late Oriana Fallaci, a journalist and author, was taken to court for writing that Islam “brings hate instead of love and slavery instead of freedom.” In November 2002, a judge in Switzerland, acting on a lawsuit brought by Islamic Center of Geneva, issued an arrest warrant for Fallaci for violations of Article 261 of the Swiss criminal code; the judge asked the Italian government either to prosecute or extradite her. The Italian Justice Ministry rejected this request on the grounds that the Italian Constitution protects freedom of speech.
But in May 2005, the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy (UCOII), linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, filed a lawsuit against Fallaci, charging that “some of the things she said in her book ‘The Force of Reason‘ are offensive to Islam.” An Italian judge ordered Fallaci to stand trial in Bergamo on charges of “defaming Islam.” Fallaci died of cancer in September 2006, just months after the start of her trial.
Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.
Traditional Values Coalition President is ejected from the Istanbul Process Conference as a Security Risk to Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton’s Security Removes Andrea Lafferty from the Meeting, Suggesting that She is a Security Risk
Traditional Values President, Andrea Lafferty
The Three Day Closed meeting was to finish on Dec 15, 2011 with a public meeting. Therefore, Traditional Values Coalition president Andrea Lafferty, went to attend the meeting. However, she was removed from the meeting by the Hillary Clinton’s security detail as they claimed she was a threat to the security of the Secretary of State.
The Traditional Values Coalition is a large Christian grass roots organization that boast of 43,000 Churches in their organization. They are based upon biblical foundations and upon the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, the writings of the Founding Fathers, and upon the writings of great political and religious thinkers throughout the ages.
Mrs. Lafferty was quite vocal about Resolution 16/18 and the Istanbul Process Conference. She had said,
“What we are seeing here is a direct assault with the United Nations, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and our own U.S. State Department in an effort to chill and curb religious liberties and free speech in America,” Traditional Values Coalition president Andrea Lafferty said in a statement.
“Americans are tired of being told that we are our own worst enemy. Terrorists attacked the United States, in the name of Islam, because they hate the freedoms that make us strong,” she said. “What will history say if we allowed the diplomats and bureaucrats of the United Nations and State Department to accomplish what terrorists and planes could not?”
Lafferty said this week’s meeting followed an administration pattern of silencing free speech in favor of “good speech.”
She cited several examples, including a reported directive by the Justice Department last October to withdraw references to Islam from counter-terror training materials.
“We also are working comprehensively to ensure that every aspect of the department’s work reflects sensitivity and respect for all peoples and faiths,” Deputy Attorney General James Cole said in an Oct. 19 speech at a DoJ “conference on post 9/11 discrimination.”
“As just one example, to that end, I recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security, to make sure they reflect that sensitivity,” he said.
LAFFERTY IS DETAINED BY STATE DEPARTMENT AND EJECTED FROM THE MEETING!
Washington D.C. (December 15th, 2011) — Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) president Andrea Lafferty was targeted and detained by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s security personnel this Wednesday during the closing event capping the three day closed-door conference advancing the implementation of U.N. Resolution 16/18.
“For weeks we have been asking whether the true aims of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and U.N. Resolution 16/18 would be used to apply “old fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” to chill and coerce those critical of the Islamist agenda,” said Lafferty.
“Hillary Clinton was as good as her word,” said Lafferty.
Lafferty was circled by several members of Secretary Clinton’s staff before being approached by a member of the security detail, demanding Lafferty follow him. When asked why she was being removed from the reception hall, the security detail announced that a phone call had identified Lafferty as a “security threat” to Secretary Clinton.
“I was shocked and angry at the pressure and shameful intimidation tactics our State Department put on, even to the point of identifying me as a threat to Hillary Clinton.”
Secretary Clinton in a June 2011 conference in Istanbul, Turkey remarked how certain comments from those concerned about Islamic fanaticism have been deemed as “incendiary” and looked to sympathize with efforts that would criminalize certain speech that is “an incitement to imminent violence.”
“This language — “incitement to imminent violence” — has been used time and time again to close events here in the United States concerning the impact of Islamic shariah law, detain law-abiding Christians elsewhere, and now even target and detain as security threats people from State Department events,” said Lafferty.
“The very restriction on free speech the UN Resolution was pushing is exactly what they used against me,” said Lafferty.
“I had warned previously how members of the U.S. State Department and Hillary Clinton have pointedly remarked that part of the implementation of U.N. Resolution 16/18 will be an effort to utilize “techniques of peer pressure and shaming” to silence critics of Islamic shariah,” said Lafferty. “Little did I realize how quickly Clinton and her Islamist friends were set to make examples out of law-abiding Americans.”
She has demanded proof but I doubt she’ll get it….
Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) president Andrea Lafferty has written a letter to the U.S. State Department asking for both transcripts and written records of the individual who called to identify her as a “security threat” to Secretary Hillary Clinton during the closing events.
Maybe she will sue the State department for violating her constitutional rights…. We can only hope.
From Bernard Lewis - Princeton University