Resolution 16/18 is already being implemented in some European countries. As an example a woman damed Elizabeth Wolf, an American who lives in Austria, and she is a chapter leader for Act for America. She was delivering a speech and said something that was accurate to the history of Islam. She said the Prophet Muhammad had sex with children. He married one of his wives when she was six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine. This lady referred to this as pedophile. She was prosecuted for hate speech and blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad because of this.
We had better wake up! This is coming to a place near you!
This resolution has a very broad meaning to the word “defamation.” It would include saying anything negative about anything having to do with Islam. You can’t speak against Shariah law, Islamic terrorism, or the killing of those who disagree with Islam.
In 2011 our State Department asked them to write a new resolution that protected from defamation, but that also protected the freedom of speech. The new resolution was to combat intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief.
Ambiguous Language and Double Speak
Resolution 16/18 drops the language stating defamation of religion because the west understood what this meant. As a result of the change in language the West, and the US totally supported the resolution.
As it turned out the OIC had very unique interpretation of some of the language. They had worded thing in such a way that the resolution could still be used to protect Islam from defamation.
There are numerous problems with the language of but for the sake of time I will only mention one very important concept. The text of the resolution says that it condemns the imminent incitement to violence. America agreed to that language because we already have laws against incitement to violence.
The OIC has a completely different definition for incitement to violence. They want a consequence test and we have a content based test. For example, if I tell an audience that I want them to go kill someone, and the do, They will be guilty of murder, and I will be guilty of inciting violence because the content of my language incited them to commit that violence.
The OIC would say, for example, that the Danish cartoons were an incitement to violence. If someone draws a cartoon or says something that Muslims don’t like, and Muslims get together to riot and do violence, they would say that the person who drew the cartoon or who said something they didn’t like was an incitement to violence.
Let me give one other example. The resolution asks for national security to stop religious profiling for purposes of law enforcement, for questioning and interrogation for investigations. Then in the body of the resolution it defines religious profiling as the “… use of religion as a criterion for purposes of investigation, such as questioning and interrogation.”
To Muslims, a cross is offensive. If a Christian puts up a cross and as a result a Muslim does something violent, the Christian would be guilty of inciting to violence. If a Christian says the Jesus is the Son of God a Muslim would consider it blasphemy, and it would be considered incitement to violence also.
No one wants to lock people up just because they are Muslims and use that is the sole criterion. This resolution asks law enforcement not to use it as even on factor in a list of other factors to consider.
In July 2011, Hillary Clinton attended a high-level diplomatic on islomophobia which was held in Istanbul, Turkey. She announced to the world that America would host the first Istanbul Conference in America. This conference was held in December 2011. It was an international conference with approximately thirty countries and international organizations in attendance. It was primarily a closed-door meeting held over three days.
The whole purpose of this meeting was to come up with ways to implemented Resolution 16/18. This is something that is very unusual. Normally UN resolutions remain in the realm of the theoretical and are not implemented on a world-wide scale through international conferences. In the conference they discussed the various actions and procedures that could be used by the various countries incorporate the principles of this resolution into their own domestic policies.
UN resolutions are not legally binding. They only show the support for the resolution by those who voted for them. If they pass it only shows that the majority of the UN member states support the issue. The more times a resolution passes, or the more UN bodies that pass it, the more political weight the resolution carries, but it is not law.
42total visits,2visits today