Defaming Islam

No to the UN!According to CNS news, the UN General Assembly has passed a resolution against the “defamation of religions”, especially Islam.

I’ve never felt a particular need to defame Islam, since Islam is perfectly capable of defaming itself.

But this, of course, is hate speech, not to mention racism and xenophobia, and is thus defamatory in its own right. Once the UN gets its way, I won’t be able to say it anymore.

The anti-religious defamation resolution was introduced by the OIC as a corrective to the Islamophobia revealed by the Mohammed cartoon crisis in Denmark. It has been kicking around the UN in committee for a couple of years, and generally flew under the radar until it was passed by the General Assembly this week without attracting any undue attention.

There’s almost no information about it on the web, and it’s very difficult to find the exact text of the resolution as passed. As far as I can tell, this Word document is the current version, even though it dates from the end of 2006. I’ll reproduce it at the bottom of this post so that readers and fellow bloggers can have an HTML version to refer to. If anyone finds a different and more current version of it, please let me know.

The UN resolution dovetails perfectly with the Framework Decision and the European Parliament resolution on combating the rise of extremism in Europe. The UN is Sauron to the EU’s Saruman, but both organizations are working the same evil magic and reading from the same book of spells. Similar American versions of this mischief have been floated in Congress since the Democrats took over.

What makes the UN resolution different from the EU’s initiatives — and what probably caused some European countries to vote against it — is that the UN version mentions Islam as a specially protected religion. No other religion is specified in it. The United Nations now makes it official: Islam has been elevated above other religions, and has effectively become the established religion at the UN.

The Islamic countries of the OIC are well-versed in human rights jargon, and have used it to great effect in this resolution. The text asserts that “respect for cultural, ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity, as well as dialogue among and within civilizations, is essential for peace, understanding and friendship among individuals and people of the different cultures and nations of the world”, and wants “to promote greater harmony and tolerance in all societies”.

But the wording leaves no doubt about which religion and culture it intends to protect. The resolution:
– – – – – – – –

  • Opposes “the introduction and enforcement of laws that specifically discriminate against and target Muslims”;
  • Points out “the increasing trend in recent years of statements attacking religions, Islam and Muslims in particular, especially in human rights forums”;
  • Asserts that “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism”; and
  • “Stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, Islam and Muslims in particular, especially in human rights forums”.

The camel’s nose under the UN human rights tent is the concept of “racism and xenophobia” as a violation of human rights. Conflating the fear of Islam with racism and/or xenophobia is a well-established technique for placing criticism of Islam out of bounds. Such logic is fundamentally flawed — Nigerian Christians are, after all, the same race and nationality as the Muslims who burn their churches, but any mention or criticism of such an issue will be forbidden under the UN’s guidelines.

Simply collecting and publishing data on atrocities committed in the name of Islam will become “hate speech” once the would-be despots at the UN and the EU have their way.

A bomb explosion in Varanasi that kills hundreds of Hindus will be a “tragedy”.

Any newspaper report stating that Muslims are claiming responsibility for the deed will be a crime.

Wake up! It’s a brave new world out there.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

December 7, 2006

Resolution on Combating defamation of religions
(Words bolded by Gates of Vienna)

The General Assembly,

Recalling that all States have pledged themselves, under the Charter of the United Nations, to promote and encourage universal respect for and observance of all human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,

Recalling also the relevant resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights in this regard,

Recalling further the United Nations Millennium Declaration adopted by the General Assembly on 8 September 2000, welcoming the resolve expressed in the Millennium Declaration to take measures to eliminate the increasing acts of racism and xenophobia in many societies and to promote greater harmony and tolerance in all societies, and looking forward to its effective implementation at all levels, including in the context of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in Durban, South Africa, from 31 August to 8 September 2001,

Recalling the proclamation of the Global Agenda for Dialogue among Civilizations, and inviting States, the organizations and bodies of the United Nations system, within existing resources, other international and regional organizations and civil societies to contribute to the implementation of the Programme of Action contained in the Global Agenda,

Welcoming the launch of the Alliance of Civilizations initiative, intended to respond to the need for a committed effort by the international community, in order to promote mutual respect and understanding among different cultures and societies,

Welcoming also the progress achieved in the follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action,

Underlining the importance of increasing contacts at all levels in order to deepen dialogue and reinforce understanding among different cultures, religions and civilizations, and noting with regret in this regard the cancellation of the meeting on “Civilization and harmony: values and mechanisms of the global order”, which was to be held in Turkey in 2004 as a follow-up to the Organization of the Islamic Conference-European Union Joint Forum on the theme “Civilization and harmony: the political dimension”, held in Turkey in 2002,

Reaffirming that discrimination against human beings on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes an affront to human dignity and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter,

Convinced that respect for cultural, ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity, as well as dialogue among and within civilizations, is essential for peace, understanding and friendship among individuals and people of the different cultures and nations of the world, while manifestations of cultural prejudice, intolerance and xenophobia towards different cultures and religions generate hatred and violence among peoples and nations throughout the world,

Recognizing the valuable contributions of all religions to modern civilization and the contribution that dialogue among civilizations can make to an improved awareness and understanding of the common values shared by all humankind,

Reaffirming the need for all States to continue international efforts to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding among civilizations, cultures and religions, and emphasizing that States, regional organizations, non-governmental organizations, religious bodies and the media have an important role to play in promoting tolerance, respect for and freedom of religion and belief,

Underlining the important role of education in the promotion of cultural and religious tolerance and the elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief,

Alarmed at the continuing negative impact of the events of 11 September 2001 on Muslim minorities and communities in some non-Muslim countries, the negative projection of Islam in the media and the introduction and enforcement of laws that specifically discriminate against and target Muslims,

Alarmed also at the serious instances of intolerance, discrimination and acts of violence based on religion or belief, intimidation and coercion motivated by extremism, religious or otherwise, occurring in many parts of the world and threatening the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Noting with concern that defamation of religions is among the causes of social disharmony and leads to violations of human rights,

Deeply alarmed at the rising trends towards discrimination based on religion and faith, including in some national policies and laws that stigmatize groups of people belonging to certain religions and faiths under a variety of pretexts relating to security and illegal immigration, and noting that the increased intellectual and media discourse is among the factors exacerbating such discrimination,

Noting with deep concern the increasing trend in recent years of statements attacking religions, Islam and Muslims in particular, especially in human rights forums,

1.   Expresses deep concern about the negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still in evidence in some regions of the world;
2.   Strongly deplores physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural centres and places of worship of all religions as well as targeting of religious symbols;
3.   Notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;
4.   Expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;
5.   Also expresses its deep concern about programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at the defamation of religions, in particular when supported by Governments;
6.   Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against Islam or any other religion;
7.   Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism and the reaction to counter-terrorism measures, defamation of religions becomes an aggravating factor that contributes to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of target groups, as well as their economic and social exclusion;
8.   Stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, Islam and Muslims in particular, especially in human rights forums;
9.   Emphasizes that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which should be exercised with responsibility and may therefore be subject to limitations as provided by law and necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs;
10.   Urges States to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence;
11.   Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;
12.   Urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect different religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief, and that any necessary and appropriate education or training is provided;
13.   Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through education and awareness-raising;
14.   Urges States to ensure equal access to education for all, in law and in practice, including access to free primary education for all children, both girls and boys, and access for adults to lifelong learning and education based on respect for human rights, diversity and tolerance, without discrimination of any kind, and to refrain from any legal or other measures leading to racial segregation in access to schooling;
15.   Calls upon the international community to initiate a global dialogue to promote a culture of tolerance and peace based on respect for human rights and religious diversity, and urges States, non-governmental organizations, religious bodies and the print and electronic media to support and promote such a dialogue;
16.   Affirms that the Human Rights Council shall promote universal respect for all religious and cultural values and address instances of intolerance, discrimination and incitement of hatred against any community or adherents of any religion;
17.   Calls upon the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to promote and include human rights aspects in the dialogue among civilizations, inter alia, through:
(a)   Integrating them into topical seminars and special debates on the positive contributions of cultures, as well as religious and cultural diversity, including through educational programmes, particularly the World Programme for Human Rights Education proclaimed on 10 December 2004;
(b)   Collaboration by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights with other relevant international organizations in holding joint conferences designed to encourage this dialogue and promote understanding of the universality of human rights and their implementation at various levels;
18.   Requests the Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation of the present resolution, including on the possible correlation between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world, to the General Assembly at its sixty-second session.

Hat tip: Steen. Thanks to Eye on the UN for the text of the resolution.

22 thoughts on “Defaming Islam

  1. Does anybody know When will the UN replace the old and stale “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” with the fresh and modern “Cairo Declaration of Human Rights”?

  2. “The UN is Sauron to the EU’s Saruman.”

    I disagree, actually. EU as a fixed income (1 % sales tax on everything) and is directly undermining the participating countries. It’s really hard to stop this monster.

    UN, on the other hand, is easily hit by criticism. UN Watch had a smash hit in South Africa, who had to take the charges seriously:

    EU has so many lawyers and has bought so many people to justify what they’re doing that they’re almost immune to this. Damaging public confidence is a much more radical way to go, and probably needed.

    Also, the fundamental principles of UN are quite workable – if they’re being applied, which they aren’t. Especially since the EU Constitution I can’t say that of the EU.

    That said, what’s happening at UN is bad, too. EU just happens to be the more acute and obvious danger. Fortunately, conservative commentators in Denmark have started talking openly on the need to get out. Yes. To leave EU :))

    Meowey Cat, UN did do so, as early as in 1997, for Muslims. Universal Human Rights *will* be buried if we do not fight to keem them universal.

  3. Henrik —

    I agree that the EU is the clear and present danger.

    All I meant by the Sauron/Saruman metaphor is that the EU has learned a lot of what it does from the UN. Mind you, the UN learns from the EU, too. They’re partners in crime.

  4. That is almost the exact wording in the hate crime bill that was pulled from consideration in Congress. It was sponsored by John Conyers of Michigan.


  5. The first bullet could (will) be used very effectively to prevent EU nations from enacting immigration restrictions designed to exclude Muslims.

  6. Just to be clear I meant this bullet:

    Opposes “the introduction and enforcement of laws that specifically discriminate against and target Muslims”

  7. The United Nations is a defunct tool of global socialism at this point in time. In Europe, socialist bureaucrats in the EU, and in the United States, the Democrat Party, give great creedence to the UN because it advances to goal of devaluing Judeo-Christian values, revising western history, and calling honest criticism of other cultures “hate crimes.” Honestly, I never knew of a crime that did not have an element of hate that preceeded the action. Which brings me to my point. Why on God’s green earth are the Jihadists who perpetrated over 10,000 hate crimes since 9/11 not being held accountable in the same manner as those criticizing those heinous behaviors. If ever there was a hate crime or hate speech, they eminate from the very mosques and madrassas that are gaining from this perverted “hate crime” business in the UN. I will say it here, and now, the UN and the EU are fostering a tale of two cities here. They say it is right to understand other cultures and to be sensitve to them while at the same time those cultures are waging a religious, ideological, and terror war upon us. Why is it not right for Muslims to appreciate and understand the West in the same way the UN, and soon thereafter the EU, are forcing the West to recalibrate it’s criticism of radical Islam. Bullocks on them all!!! I support the open criticism of Islam for not changing from within to quell these madmen who have hijacked their religion…or has Islam really been hijacked??? Silence equals compliance in my book. Every Muslim out there in a Western country holds his prophet above his country of residence. In my estimation, there are many so-called “good” Muslims who should be counted as potential Jihadists. These people are so irrational that the slightest upset can pull them into fundamentalism. The West needs to stand up to the socialist UN, the socialist EU, and Islam. There is no shame in preserving our culture. We just need to reclaim it from the socialists who have been telling us that we are no good since the Second World War!!!

  8. Sorry, I could not read all the bureauspeak fine print – but does this mean that if I label any of my perverse predilections as religions, I will be protected from having to endure any and all public or private criticism of my perversion?

  9. Islam is not a religion. It is a political ideology. It should not be protected by the United Nations as a religion, nor should it continue to be considered a ‘religion of peace.’ Islam (Islamism) is a violent political ideology bent on the political domination of the entire world by Muslims and the destruction of western civilization. Islam only appears to be a religion because it has spiritual elements…but it is thoroughly political down to its core. The longer the West continues to concieve of Islam as an innocent religion the more the Muslims will be able to destroy our societies under this shield. Islam should be destroyed because it is a violent, anti-western POLITICAL IDEOLOGY…worse than communism ever was.

  10. This is positively Orwellian in its nightmarish insanity.

    Islam possibly violates most of these ‘articles’ 100s or 1,000s of times per day. Just the daily preaching by Radical Imams in what, 1,000s, or 100s of Mosques all over the world would cover that.

    This has so many legal holes and contradictions it would just collapse in on itself. What? Arrest Fox News? Stop the AP? Reuters? Even the Left-Wing Journalists won’t put up with being completely muzzled in their reporting. Lock up Journalists, historians, social scientists, politicians, bloggers for repeating what Fox News or the AP says?

    Lock up Bernard Lewis, Bat Ye’or, Melanie Phillips, Daniel Pipes, and Michelle Malkin?, the Baron? Arrest 100,000s of people?

    I think if the EU tries this nonsense pretty quickly some lawyers will shoot this down in the World Court where everybody will find out about it, and then work against the dangers of Islam using this document.

    People can’t be against religions, but it is OK for any religion to be publicly against other religions and its believers?

    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe says
    outlaw most bloggers

    license all the rest
    monitor their writing

    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe says
    destroy your country

    suspend its constitution
    order your cops to be pigs

    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe says
    KILL all the lawyers

    if they dare advocate
    for freedom of speech

  11. Civil disobedience my friends, civil disobedience. Plus, it wouldn’t surprise me then if several European resistance fighters simply will start calling themselves muslims when they attack EU institutions etc. That way they will fly under the radar. It will just be viewed as any other crime committed by disenfranchised “youths”, rather than “right-wing extremists” as they would be called otherwise.

  12. If the EU and the UN competes about who can be the worst nightmare ,it becomes even clearer how much we really DESPARATELY need the US as protector of free thinking .
    So maybee this is a good time for all us non-americans to say it again and without hesitation : the US is ,as allways, our best hope.
    Yesterday,today and hopefully tomorrow>

  13. So why do the UN think like this? It’s because they are committed to abolishing all religions. If they understand that Islam cannot be included in the One-World global order then they will have to abandon the idea of ever uniting humanity under a One World “Universal” religion.

    Allow me to communicate to you some extracts from “Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future” by Fr. Seraphim Rose:

    “[The goals of the New-Age] include a “convergence of religions” in tandem with a “confluence” of political and economic forces toward World Government. The plan for a New World Order would include a universal credit system, a universal tax, a global police force, and an international authority that would control the worlds food supply and transportation systems.”

    “All forms of Discrimination would cease, and peoples’ allegiance to tribe or nation will be replaced by a planetary conciousness”

    “It shuld be pointed out that many New-Agers today would not be aware of, much less subscribe to, all the point of “The Plan”. As we have seen, the movement incorporates a diverse array of groups, ideas and practices. If it can be called a “conspiracy”, this is certainly not because all New Agers are working together secretly, o an organizational level, toward fulfilllment of “The Plan”. Ultimately, “The Plan” is being orchestrated not on a human but on a demonic level, and the architects of the New Age movement are, to a large degree, only mouthpieces of ideas that are not their own”

    “Alice Bailey [a UN ideologue] in the 1940s wrote: “the expressed aims and efforts of the United Nations will be eventually brought to fruition, and a new church of God, gathered out of all religions and spiritual groups, will unitedly bring to an end the great heresy of separateness”

    “William Swing, Episcopal Bishopp of California and founder/director of the United Religions Initiative, expressed it in his book The Coming United Religions: “The time comes … when common language and a common purpose for all religions and spiritual movements must be discerned and agreed upon. Merely respecting and understanding other religions is not enough.”

    On Denatured Christianity: “Although not all globalists share the specifically religious goals, they are certainly united in their view of what kind of religion will not fit into the one-world system they are working to create. Conservative, traditional adherents of a religion, who believe that hteir religion is a unique fulfilment of the fullness of the truth, will not be welcome in the “global village”. As Paul Chaffe, board member of the United religions Initiative, said in 1997: “We can’t afford fundamentalists in a world this small.” The same view was expressed at the 1998 State of the World Forum, Jim Garrison announced: “If my theology is an impediment, than I have to get rid of my theology.”

    “Also in 1998, this subject was discussed in some detail by one of the more recent ideologues of the “new religious consciousness,” Ken Wilber. A popular author whose works have been praised and avidly studied by both former President Clinton and Al Gore, Wilber outlined the agenda that the world must follow in order to combine science with religion, as well as to establish a “Universal Theology” [Global Warming anyone?] which all religions can embrace without losing their outward differences. “Religions the world over will have to bracket their mythic beliefs,” and he cites as examples Moses parting the Red Sea, Christ born of a virgin etc”

    “Wilber than says “only those who embrace the new religious consciousness, or who at least bracket their religious beliefs, will survive in the coming global society, which Wilber says will be marked by a “worldcentric” awareness based in “universal pluralism”.”

    “Unity in Diversity, destroys diversity. If an adherant to a religion believes that all other religions are equal to his own, he can no longer truly hold to that religion; he can no longer be who he is. He becomes a blank – a blank waiting to be filled with a new revelation. There is only sameness based on blankness. This false “unity in diversity” is precisely what Satan will use in order to hypnotize the mass mind in the last days. And if you have no particular religious belief and give yourself over to some kind of vague idea, then the demons come in and begin to act”.

  14. For a more current version of the resolution text go to:

    Report of the HRC to the General Assembly – A/62/53

    Page 42, Resolution 4/9. Combating defamation of religions, 30 March 2007.

    This resolution was tabled for the sixth session of the UNHRC in Geneve, on 10 december 2007

    There is a draft report of the session (part one, 10-28 september)

    I am waiting for a report of the second part (10-15 december).

  15. The inmates are running the asylum at the UN and have been for many years now. Why do we continue to fund that which represents everything that is anathema to our values?

  16. Lel: Why do we continue to fund that which represents everything that is anathema to our values?

    The only sane explanation I’ve ever heard for having this “cesspool of corruption” in the USA is because it allows us to monitor a lot of policy and intelligence traffic that we might not intercept were it located elsewhere. I have always thought that the UN should be sited in Nigeria or Bangladesh to discourage the dilettante elites who use it as their personal playground. Bush’s appointment of John Bolton to the UN was one of the most sane moves of his entire administration. Imagine the thought of meetings being held promptly at 8:00AM and any tardy parties losing their opportunity to vote on policy issues?

Comments are closed.