Yesterday, when I posted the final report on OSCE Vienna 2013 and then a follow-up, the video of the Turkish representative’s response was not yet available. Since then Vlad has finished processing it, and I’ve added it to the report. However, since the post is now so far down the page, I’m including it here so that interested readers will be sure to see it.
In response to Dr. Harald Fiegl of Mission Europa Netzwerk Karl Martell, the Turkish government representative Mr. Umut Topcuoglu quotes the definition of “Islamophobia” provided by the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The Turkish representative adds in an unusual personal retort that the Mission Europa representative appears to be suffering an unusually severe case of this imaginary malady:
In addition to the content of his response, pay attention to the unusually snide, insulting, and contemptuous tone used by Mr. Topcuoglu when addressing Dr. Fiegl.
Many thanks to Henrik Ræder Clausen for recording this video, and to Vlad Tepes for processing and uploading it:
The transcript of the definition:
Islamophobia is a contemporary form of racism and xenophobia motivated by unfounded fear, mistrust, and hatred of Muslims and Islam. Islamophobia is also manifested through intolerance, discrimination, unequal treatment, prejudice, stereotyping, hostility, and adverse public discourse. Differentiating from classical racism and xenophobia [sic], Islamophobia is mainly based on stigmatization of a religion and its followers, and as such, Islamophobia is an affront to the human rights and dignity of Muslims.
For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.
I likey this definition – just rip out “Islam” and replace with “Kuffir”.. All Muslims have “kuffirophobia”!
Kuffirophobia is a contemporary form of racism and xenophobia motivated by unfounded fear, mistrust, and hatred of Kuffirs and Non-Islamic beleifs. Kuffirophobia is also manifested through intolerance (Kuffirs are not equal to muslims), discrimination (Kuffirs are not equal to muslims), unequal treatment(Kuffirs are not equal to muslims), prejudice (Kuffirs are not equal to muslims), stereotyping (Kuffirs are not equal to muslims), hostility (Kuffirs are not equal to muslims), and adverse public discourse (Kuffirs are not equal to muslims). Differentiating from classical racism and xenophobia [sic], Kuffirophobia is mainly based on stigmatization of those not of a religion and its followers, and as such, Kuffirophobia is an affront to the human rights and dignity of Kuffirs.
So, it’s “thought crime,” and racist (though we can categorically reject the latter as non sequitur; the Islamic political mass movement is trans-racial, precisely as ridiculous as labeling anyone who fears Nazis as “racist,” or even “xenophobic,” since they brought it up. And if one were of a mind to accept Islam as solely a “religion” that too is trans-racial.
The definition and use of Islamophobia has the weight of its components – islam is a phobia, an irrational affront to the dignity of human beings.
This definition is extremely problematic. Many articles could be written about this, but the real danger in “Islamophobia” is in accepting it as a legitimate concept for debate or discussion. Each time we engage with this term, in whatever manner, we are reinforcing its use. Even if we object vociferously to its existence, if we argue that it doesn’t exist, if we eye warily the new “Islamophobia” stats, we’re ensuring that this contrived term will be deeply entrenched in our language.
Time to completely rethink our interaction with this term, and those who use it.
Ah, but Kinneddar, you can now be arrested in a number of European countries for “Islamophobia”. It doesn’t matter whether you “engage” with the term — it will engage with you, like it or not.
We need to deconstruct the term publicly to have any hope of neutralizing the power that our dhimmi governments have allowed it to acquire.
I’d forgotten about that, Baron. Goes to show how far gone some European countries are, when one can be arrested for committing an act that is defined by means of a subjective, contrived, manipulative concept.
My thinking was along the lines of what’s happened with “Israeli Apartheid,” in which something that doesn’t exist is continually reinforced in the public’s mind—even by those who rightly and competently refute it. How can you refute it without referring to it? The term in this way becomes more and more entrenched. I believe that the anti-Israel academic, Judith Butler, once gloated over this at a Toronto conference: even those who dispute “Israeli apartheid” play a part in reinforcing the concept. It’s a similar situation with “Islamophobia.”
You’re quite right.
The same thing is true of the word “Counterjihad”, whose widespread use reinforces the idea of it, even when it is sneered at by our ideological enemies.
Even better, when someone opposes or dislikes the concept of Counterjihad, they seem (at least subliminally) to be in favor of jihad. And, despite the best efforts of smooth-tongued Muslim talking heads, there is now widespread popular understanding of what “jihad” really means.
And so the meme spreads, despite the conscious intention of those who spread it.
This definition is hugely problematic, indeed.
We need a detailed analysis of every single word in it, pointing out how it can be used for arbitrary silencing of dissent, imposing restrictions on all non-Muslims, and establish Muslims in a superior position. For this is what it aims at.