YouTube Implements UN Resolution 16/18

The video below was originally posted on YouTube by, the latest project of the Center for Security Policy. A couple of days ago it was taken down by YouTube for violating their “hate speech” rules.

Take a look at it: you’ll see that it’s pretty mild as Counterjihad videos go. Pat Condell is far more “hateful”. And Robert Spencer hits harder in most of his videos than this one does. But more to the point, this is lovey-dovey compared with the mildest of videos put out by Muslim zealots on YouTube. Take a look; lots of them are still there.

So why was it taken down? My guess is the explicit naming of CAIR, ISNA, etc. as Muslim Brotherhood front groups. A few powerful MB agents probably contacted YouTube and told them what they needed to do if they wanted to continue to lead a quiet life.

In any case, private corporations such as Google are now doing the work that the federal government has trouble doing because of that pesky atavistic impediment known as the Constitution of the United States. Google and Facebook and Twitter don’t have to sweat the Constitution, so they can ban whatever speech they like. In this case they’re banning “slander” (ghiba) as understood by Islam. From Reliance of the Traveller, Book R “Holding One’s Tongue” (r2.2):

Slander (ghiba) means to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike…

This is Islamic law, so “person” means “Muslim”, and mentioning the relationship between various Islamic groups and the Muslim Brotherhood is obviously something they dislike.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video to LiveLeak:

Below is the press release sent out by CSP after its video was yanked:

The Truth-Telling Video About Jihad That YouTube Doesn’t Want You to See

(Washington, DC): For ten years the world’s largest and most powerful Sharia-supremacist organization — not the Islamic State, not al Qaeda, not even the Muslim Brotherhood, but the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — has worked to compel the entire world to observe Sharia blasphemy restrictions. In 2010, with help from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, they succeeded in getting the UN Human Rights Council to adopt Resolution 16/18 which effectively calls on every nation to prohibit expression that offends Muslims and to punish those who do so.

The European Union adopted highly restrictive “hate speech” bans. A number of the continent’s most prominent freedom-fighters have been prosecuted under these laws.

In 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that, notwithstanding the First Amendment, the U.S. government would use “old-fashioned techniques of shaming and peer pressure” to discourage such expression.

In response at least in part to such official pressure about offending Muslims, perhaps combined with corporate preferences, social media giants including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube recently announced the implementation of new “hate speech” prohibitions on their platforms. Ostensibly, they would impede the extensive use IS and other terrorists have been making of their services.

It was predictable, however, that these new media organizations would wind up censoring those whom Islamists abhor — especially, those who tell the truth about and, therefore, help impede the Shariah-supremacists’ global jihad movement and agenda.

A case in point was the recent removal by YouTube of a powerful new video produced by the Center for Security Policy’s CounterJihad Campaign.

Everyone in America should see this video — and demand that YouTube reinstate it at once. The Center will be redoubling its efforts to prevent this sort of suppression of free, and necessary, speech.

10 thoughts on “YouTube Implements UN Resolution 16/18

  1. Sounds like a business opportunity to me; a new social media site where content is 100% unfiltered or restricted. Maybe allow users to flag content for age inappropriate content, but not censor. Have a dislike button as well for content. Then let the market decide… A site in explicit contrast to the soft tyranny of Facebook and Twitter, etc.

  2. Of course they banned this video! Terrorist acts (violent jihad) is a terrible thing but not as harmful as civilization jihad. I think it is totally appropriate to use cancer to explain the spread of Islam. In that example the violent jihad is the visible symptom which could force somebody to seek medical help and if the tumor spread is in the early stage the patient life can be saved. Otherwise the cancer continues to spread quietly until it is too late and kills the host. Civilization jihad use hijra (jihad by migration) and out of control breeding (just like cancer cells) and as soon as they get majority in the population using our own democratic institutions against us and simply vote in their people and with it: Shariah. (The last vote they ever make). How to fight this? I think the first step is to recognize that Islam is not a religion. It may masquerade as one but it much closer to relation with the other totalitarian regimes: the Nazis and Communists. Once the distinction made (in the level of law) it can be banned, without getting into human rights issues and harming the practice of real religions. Only then we can make the correct differentiation between a person from example Middle Eastern background who maybe in danger because he is an apostate or not a Muslim, from the full blown Islamist zombie. I think the video only failed to address one issue and that is the “moderate Muslims”. I believe there is basically two type of “moderate Muslim” exists: one who is perfectly clear on the ideology and its bloody final goals but either smart enough to know that civilization jihad while slower it has more chance to win or just simply a coward. These are Muslims who dancing in their no-go zones, every time a violent jihad hit another target. Another type is the ignorant one. (I am not sure how many Muslims really belong to this group but the majority of Leftists and SJW supporters are here).
    This people are simply do not know well enough the doctrine to form a proper opinion (and not interested knowing more!). It is like somebody telling he loves the Nazis because they built those awesome highways (autobahn) and produced the Volkswagen Beetle. What else the Nazis did? He does not really know…

  3. -needs a link to the video & vlad tepes on LL, so we can upvote & subscribe.

  4. Youtube, Facebook and the rest usually take things down when there are a certain number of complaints. The reasons for complaining are an afterthought at best, it’s numbers what drives their algorithms. Muslims come out in great numbers and flag anything they don’t like, whereas our folks in most cases can’t be bothered. This is why brutal jihad videos stay online while anything critical of Islam gets under fire rather quickly.

  5. Lissan al-Arab Dictionary: ISLAM, is derived from the root verb ‘Istlama’. This means to ‘surrender’ ‘submitt’ or ‘give-in’. It can also mean ‘peace’.

    But two things are debated; If that peace comes from the individual submitting or does it mean the surounding community as well, and to what degree! This is obvious in the rhetoric used by Imams today.

    This letter vis from Mohammad to Emporor Heraclitus of Byzantium:
    “Now I invite you to islam (surrender). Embarace islam and you will be safe;”.
    –Sahih Bakhari 4:52:191

    Sound kinda like: “give me money so your store doesn’t catch fire”. This is from the Prophets own hand.

    • I have no idea — I only know what CSP sent. I assume it must have been put back up since they sent out their press release.

Comments are closed.