OSCE Warsaw: The Need to Refuse Sharia

2018 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Monday, 17 September 2018

Working Session 11
Fundamental Freedoms I, Including Freedom of Expression

Intervention read by Henrik Clausen, representing Wiener Akademikerbund

Many thanks to the Center for Security Policy for uploading this video:

Below is the prepared text for Mr. Clausen’s intervention:

Distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen. I am Henrik Clausen, speaking on behalf of Wiener Akademikerbund in Austria. We work for peace, non-aggression and the inalienable rights of everyone.

In order to promote conditions in which all can fully enjoy their human rights, there is an important challenge that we must take up, the introduction of non-democratic law into our societies. The dangers for women and minorities are particularly pronounced.

First, let me point out that I am addressing law only, not groups or individuals based on their beliefs. The freedom to believe is inalienable and fundamental to a free society. The practice of law, however, is a different matter.

As the European Court of Human Rights stated in their February 2003 verdict, Sharia Law is incompatible with fundamental principles of democracy and human rights.

Sharia Law mandates discrimination based on religion and belief. It has an Apartheid-style system for minorities, commands capital punishment in many cases, including for apostasy, anti-Semitism and other tenets incompatible with human rights.

Thus, rejecting Sharia Law is essential for protecting fundamental rights for all. Properly understood, the rejection of Sharia is just the enforcement of national law.

It is natural for everyone defending human rights to object to any introduction of Sharia into our societies. Organisations that promote Sharia work against democracy and fundamental freedoms, and must be under surveillance by the state, or closed.

This includes the so-called “Sharia Councils” operating in Britain and other OSCE pS. Deceptively named ‘councils’, these are in fact Sharia courts, because they are perceived in Islamic communities to uphold and enforce Islamic law.

Wiener Akademikerbund recommends:

  • That OSCE and the pS explicitly declare the introduction of Sharia Law undesired.
  • That organisations promoting Sharia be categorized as political, not religious.
  • That enforcing law incompatible with democracy and human rights be criminalized.

ECHR decision on Refah Partisi vs. Turkey in 2003.

For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.

2 thoughts on “OSCE Warsaw: The Need to Refuse Sharia

  1. Muslims like to play Find the Lady with this, switching from one term to another as convenient. This is my understanding of them. If anyone can correct me I’d be much obliged:

    The Sharia – the infallible laws and prescriptions for just about everything from hand washing to capital punishment, taken directly from the Koran and Hadiths. It seems to exist in a scattering of fatwas and rulings which are inaccessible to the Kafir, or at least I’ve never found a book in English titled “This is the Sharia” or similar.

    Islamic Law (Fiqh) – the fallible rulings of fallible scholars based on the infallible Sharia but covering matters which Mohammed/Allah failed to address specifically.

    Sacred Law – the Reliance of the Traveller is a manual of Islamic Law but the book uses the term Sacred Law.

    Islamic Shariah – What underpins the “human rights” accorded to all humans, not just Muslims, in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. Does it mean the Sharia or Islamic Law or both? It is never defined.

    Sharia Law – A confusing hybrid term sometimes applied to the Sharia and sometimes to Islamic Law.

    I see the intervention above uses the terms Sharia and Sharia Law interchangeably.

    Much of Islamic Law, such as prayer, rituals, the pilgrimage etc are of no interest to non-Muslims so “objecting to ANY introduction of Sharia into our societies” is going too far. It would be comparable to banning the Mass in Catholic churches.

    I like the formulation “Properly understood, the rejection of Sharia is just the enforcement of national law”. Those parts of Sharia/Islamic Law/whatever which contravene national law should be criminalised, whether it is religious discrimination, denying a Muslim woman her full rights over divorce etc or calling for the killing of apostates (even in Friday sermons) as incitement to murder.

  2. “The Need to Refuse Sharia”
    The problem who will dare to refuse sharia. Aesop recommended belling the preying cat 2564 years ago and until now the cat is bell-less.
    Sharia is not the problem: adherents of sharia are. Adherents jihadis are not the problems: the traitors, who tread of their own flesh and blood are. Mein Kampf is bad for me but is excellently beneficial for its adherents. Sharia means superiority, jihad, mastering, colonizing, subjugating, looting, enslaving, concubining – – – infidels, is not bad.

    Why is it bad waves of jihadis emanating from Arabia into the Fertile Crescent Lands and then, like hungry locusts, devouring Mesopotamia and all that laid east of it up to Indonesia and poor Australia and NZ, and then marching west devouring the Holy Land of Israel Egypt to the Atlantic and into Stupid Europe. Then and Now. Now they are invited to colonize the whole world including the Arctic. Infidels helped them build a mosque in the Arctic. Ah human rights, diversity, multiculti but only for our sharia masters, the colonizers.
    * * *
    “As the European Court of Human Rights stated in their February 2003 verdict, Sharia Law is incompatible with fundamental principles of democracy and human rights.”

    That statement is hot air. What is important is not what traitors say, but what they do. Inviting colonizers is unlawful, treasonous and incompatible with democracy, and humanity. But traitors go and “save” them from drowning.



Comments are closed.