HELL NO!!! UN Resolution 1618, Free speech banned by UN, UN tries to usurp our laws

Picture

You Could You Be A Criminal for speaking against ISLAM !! 
HILLARY CLINTON AND HUSSEIN OBAMA Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure


Comment by Jim Campbell
Of course this is absolute nonsense the US can’t participate in this attempt at political correctness.  This entire charade was cooked up by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.  You know this same ignorant lawyer that believes the US could be bound by her favorite the U.N. Gun Ban Treaty.

In March, the Obama administration thwarted the OIC’s attempt to win United Nations Human Rights Council passage of a resolution calling for criminal penalties for the “defamation of religions.” The following month, Washington engineered Council passage of Resolution 16/18, a nonbinding measure which did not censor speech.
 
Our Motto: Cooperate or die.

The victory didn’t last long. In July, Secretary of State Clinton revived the issue when she co-chaired an OIC session in Istanbul dealing with “religious intolerance.” Clinton called on countries to “counter offensive expression through education, interfaith dialogue and public debate,” while emphasizing that speech restrictions were unacceptable. She invited conference attendees to a follow-up meeting to continue the dialogue.

OIC officials seized on Clinton’s offer by stepping up their campaign for blasphemy laws and speech codes.
So here’s a quick refresher on the Constitution Mrs. soon to be X-Secretary of State .  It’s called the Constitution.  Of course you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the U.S. Constitution but itdose not bind the United States to any treaty or legislation that is Unconstitutional.  I know you hate it but we still have the First Amendment and let’s not forget the Tenth Amendment either.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.
You got to love it when those that oppose free speech as part of their totalitarian cult demand it when others speak out against the atrocities committed at the behest of a Seventh Century mad man. 
Forbes Magazine
While you were out scavenging the Wal-Mart super sales or trying on trinkets at Tiffany and Cartier, your government has been quietly wrapping up a Christmas gift of its own: adoption of UN resolution 16/18. An initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of Islamic Conferences), the confederacy of 56 Islamic states, Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence.”
Whatever that means. 
Initially proposed in response to alleged discrimination against Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 and in an effort to clamp down on anti-Muslim attacks in non-Muslim countries, Resolution 16/18 has been through a number of revisions over the years in order to make it palatable to American representatives concerned about U.S. Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Previous versions of the Resolution, which sought to criminalize blasphemous speech and the “defamation of religion,” were regularly rejected by the American delegation and by the US State Department, which insisted that limitations on speech – even speech deemed to be racist or blasphemous – were at odds with the Constitution. But this latest version, which includes the “incitement to imminent violence” phrase – that is, which criminalizes speech which incites violence against others on the basis of religion, race, or national origin – has succeeded in winning US approval –despite the fact that it (indirectly) places limitations as well on speech considered “blasphemous.” 

What’s worse, the measure codifies into the UN agenda support for the very notion democracies now wrestle with, and which threatens to destroy the very fabric of our culture: tolerance of the intolerant, or rather, the question of whether a tolerant society must also tolerate ways of life that are intolerant – that oppress women, say, or advocate violence against homosexuals, or force strangers to marry against their will. It is, in fact, this very concept that the OIC has long pressured Western governments to adopt in other ways, and that those supporting the adoption of Sharia law in the west have emphasized. Yet if we fall into that trap – as it appears we are – we will have lost the very heart of who we are.
The Good, The Bad…
Those who support the new measure rightly laud its recognition of the importance of free debate. and the inclusion of new clauses that call for “speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” and “[foster ing] religious freedom and pluralism by promoting the ability of members of all religious communities to manifest their religion, and to contribute openly and on an equal footing to society.”
What opponents (rightly) find distressing are calls to adopt “measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.”
(Additional clauses that call for countering religious profiling are also questionable, however civil rights organizations may feel about this, given the problems of Islamic terrorism in the real world. But that’s another matter.)
Oddly, Human Rights First, which previously loudly opposed the initiative for its limitation on “blasphemous speech,” is among those who now praise the newer version. In a statement, the organization opined:
Rather than imposing new restrictions on freedom of speech, which it does not, the new consensus resolution opens the door to an action-oriented approach to fighting religious intolerance. That is very consistent with the U.S. policies and practices – combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting freedom of speech. Resolution 16/18 urges states to train government officials to address religious tensions, to harmonize actions at local and national level, to raise awareness of negative stereotyping of persons, to promote interfaith and intercultural dialogue, to foster religious freedom and to speak out against intolerance (among other recommendations). The only limitation on speech that is in the operative part of the resolution is incitement to “imminent violence”, which is in accordance with US law.
But others are less forgiving, noting, among other things, that the resolution does nothing to prevent the continued use of anti-Jewish materials in the schools of Saudi Arabia (where the Protocols of Zion are treated as fact, thereby absolving Saudis of charges of “racism”) or the ongoing persecution of Jews and Christians in numerous Muslim countries. And yet, ironically,it was exactly those same countries who initiated the motion, as put forth in its initial drafts by the General Assembly, with expressions of concern for “cases motivated by Islamophobia, Judeophobia, and Christanophobia.”
Indeed, as M. Zuhdi Jasser, an observant American Muslim and the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, remarked in an e-mail, “Anyone who believes that Resolution 16’18 is some kind of a breakthrough is sadly being duped by the most obvious Islamist double discourse. The shift from ‘defamation’ to ‘incitement’ does nothing at all to change the basic paradigm where Islamist nations remain in the offen se, continuing to put Western, free nations on the defense.” Rather, said Jasser, “We should be putting Islamist autocracies on the defense and then simply reiterate that our First Amendment principles already protect the rights of all minorities — whether Muslim or otherwise — and that the best standard of free speech is the American one. Beginning to categorize speech as ‘incitement’ is a slippery slope that could open the floodgates for any post-tragedy analysis to indict what would otherwise be free speech absurdly as incitement in some far-fetched cause-effect analysis that would depend on proving that speech causes violence.”
Exactly.
It is, indeed, galling to think that we would enter into negotiations of any kind, with anyone, about the freedom of expression that is so central to our very way of life and the core of the founding of America. Ever.
The background to all of this, unsurprisingly, is an effort on the part of Muslim countries to limit what they consider to be defamatory and blasphemous speech: criticism of Islam, say, or insulting the prophet Mohammed – which, as we’ve learned, can mean anything from drawing a cartoon or making a joke in a comedy sketch to burning a Koran. Such acts – according to some readings of the Koran and, indeed, according to law in some IOC countries – are punishable by death. Hence the riots that met the publication of the so-called “Danish cartoons,” the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the murder of Theo van Gogh, and on and on.
… And The Deceptive
And here’s where Resolution 16/18 gets tricky.
Because who, exactly, arbitrates what is “incitement to imminent violence”? Violence by whom? If drawing a caricature of the Prophet incites violence by Islamic radicals to the tune of riots, arson, and murder, all sanctioned by the IOC itself – then drawing such a caricature (or writing a book like the Satanic Verses) will now constitute a criminal act. And that is exactly what the OIC was aiming for. It is also in direct violation of the principles of Western democracy – and the First Amendment. (Though it is crucial to note that any resolution passed by the General Assembly remains nonbinding, which makes you sort of wonder what the point of all this is, anyway.)
Moreover, since many would claim that the persecution of blasphemers is mandated by their religion, conflicts emerge between guarantees of free expression and the guarantee of freedom of religion and the practice of one’s faith. In othr words: your free speech allows you to insult my prophet: my freedom of religion compels me to kill you for it.
What was that about “incitement to violence”?
Whose violence?
This is how the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation plays “Gotcha.
This is how the American government, however unwittingly, subsumes its own Constitution in deference ot the demands of the Islamic state.
It’s a dangerous game.
True, the Human Rights First position on the issue is significantly more optimistic:
“The U.S. will always enforce its own standards on freedom of expression; these are enshrined in this country’s Constitution. But its legal exceptionalism on freedom of spee ch does not necessarily mean that the U.S. administration needs to be diplomatically isolated when it comes to promoting globally the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, which many in the U.S. perceive to be core and founding American values. On the contrary, since the U.S. joined the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Obama administration has openly expressed its ambition to exert leadership within the U.N. body.
The U.S. demonstrated that leadership by securing the passage of Resolution 16/18 at the Human Rights Council and by moving immediately to show through the Istanbul Process Conference that states have tools at their disposal to combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting free speech.”
But note that word: “combat.” That same word appears in Resolution 16/18, which states “Understanding the need to combat denigration and negative religious stereotyping of persons, as well as incitement to religious hatred, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through, inter alia, education and awareness building.” (Emphasis mine.)
“Combat” implies warfare. Is that the language we want here? Is that one of the options under the vague and wide-open term “inter alia”? And are the “tools at their disposal” – education, interfaith dialogue, and debate — really going to “combat” hatred, especially when that hatred is disguised as proper adherence to one’s faith? When racist myths are taught as historical fact to children across a large swath of the globe?
As for that “faith” thing: it strikes me that those of no faith – atheists – are not addressed anywhere in t his resolution. Are they also to be protected from hate crimes? Is atheism among the ideas to be debated and taught in these awareness-raising sessions? If so, why is that not so stated? If not, why not?
Then there is the ongoing whimpering about the “targeting” of Muslims in non-Muslim countries. Actually, that “targeting” is largely mythical, or at the very least, heavily exaggerated. Throughout the world, from France to the Netherlands to Germany to the United States of America, the majority – by a large margin – of those hate crimes and incidents of discrimination perpetrated on the basis of religion target Jews. (another resource available here) And in virtually every case, the “extremism” in questionhas been Islamic extremism. (Though recent reports of the despicable behavior or ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel puts a new perspective on the matter.)
The Bigger Picture
But here’s the biggest problem: when the exercise of free speech leads to violence far beyond our control. It’s called “terrorism.” And neither the U.N. General Assembly nor the United States of America has the power to stop it. More importantly: by agreeing to curb speech that could lead to “imminent violence,” we in essence accept the blame for any terrorist acts against America (and the West). We agreed not to provoke, after all.
This, of course, is an unacceptable paradigm, and one we cannot allow to stand.
Integral to the greatness of America is the simple fact that no other country in the world places so sacred a value on free speech – indeed, on free expression – as does the United States. Holocaust denial, for instance, is verboten in Germany. Mein Kampf is banned in the Netherlands. France last week criminalized the denial of the Armenian genocide in Turkey (an act that resulted in widespread condemnation by the OIC, whose Secretary General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, had the audacity, days after the ratification of 16/18, to bluster that those who defend cartoons that mock Mohammed as “freedom of thought and expression” have no business limiting the speech of those who deny the Armenian genocide. “This is an indisputable and unacceptable paradox,” he declared). And so on.
Yet in all of this, America has stood strong in its defense of free speech – even blasphemous, hateful, racist, sexist, Pentecostal, homophobic, and ignorant speech. We must continue to do so, no matter what pressures we may face. Because in the end, limiting our rights to self-expression and – above all – the questioning of religious beliefs – will never help to make the world more peaceful – or more free.
Posted by JOHN GAULTIER'S FEROCIOUSLY CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST BULLETIN at 3:12 PM
_______________________________________

OIC Ramps Up ‘Islamophobia’ Campaign

Picture
February 28, 2013 By Deborah Weiss 

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has long been on the forefront of the Islamist mission to establish the equivalent of Islamic blasphemy laws in the West.  Now, during its 12th Islamic Summit held in Cairo February 7-8, 2013, the OIC set forth new and creative ways to silence, and ultimately criminalize criticism of Islam.

The OIC is a 57-member state organization that claims to represent 1.5 billion Muslims around the globe.  As the second largest international organization in the world, behind only the UN, and as the largest Islamic organization in the world, it is obviously quite powerful.  Though it is arguably the largest voting block in the UN, most people have never heard of it.

One of the OIC’s primary aims for at least the last fourteen years has been the international criminalization of speech that is critical of any Islam-related topic, including Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam.

Since 1999, the OIC has set forth UN resolutions that would “combat defamation of religions.”  These resolutions condemned criticism of religion, but in the OIC’s interpretation, it applied only to Islam.  True statements of fact constituted no exception.

Support for the resolutions declined once the United States and other Western countries caught wind of the true meaning of “defamation of religions” and its inevitable chilling effect on freedom of expression.

In 2011, at the State Department’s request, the OIC drafted an alternative resolution that was intended to retain freedom of expression and still address the OIC’s concerns about alleged Islamophobia.  The result was Resolution 16/18 to Combat Intolerance Based on Religion or Belief.

The US State Department and numerous Christian organizations were elated, believing that the OIC had abandoned its mission to protect Islam from so-called “defamation,” and instead replaced it with the goal of protecting persecuted religious minorities from discrimination and violence.  In other words, many assumed a paradigm shift away from providing legal protections to a religion and toward legal protections for people.

But the OIC had some very creative interpretations of the language embodied in the new resolution.  By its manipulation of words such as intolerance and incitement, giving new meanings to what many thought was plain English, the OIC made it clear that it had not dropped its ultimate goal of protecting Islam from “defamation.”

Almost immediately upon its passage and the passage of a similar resolution in the General Assembly, the OIC set out on the unconventional task of “implementing” Resolution 16/18, contrary to the norm of leaving UN resolutions in the realm of the theoretical.

Unfortunately, the U.S. State Department acted as a willing accomplice in this effort, holding the second “Istanbul Conference” in December of 2011.  But, in its implementation phase, rather than moving toward the preservation of free expression, the OIC successfully moved the process in the opposite direction:  toward speech restrictive policies.

Though the U.S., thus far, has not pushed for the enactment of “hate speech” laws, it has “advocated for other measures to achieve the same result.”  Indeed, at this Administration’s behest, all national security training materials and policies “de-link” any interpretation of Islam from Islamic terrorism.  Many U.S. government agencies have now made it verboten to mention Islamic terrorism or assert anything negative about Islam.

The OIC’s task is easier in the EU countries, most of which already have some sort of hate speech restrictions.  They vary from country to country.  Some are cast as laws against the “denigration of religions”; some are “hate speech” laws; some are “public order” laws and some are “incitement to religious hatred” laws.  Additionally, the penalties can range from civil fines to jail time depending on the country.  The U.S. is the last hold out on retaining true freedom when it comes to matters of speech.

This past February, the OIC held an Islamic Summit, a high-level meeting held every three years.  It is the OIC’s largest meeting.  Heads of State and high ranking officials from member states attend.  The purpose of the meeting is to provide guidance pertinent to the realization of the objectives provided for in the OIC Charter and to consider other issues of importance to member states and the Islamic Ummah.  This year’s theme for the agenda was “The Muslim World:  New Challenges and Expanding Opportunities.”

Though the summit focused largely on Syria, Mali, and the “Palestinian issue,” the OIC also made it clear that it would ramp up its efforts to defeat “Islamophobia.”

The OIC is fastidiously working on the creation of legal instruments to address and combat “Islamophobia.”  Renewing its commitment to mobilize the West to comply with Islamic blasphemy laws, the OIC vowed to push for nation states to enact laws that will criminalize the “denigration of religions” during in its next Istanbul conference, anticipated to take place this June.

Further, it is requesting that the UN start an international mechanism that could serve as an “early warning system” against instances of discrimination and intolerance on religious grounds.  Specifically, the OIC is proposing the creation of an observatory at the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, presumably analogous to the Observatory on Islamophobia that the OIC already maintains.  The difference would be that the new observatory would be overseen by an internationally sanctioned entity (the UN) and would expand to all religions.

It is fair to say that since Islamist organizations have coordinated campaigns across the world that encourage and solicit reports of either real, feigned, staged or imagined incidents of “Islamophobia,” the new “empirical data” that such an observatory would collect, would still be drastically skewed.  No other religion has a worldwide campaign instructing its members to report unpleasant truths as “bigotry” or to complain about slights as minor as “hostile looks.”

Additionally, the OIC is continuing to use the language embodied in pre-existing legal instruments in order to make it harder for Western countries to object.  For example, Resolution 16/18 mirrors some of the language in the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).  ICCPR, Article 20 states “the advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”  The U.S. rightly signed a reservation to this clause, effectively opting out, insisting that Americans retain the right to exercise their First Amendment freedom of speech.

Further, though Article 20 makes such speech illegal, it leaves the definition of these terms open to interpretation and does not specify that the illegality must be criminal in nature.  Despite this, Rizwan Saeed Sheikh, spokesman for the OIC Secretary General, insists that pursuant to Article 20 the “denigration of symbols or persons sacred to any religion is a criminal offense.”

Such claims are indicative of the legal and linguistic gymnastics that the OIC will use to achieve its goal to “combat defamation of Islam” and to export Islamic blasphemy laws, labeling them as something aesthetically easier to swallow.

At the Summit, OIC members also unanimously elected Iyad Madani to the post of OIC Secretary General.  His term is to commence in 2014 when current Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu’s term expires.  This is the first time that the OIC will be headed by a Saudi.

Though the current OIC regime is comprised of sticklers for Islamic blasphemy laws and staunch advocates for the obliteration of Israel, it is likely that the OIC will become even more extreme under Madani.  Compared to the Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia, Ihsanoglu and gang can be considered reformers pushing “Islam lite.” The election of a former Saudi Minister to head the largest Islamic organization in the world and lead the UN’s most powerful voting bloc is a bad omen of what’s to come.  Indeed, it would come as no surprise if under its new leadership, the OIC’s old leadership would be labeled “Islamophobic.”

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  
________________________________________

OIC

Organization of Islamic Cooperation is an international organization consisting of 57 member states. The organization states that it is "the collective voice of the Muslim world" and works to "safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony".[1]

The OIC has a permanent delegation to the United Nations, and is the largest international organisation outside the United Nations.[2] The official languages of the OIC are Arabic, English and French.

History and goals[edit source | editbeta]Since the 19th century, some Muslims had aspired to ummah to serve their common political, economic, and social interests. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Caliphate after World War I left a vacuum for a pan-Islamic institution. Losing the Six-Day War in 1967 provided the incentive needed. Leaders of Muslim nations met in Rabat to establish the OIC on 25 September 1969.[1]

According to its charter, the OIC aims to preserve Islamic social and economic values; promote solidarity amongst member states; increase cooperation in social, economic, cultural, scientific, and political areas; uphold international peace and security; and advance education, particularly in the fields of science and technology.[1]

The emblem of the OIC (shown above) contains three main elements that reflect its vision and mission as incorporated in its new Charter. These elements are: the Ka’bah, the Globe, and the Crescent.

On 5 August 1990, 45 foreign ministers of the OIC adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam to serve as a guidance for the member states in the matters of human rights in as much as they are compatible with the Sharia, or Quranic Law.[3]

In June 2008, the OIC conducted a formal revision of its charter. The revised charter set out to promote human rights, fundamental freedoms, and good governance in all member states. The revisions also removed any mention of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. Within the revised charter, the OIC has chosen to support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international law.[4]



The Parliamentary Union of the OIC Member States (PUOICM) was established in Iran in 1999, and its head office is situated in Tehran. Only OIC members are entitled to membership in the union.[7]

On 27 June 2007, then-United States President George W. Bush announced that the United States would establish an envoy to the OIC. Bush said of the envoy, "Our special envoy will listen to and learn from representatives from Muslim states, and will share with them America's views and values."[8] The current special envoy is Rashad Hussain, who was appointed on 13 February 2010.[9] In an investigation of the accuracy of a series of chain emails, Snopes.com reported that during the October 2003 – April 2004 session of the General Assembly, 17 individual members of the OIC voted against the United States 88 percent of the time.[10]
______________________________________________________________________

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1618From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UN Security Council
Resolution 1618
Car bomb attack in Iraq (2005)
Date4 August 2005Meeting no.5,246CodeS/RES/1618 (Document)VoteFor: 15 — Abs. 0 — Against: 0SubjectThreats to international peace and security caused by terrorist actsResultAdoptedSecurity Council compositionPermanent membersNon-permanent membersUnited Nations Security Council resolution1618, adopted unanimously on 4 August 2005, after reaffirming resolutions on the situation in Iraq, including Resolution 1546 (2004), the Council condemned terrorist attacks that had taken place in Iraq and expressed its determination to combat terrorism.[1]

Contents  [hide] 

Resolution[edit source | editbeta]Observations[edit source | editbeta]The Security Council began by expressing its support for the people of Iraq during the political transition, despite attacks in the country. It reaffirmed resolutions 1267 (1999), 1373 (2001) and 1566 (2004), the United Nations Charter and the need to combat the threat of terrorism. Steps by the Iraqi government to undertake national dialogue were welcomed.

Acts[edit source | editbeta]The resolution condemned terrorist attacks that had taken place in Iraq, particularly those that had taken place in recent weeks, and the kidnapping and attacks on foreign diplomats.[2] In this regard, the Council expressed condolences to the victims, their families, and the government of Iraq.

The Council affirmed that terrorism could not affect the political and economic transition in Iraq, and all states were called upon to abide by obligations contained in various resolutions concerning terrorism, including to bring the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors of the attacks to justice. Furthermore, they were also asked to assist Iraq in providing protection to foreign diplomatic and United Nations staff, and other foreign civilians working in the country.

See also[edit source | editbeta]References[edit source | editbeta]
  1. ^ "Security Council condemns in 'strongest terms and without reservation' terrorist attacks in Iraq". United Nations. 4 August 2005.
  2. ^ Cardosa, Amy V. (2007). Iraq at the crossroads. Nova Publishers. p. 45. ISBN 978-1-60021-329-8.

External links[edit source | editbeta]Wikisource has original text related to this article:United Nations Security Council Resolution 1618
[hide]
United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted in 2005


Categories: 
Your SEO optimized title page contents