Nations: Islam’s Gestapo
corruption, anti-Semitism and now censorship.
Friday, April 11, 2008
While the United Nations has disgraced itself over the years with
sporadic eruptions of the first three negatives, it added another one
last March 28 when its Human Rights Council passed a disturbing
resolution that directs the body’s expert on free speech to report on
“individuals and news media for negative comments on Islam.” In effect,
the UN will now become the Islamic world’s censorship watchdog, snooping
out undefined acts of Islamophobia around the globe.
other religion is covered by the Muslim-backed resolution that will most
likely see the curtailing of free speech in some countries. But perhaps
more ominously, although the UNHRC has no power of enforcement, lists of
alleged malefactors will be drawn up, giving the Council’s recent action
a definite, totalitarian ring.
Motioned by Egypt and Pakistan, not the sturdiest pillars of human
rights themselves, and supported by Islamic and African countries, the
resolution passed by a 32-0 vote. Muslim countries were upset by the
Danish cartoons, published in 2005, depicting the prophet Muhammad and
have been demanding limitations on free speech since then. The recent
release of the Geert Wilders film, Fitna, reinforced their
insistence on such restrictions, which FrontPage Magazine
columnist Robert Spencer says are all part of the 57-member Organization
Islamic Conference’s strategy to protect Islam from alleged
Journalist Caroline Glick wrote in her column in the Jewish
World Review that the United Nations had violated its own
Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression,
when it passed the March 28 resolution. Glick also pointed out that it
was surprising when the UNHRC’s European members abstained from the
vote, since they are such staunch supporters of the UN.
abstaining, the European nations, those supposed bastions of human
rights and free speech (especially when it comes to blaspheming
Christianity), simply showed what moral cowards they truly are, putting
their dhimmi status on display once more in failing to stand up to
Several countries that still have a backbone did speak out against this
atrocious violation of human rights and freedom of expression. The
United States, which does not have a seat on the 47-nation UNHRC but has
observer status, did not stay silent. Warren Tichenor, America’s
ambassador in Geneva, told the body: “The resolution seeks to impose
restrictions on individuals rather than to emphasize the duty and
responsibility of governments to guarantee, uphold, promote and protect
Canadian delegate supported Tichenor’s view with his statement: “The job
of a special rapporteur is not to police the action of individuals.”
that is exactly what is going to happen. Up until now, the duty of the
UNHRC’s free speech watchdog was to report on efforts by despotic
governments and dictatorships (like many of those on the UN’s Human
Rights Council) to restrict freedom of expression. With the March 28
resolution, the tip of the spear has now been turned around against
individuals, like Wilders and the Danish cartoonists, who practise their
basic right to freely express themselves.
Western observers also believe the resolution will give repressive
regimes, both Islamic and non-Islamic, a further excuse to crack down on
dissent in their own countries. But even worse, it will give such states
an opportunity to meddle in the affairs of democratic countries, using a
phoney victim status as cover for their aggression.
defence of the resolution, Muslim representatives like Pakistan’s
ambassador, Masood Khan, said the measure was only trying to make
“freedom of expression responsible,” while protecting Islam from its
worst practices that only defame the Muslim faith and incite religious
hatred and racism.
if Islamic countries passed this resolution to protect religion from
hatred and intolerance, then they and their motion have a severe
credibility problem. Muslim discrimination against other religions in
Islamic countries has been well documented. For example, in Pakistan and
Egypt, the two countries that proposed the anti-free speech motion,
Christians are a persecuted minority.
Pakistan, according to a story in the German newspaper, Die Welt,
a form of “religious apartheid” is practised against Christians, who are
regarded as “fair game” for those who wish to maltreat them. While
Muslim women need four male witnesses to convict a man who rapes them, a
Muslim man who rapes a Christian woman is never convicted. As well, the
persecution has become so intolerable Christians have committed suicide
in Pakistani courtrooms in front of judges out of protest.
Caroline Glick writes that, in Egypt, the persecution of the Christian
Coptic Church has been institutionalized and liberal critics of the
Egyptian government have been silenced. In both countries, Muslim
persecution even extends to fellow Muslims who wish to leave Islam,
since this could result in their deaths.
Calling for religious tolerance and responsible freedom of expression in
international forums is obviously much easier than practicing it at
home. The scene in the film Fitna where a three-year-old girl
says she learned from the Koran that Jews are monkeys and pigs is all
one really needs to know about the true attitude toward these two
virtues the UNHRC’s Islamic countries are espousing.
this incredible hypocrisy does not stop at the United Nations and at the
borders of Islamic countries. Last month, just prior to Easter weekend,
the president of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, insulted Christians and Jews
worldwide when he went to Uganda and called the Bible a forgery.
a country that is 85 per cent Christian, the Libyan leader told Ugandan
Muslims in a stadium where they had gathered to celebrate the prophet
Muhammad’s birthday that since the Bible did not mention Muhammad, it
was not the real Bible, because both Moses and Jesus had foretold the
coming of Islam’s prophet.
“The Bible we have now is not the one that was revealed to Issa (Jesus)
and the Old Testament is not the one that was revealed to Musa (Moses).
It means that it has been forged,” Gaddafi said, adding the real Bible
has yet to be discovered.
Unsurprisingly, there was no angry outcry from fellow Muslim leaders
over Gadaffi’s hurtful remarks. No members of the OIC, which strongly
condemned the Geert Wilders film and to which Libya belongs, censured
Gaddafi and called him to account. Neither did any of those abstaining
European countries or even the Secretary General of the United Nations,
Ban Ki-moon, who called Fitna “offensively anti-Islamic.”
Just imagine, though, if Australia’s or Canada’s prime minister had
called the Koran a forgery. Islamic moral outrage and European
condemnation would know no boundaries. Cyprian Kizito, the Catholic
archbishop of Kampala, Uganda’s capital, rightly pointed out: “Had the
Christians said something similar about the Koran, there would have been
while the religious feelings of Uganda’s Christians were deeply hurt by
their Muslim guest, who had arrived in their country to open a new
mosque, their peaceful, non-violent response was instructive.
hope by doing this, we shall be giving a lesson to our Muslim brothers
to always stay calm,” said a Ugandan bishop.
is a safe bet that the Ugandan example is a lesson the OIC and the
Muslim-dominated UNHRC will never learn, let alone take to heart.