A press release from Eye on the UN brought a new UN disinformation campaign to light: Anti-racism conference outcome document – what it actually says. [All font attributes in the quotations were added by the author for emphasis and clarity. All links within the quotations, with the exception of the quote from Wikipedia, were added by the author.]
Concerning “defamation of religion”, there were concerns that the outcome document would introduce such a concept and threaten freedom of expression. The document does no such thing.
It unequivocally reaffirms the positive role of freedom of expression in the fight against racism, while also deploring derogatory stereotyping and stigmatization of people based on their religion or belief, as manifested in Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and anti-Arabism.
The outcome document also launches a process to examine how the prohibition of incitement to hatred, a well-established concept as reflected in Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has been implemented in various parts of the world.
Prohibition of incitement to hatred & violence would require the banning of Islam’s canon of scripture, tradition & Jurisprudence.Since the UN and its appendant bodies are dominated by the OIC and its dhimmis & allies, such a ban will never happen.
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is to organize a series of expert workshops on the legislative patterns, judicial practices and national policies in the different regions of the world on the subject in order to assess the level of implementation of the prohibition of incitement.
It is true that “defamation of religion” does not occur in the text of the outcome document. But the demon is in the details.
12. Deplores the global rise and number of incidents of racial or religious intolerance and violence, including Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and anti-Arabism manifested in particular by the derogatory stereotyping and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief; and in this regard urges all the UN Member States to implement paragraph 150 of the DDPA;
150. Calls upon States, in opposing all forms of racism, to recognize the need to
counter anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism and Islamophobia world-wide, and urges all States to take
effective measures to prevent the emergence of movements based on racism and discriminatory
ideas concerning these communities;
13. Reaffirms that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law; reaffirms further that all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts shall be declared offence punishable by law, in accordance with the international obligations of States and that these prohibitions are consistent with freedom of opinion and expression;
This statement: “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement”, is not so narrowly construed as we are expected to assume. This fatal fact is established by the spew from the Secretary General in his irresponsible condemnation of Fitna, the short subject by Dutch M.P., Geert Wilders. Fitna juxtaposes verses of the Qur’an with their real world application from Kutbah to resulting riots. The video quotes Islam’s canon of scripture along with excerpts from video recordings of Kutbah and images of resulting riots. The only expressions of hatred or incitement contained therein are those of Islam’s demon and his acolytes. Read what Ban Ki-Moon said about it.
Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:
“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”
According to the Secretary General, accurate quotation of the Qur’an is hate speech; accurately depicting Muslim clerics screaming for blood is incitement to violence, not protected by freedom of expression.
The draft of October 9 ’08 contained three insertions of “defamation of religion”. While the phrase was deleted, the intention of the authors remains unchanged.
The outcome document contains 79 references to “racism”. We must not ignore the implied meaning of that word. The following quote is from the Preliminary document of the African Regional Conference Preparatory to the Durban Review Conference [Emphasis added.]
4. Emphasizes the urgent need to address the scourges of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and Islamophobia as contemporary forms of racism as well as racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed at African, Arab, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other communities;
The emphasized phrase conflates objections to Islam’s supremacism, triumphalism, aggression, genocide & terrorism with racism.
30. Welcomes the important role played by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and all other relevant special procedures and mechanisms in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and calls on States to cooperate fully with these mechanisms;
A/HRC/7/19, the report submitted by Mr. Doudou Diène, Special Rapporteur 02/20/08 contains 7 references to “Islamophobia”
Efforts to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance are encountering a number of serious major challenges manifested by the following worrying trends, details of which are given in this report: erosion of the political will to combat racism and xenophobia, as shown by the non-implementation of the Durban Programme of Action; the resurgence of racist and xenophobic violence; the growing political trivialization of racism and xenophobia, demonstrated by the spread of racist and xenophobic political platforms and by their implementation through government alliances with democratic parties; the ideological, scientific and intellectual legitimization of racist and xenophobic discourse and rhetoric, which favours an ethnic or racial interpretation of social, economic and political problems and immigration; the general increase in manifestations of racial and religious hatred, and also religious intolerance, reflected in particular in manifestations of anti-Semitism and Christianophobia and, more especially, Islamophobia; and the increasing importance in identity constructs of a rejection of
diversity and resistance to the process of multiculturalization of societies. The Special Rapporteur devotes a chapter to discrimination based on caste, which he considers to be implicit in his mandate.
To reverse these worrying trends, the Special Rapporteur is continuing to promote, in all his activities, the development of a dual strategy: political and legal, on the one hand, aiming to arouse and strengthen the political will of Governments to combat racism and xenophobia and enabling States to acquire the legal and administrative instruments for this purpose, in line with the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; and cultural, intellectual and ethical, on the other hand, targeting the root causes of those trends, in particular the value systems which legitimize them, the identity constructs – including the writing and teaching of history – which support them, and the rejection of diversity and multiculturalism which sustains them.
6. The growth of incitement to racial and religious hatred and the resurgence of manifestations of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and, more particularly, Islamophobia are other particularly worrying trends. They can be attributed to the following: conflation of race, culture and religion; intellectual and ideological questioning of religion; the imbalance between the defence of secularism and respect for freedom of religion; and the supervisory and security-based approach to the practice and teaching of Islam. A particularly worrying element resulting from these developments is the selective and political interpretation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, manifested inter alia by the ideological pre-eminence of freedom of expression over the other freedoms, restrictions and limitations embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
54. Throughout his term of office, the Special Rapporteur has highlighted one of the central causes of the resurgence of racism and its increasing complexity: the conflation of racial, cultural and religious factors. He has consequently paid special attention to the increase in anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and Christianophobia, and hostility to other spiritual and religious traditions. His most recent report on combating defamation of religions,11 which was submitted to the Human Rights Council at its sixth session, must be seen in the context of his earlier reports to the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of Muslim and Arab peoples in various parts of the world, in which he stressed the violence and attacks targeted on their places of worship,
cultural centres, businesses and property following the events of 11 September 2001.12 His report entitled “Defamation of religions and global efforts to combat racism: anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and Islamophobia”13 confirms this worrying trend.
One quote stands out like a sore toe; lets face it directly.
A particularly worrying element resulting from these developments is the selective and political interpretation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, manifested inter alia by the ideological pre-eminence of freedom of expression over the other freedoms, restrictions and limitations embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Doudou Diène let the snake out of the bag. The authors welcome his important role. The sentence quoted above crystallizes the central concept of the document. Contrary to the dishonest statement of High Commissioner Navi Pillay the outcome document places heavy emphasis on restricting freedom of expression.
28. Reaffirms its call upon States to implement all commitments resulting from international and regional conferences in which they participated, and to formulate national policies and action plans to prevent, combat, and eradicate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;
“Racism and related intolerance” means “Islamophobia” which is a code word for any criticism of Islam. The resolution demands legislation to outlaw criticism of Islam.
39. Urges States parties to the Convention to withdraw reservations contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention and to consider withdrawing other reservations; [Link added.]
Wikipedia provides the arcane detail required to comprehend paragraph 39.
The U.S. has attached a reservation to its 1994 ratification of the treaty noting that specifically the treaty’s restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly were incompatible with the guarantees of such freedoms incorporated into the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.[20][21]
54. Reaffirms the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, as well as the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in line with relevant provisions of international human rights law, instruments, norms and standards;
58. Stresses that the right to freedom of opinion and expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society and stresses further the role these rights can play in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance worldwide;
Malicious malarkey!!! Malignant maundery!!! Refer to the disgusting execration of Ban Ki-Moon referenced above. The rightful role of freedom of expression in the fight against intolerance is the full and fully documented exposure of Islam’s intrinsic genocidal aggression. Geert Wilders exposed it with Fitna; I documented it with http://snooper.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/fitna-supporting-documentation/ .
56. Calls on States to take effective, tangible and comprehensive measures to prevent, combat and eradicate all forms and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;
That is another thinly veiled demand for legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.
68. Expresses its concern over the rise in recent years of acts of incitement to hatred, which have targeted and severely affected racial and religious communities and persons belonging to racial and religious minorities, whether involving the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means, and emanating from a variety of sources;
An obvious reference to Fitna and the Danish cartoons.
69. Resolves to, as stipulated in art. 20 of the ICCPR, fully and effectively prohibit any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence and implement it through all necessary legislative, policy and judicial measures; [Link added.]
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Refer once again to Ban Ki-moon’s despicable defamation of Fitna previously quoted .
99. Calls upon States, in accordance with their human rights obligations, to declare illegal and to prohibit all organizations based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote national, racial and religious hatred and discrimination in any form, and to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination;
That is a thinly veiled attack upon the Belgian & Dutch Freedom parties because they oppose the Islamization of Europe.
121. Commends media organizations that have elaborated voluntary ethical codes of conduct aimed at, inter alia, meeting the goals defined in paragraph 144 of the Durban Programme of Action, and encourages consultations among media professionals through relevant associations and organizations at the national, regional and international levels, with the assistance of OHCHR, with a view to exchanging views on this subject and sharing best practices, taking into account the independence of the media and international human rights standards and norms;
144. Urges States and encourages the private sector to promote the development by the
media, including the print and electronic media, including the Internet and advertising, taking
into account their independence, through their relevant associations and organizations at the
national, regional and international levels, of a voluntary ethical code of conduct and
self-regulatory measures, and of policies and practices aimed at:
(a) Combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;
(b) Promoting the fair, balanced and equitable representation of the diversity of their
societies, as well as ensuring that this diversity is reflected among their staff;
(c) Combating the proliferation of ideas of racial superiority, justification of racial
hatred and discrimination in any form;
(d) Promoting respect, tolerance and understanding among all individuals, peoples,
nations and civilizations, for example through assistance in public awareness-raising campaigns;
(e) Avoiding stereotyping in all its forms, and particularly the promotion of false
images of migrants, including migrant workers, and refugees, in order to prevent the spread of
xenophobic sentiments among the public and to encourage the objective and balanced portrayal
of people, events and history;
Paragraph 144 is an obvious demand for self-censorship; note the phrases to which I added emphasis.
134. Takes note of the proposal of the OHCHR, in cooperation with regional stakeholders in all parts of the world, to organize in light of the OHCHR Expert Seminar on the links between art. 19 and 20 of the ICCPR a series of expert workshops to attain a better understanding of the legislative patterns, judicial practices and national policies in the different regions of the world with regard to the concept of incitement to hatred, in order to assess the level of implementation of the prohibition of incitement, as stipulated in article 20 of the ICCPR, without prejudice to the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Complementary Standards;
What is the big deal about the “Ad Hoc Committee on the Complementary Standards”? Its report, of course. The committee generated a proposed protocol to be added to ICERD. The protocol would criminalize “defamation of religions”, as demanded by the OIC. I am unable at present to find the text of the proposal. These references hint at it. A/HRC/10/L.8, Press Release , Joint NGO Statement.
Remember that Fitna constitutes incitement, according to the Secretary General! The outcome document repeatedly demands criminalization of criticism of Islam. Navi Pillay’s assertion that the outcome document does not threaten freedom of expression is proved to be a malicious, malignant lie, obviously intended to disarm us as we seek to protect and preserve our constitutional rights. If we can not name and accurately describe the doctrines & practices of our enemy then, in the words of President Washington, …”then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter”.
The United Nations is a contributor to the problem, not part of the solution. Its leaders are liars, men and women with lofty titles and low morals. To Hell with it and with them! Instead of seeking a seat on the Orwellian UNHRC, the U.S.A. should withdraw from the UN and expel it and its appendant bodies from our territory.
Filed under: Ban Ki-moon, Defamation of Religions, derogatory stereotyping, FITNA, freedom of expression, Navi Pillay, related intolerance | Comments Off on The High Commissioner’s Big Lie Part 2
Miss Beth's Stomping Grounds 