Combating Defamation of Religions

A/63/53 2008 944kb .pdf resolution begins on p.126, 16 item enumerated list, 3 pgs.

A/HRC/10/L.2
2009 approx 35kb, Microsoft Word format. 18 item enumerated list.

Both of these sources have other related documents available, visit them to learn more.
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain http://www.eyeontheun.org/

[Emphasis added.]

Concern:
2008

  1. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of all religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief;
  2. Also expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations and emphasizes that equating any religion with terrorism should be rejected and combated by all at all levels;
  3. Further expresses deep concern at the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;
  4. Expresses its grave concern at the recent serious instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media and by political parties and groups in some societies, and at the associated provocation and political exploitation;

2009

Noting with concern that defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, could lead to social disharmony and violations of human rights, and alarmed at the inaction of some States to combat this burgeoning trend and the resulting discriminatory practices against adherents of certain religions and in this context stressing the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam and Muslims in particular,

7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism and in this regard regrets the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination they experience;

Action items:
2008

  1. Urges States to take actions to prohibit the dissemination, including through political institutions and organizations, of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence;
  2. Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;

2009

  1. Reaffirms that General Comment 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which the Committee stipulated that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred;
  2. Strongly condemns all manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and migrants and the stereotypes often applied to them, including on the basis of religion or belief, and urges all States to apply and, where required, reinforce existing laws when such xenophobic or intolerant acts, manifestations or expressions occur, in order to deny impunity for those who commit such acts;
  3. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, and to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs;
  4. Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through education and awareness building;
  5. Calls upon all States to exert the utmost efforts, in accordance with their national legislation and in conformity with international human rights and humanitarian law, to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are fully respected and protected, and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration or destruction;

Compare Item #2 from ’08 with #7 from ’09.

  • attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations
  • Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism

The source is easily identifiable.

  • Three, Islam is deliberately equated with terrorism and extremism. Those whipping up frenzy against Muslims use fundamentalism as a pretext but they are really concerned about the growing influence of the educated, modern and moderate Muslims in Europe, and North America who are moving into mainstream politics and businesses. http://missions.itu.int/%7Epakistan/2005_Statements/CHR/stoicpope_21sep06.htm

In Moral Standing: the Complaint I established the fact that Fitna is one of the chief targets of the continuing campaign to impose censorship. Accurate description of the doctrines & works of Islam is broadly equated with “against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general”. When the Danish cartoons and Fitna were published, did Christian mobs chant threats & execrations? Did they attack embassies, shoot or stab religious workers or burn buildings?

Pointing out the the Qur’an’s Jihad, genocide & terror enjunctions, confirmed by hadith & codified in Shari’ah, is not hate speech, neither is it racism. As if the remarks of Masood Khan were not enough, examine the condemnation issued by the Secretary General of the U.N.

“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.” Reuters

I detailed the hypocrisy of that statement in You’ve Been Mooned! The right of free expression is at stake whenever the U.N. and its appendant bodies are in session. They seek to criminalize the uttering & publishing of information essential to collective recognition of and defense against a barbarian campaign of genocidal conquest which has cost 270 million lives in the last 1400 years.

Advertisements

Unfairness Doctrine: Temporary Setback

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. ” Benjamin Franklin [http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ot-quotes.html#QFree]

“Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech.” Benjamin Franklin [http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ot-quotes.html#QFree]

From News Max comes word that Senator Jim DeMint’s Broadcaster Freedom Act passed the Senate 87-11 as an amendment to an unrelated bill giving a voting representative to Washington D.C. Senator Dick Durbin’s Ownership Diversity amendment also passed 57-41.

The Socialists seek to squelch dissent, to silence dissenting voices by imposing economic penalties, denial of licensing, “local advisory” boards or restrictions on broadcast station ownership.

If they can restore “equal time” requirements, forcing broadcast stations to waste air time on left wing radio shows that can not draw and retain audience share, the loss in revenue will force broadcasters to drop the more popular conservative shows.

If they can set limits on how many stations a corporation can own, and issue more licenses to “minority owners” who are presumed to be more Socialistic in their outlook, they hope to reduce the number of stations carrying the more popular conservative shows.

If they can force broadcasters to institute “local advisory” boards, stacked with left wingers, who will whine & caterwaul about airing conservative opinions, they will have another excuse to deny licenses to those broadcasters.

In every case, the objective is to penalize broadcasters who provide what we want to hear. The Socialists want to assure a monopoly for their agenda driven house organs which print and broadcast their propaganda on their schedule without asking critical questions to expose their incompetence & corruption.

In a Representative Republic, an informed electorate is necessary to ensure competence and fiduciary trust. In the long run, an informed electorate is necessary to assure the preservation of liberty and prosperity. The Socialists want a one sided debate; a monologue, not a Dialogue. Competent electors will recognize the fact that “just us” is not justice.

There is nothing fair about the so called Fairness Doctrine; it is the acme of unfairness. When broadcasters operate in a free market, listeners vote with their tuners. They seek out the stations and programs they want and ignore the rest. Broadcasters sink or swim by adjusting their programming according to consumer demand. Pelosi, Schumer, Durbin & Stabenow seek to defeat the market so as to cement their party in power forever.

Far from fairness, theirs is an Unfairness Doctrine; an unconstitutional imposition of censorship. In their Orwellian lexicon, fairness is anything that benefits them and disadvantages their critics and electoral opponents.

In their campaign to squelch dissent, they rely on a shibboleth which, if carefully examined, reveals their dishonesty & corruption. “Public Airwaves” is their favorite. When it comes to radio, there is no such thing. Radio is not dependent on air, it would work just as well in a vacuum. It works by modulating electromagnetic radiation: “radio waves” with with sound. The waves are locally generated, on demand, by oscillators, modulated and amplified, all with privately owned electronic equipment and powered by electricity which the broadcasters pay for. There is no public resource involved.

The FCC allocates frequencies and sets power limits to assure that broadcast stations do not interfere with or jam each other’s signals. There is absolutely no rational basis for the unconstitutional censorship which the Socialists seek to impose upon their critics. The Socialists have a near total monopoly in the daily& monthly print media and in broadcast & cable television. A.M. radio is the one market they do not control, and they seek to monopolize it.

This issue is about content: they seek to stop speech which criticizes them, which questions their intentions, methods, policies, connections and effects. They don’t want us to hear the truth about their associations and policies. They would muzzle the guard dog and silence the canary in the coal mine.

Make no mistake, freedom of expression is necessary to facilitate full and complete debate of all sides of vital public issues. That is why the first Amendment protects it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html] [Emphasis added.]

Conservative talk radio is simply speech, translated into amplified radio frequency energy, amplified. & broadcast. Nothing in that process should remove it from the umbrella of first amendment protection. The fact that the Socialists seek unconstitutionally to censor it should prove to you that the Socialists are unworthy and unqualified to lead & legislate and should be removed from office at the next election.

The same forces seeking to censor talk radio also seek to censor the Internet. If they made conservative newspaper columns and editorials illegal, their violation of the Constititution would be immediately recognized as such. The only difference between news print and the Internet is the means of transmission and reproduction. Much of the content is transmitted both ways. Make no mistake, they’ll outlaw this blog if they can get away with it, just as they seek to outlaw Rush Limbaugh and his colleagues & competitors.

While the Broadcaster Freedom Act has intrinsic merit, it will, in the long run, have little effect because it can be repealed by a simple majority vote. The Constitution is our only real protection; it must be rigorously enforced. Once the Socialists pack the Supreme Court, we will lose our last line of defense.

Now is the time, while we still have our voices; while we can still say, hear, write and read the truth without penalty, to make maximal use of our Constitutional rights. Rise up and raise Hell! This blog post is placed in the public domain; copy it, cross post it, paste it into an email and broadcast it. Go to http://www.congress.org, enter your Zip Code and click the Federal Officials link. Send an email to President Barack Hussein Obama, your Representative & Senators. Tell them you are wise to their corrupt power grab and will not tolerate it. Tell them that you will not, under any circumstances, cast a vote for anyone who supports or implements unconstitutional censorship. Exhort your Rep. to sign the Broadcaster Freedom Act Discharge Petition. Include a link to this blog post by copying and pasting this html code: UnFairness Doctrine.

Sign and support these on line petitions; exhort everyone you can influence to sign them.

Bear in mind these words of wisdom:

  • “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” [http://www.georgewashingtonsociety.org/Mission.html]
  • “I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool, the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking.”
    By: Woodrow Wilson
    Free Speech Quotes
  • “There is no more fundamental axiom of American freedom than the familiar statement: In a free country we punish men for crimes they commit but never for the opinions they have.”
    By: Harry S. Truman
    Free Speech Quotes
  • “Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free.”
    By: Theodore Roosevelt
    Free Speech Quotes
  • “If the fires of freedom and civil liberties burn low in other lands, they must be made brighter in our own. If in other lands the press and books and literature of all kinds are censored, we must redouble our efforts here to keep them free.”
    By: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
    Free Speech Quotes
  • “Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection.”
    By: Colin Powell
    Free Speech Quotes
  • “There is tonic in the things that men do not love to hear; and there is damnation in the things that wicked men love to hear. Free speech is to a great people what winds are to oceans and malarial regions, which waft away the elements of disease, and bring new elements of health. And where free speech is stopped miasma is bred, and death comes fast.”
    By: Henry Ward Beecher
    Free Speech Quotes
  • Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.William Orville Douglas [http://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/topics/free_speech_t001.htm]

Right of Free Speech

Cross posted by Findalis of Monkey in the Middle


Hat tip to Miss Beth of Miss Beth’s Victory Dance

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. Although it says Congress, the meaning has been made clear over the last 221 years that this august document was ratified and made into the basis of law for the United States of America.

There have been many challenges to this Amendment over the years, but the one point that the courts have all agreed on is that all people have the right to speak their mind, regardless of their race, religion, occupation or political associations. This is a right that many people in the world, even in the Western world, have.

Under the 1st Amendment, the government, whether it is Federal, State or Local, does not have the right to arrest you for your ideas. Even when these ideas are contrary to public belief. Even if they go against the majority opinion. Even if they are bigoted and hateful. You have a right to say and print these ideas.

Until now.

And the censorship has come from Attorneys at that. For in Arizona, the State bar has approved the right to censor private and public speech of the attorneys in that state.

Throwing our constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of association down the drain, the State Bar of Arizona is considering a revision to the attorneys’ oath of office that would silence conservative viewpoints on gay issues. The oath would be revised to add the language in red as follows:

“I will not permit considerations of gender, race, religion, age, nationality, sexual orientation, disability, or social standing to influence my duty of care.”

The State Bar of Arizona is a mandatory association for attorneys wishing to practice law in Arizona. As such, they have the power to revoke the license to practice law in Arizona of any attorney they believe has violated this provision. A clause like this has no place in an oath of office, which should consist of nothing more but generally swearing allegiance to the laws of the land. Adding a controversial restriction on our First Amendment rights in order to promote a politically correct left wing agenda is inappropriate and a gross abuse of power by the Bar. If they go ahead with this curtailing of our rights, there will be plenty of lawsuits, and rightly so.

Please call or email the president of the State Bar of Arizona and express your objection to this outrageous infringement upon our rights, Ed.Novak@azbar.org or 602-340-7239.

Full Story

What sounds like a very innocent idea of not discriminating against a person based on certain criteria, can in fact become the basis of limited the rights of an person to speak their mind, in a public forum, as a private citizen. Thus an attorney with deep religious beliefs would be forced to argue a case in favor of abortion. Or in favor of gay marriage. The Bar Association while trying to be non-discriminatory has in fact forgotten the basic law itself. The right to free expression.

If one group of individuals can be forced to violate their beliefs, what is to stop other organizations from doing the same. How much longer will there actually be a Freedom of Speech in this nation?

Right of Free Speech

Cross posted by Findalis of Monkey in the Middle


Hat tip to Miss Beth of Miss Beth’s Victory Dance

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. Although it says Congress, the meaning has been made clear over the last 221 years that this august document was ratified and made into the basis of law for the United States of America.

There have been many challenges to this Amendment over the years, but the one point that the courts have all agreed on is that all people have the right to speak their mind, regardless of their race, religion, occupation or political associations. This is a right that many people in the world, even in the Western world, have.

Under the 1st Amendment, the government, whether it is Federal, State or Local, does not have the right to arrest you for your ideas. Even when these ideas are contrary to public belief. Even if they go against the majority opinion. Even if they are bigoted and hateful. You have a right to say and print these ideas.

Until now.

And the censorship has come from Attorneys at that. For in Arizona, the State bar has approved the right to censor private and public speech of the attorneys in that state.

Throwing our constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of association down the drain, the State Bar of Arizona is considering a revision to the attorneys’ oath of office that would silence conservative viewpoints on gay issues. The oath would be revised to add the language in red as follows:

“I will not permit considerations of gender, race, religion, age, nationality, sexual orientation, disability, or social standing to influence my duty of care.”

The State Bar of Arizona is a mandatory association for attorneys wishing to practice law in Arizona. As such, they have the power to revoke the license to practice law in Arizona of any attorney they believe has violated this provision. A clause like this has no place in an oath of office, which should consist of nothing more but generally swearing allegiance to the laws of the land. Adding a controversial restriction on our First Amendment rights in order to promote a politically correct left wing agenda is inappropriate and a gross abuse of power by the Bar. If they go ahead with this curtailing of our rights, there will be plenty of lawsuits, and rightly so.

Please call or email the president of the State Bar of Arizona and express your objection to this outrageous infringement upon our rights, Ed.Novak@azbar.org or 602-340-7239.

Full Story

What sounds like a very innocent idea of not discriminating against a person based on certain criteria, can in fact become the basis of limited the rights of an person to speak their mind, in a public forum, as a private citizen. Thus an attorney with deep religious beliefs would be forced to argue a case in favor of abortion. Or in favor of gay marriage. The Bar Association while trying to be non-discriminatory has in fact forgotten the basic law itself. The right to free expression.

If one group of individuals can be forced to violate their beliefs, what is to stop other organizations from doing the same. How much longer will there actually be a Freedom of Speech in this nation?

Prevent Censorship!

The Media Resource Center and allied organizations are seeking endorsement of their petition to Congress in opposition to the the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ and similar censorship plans proposed to silence Conservative talk radio. Reid, Pelosi, Schumer & their ilk are eager to silence voices of reason & common sense such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity & Mark Levin.

Whether they act through direct legislation, FCC rules & regulations; the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ or ‘Local Advisory Councils’, they will move to censor Conservative voices unless we make it known to them that their careers will be severely impaired as a direct consequence of their support for censorship schemes.

Click this link to sign the petition: http://www.mrcaction.org/r.asp?u=14303&PID=18788745.

Here is the text of the petition:

I am signing this petition to urge members of Congress and government officials to reject any and all efforts to censor, limit, or restrain the right of conservatives to participate freely in the marketplace of ideas through the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” or other similar efforts.

Additionally, I am joining with other American citizens who want their individual Free Speech Rights defended and protected from government intrusion! Our great nation was built upon free and open discourse, and to remain a great nation this ideal must be protected and preserved at all costs.

Please note that I will be watching closely and taking action when necessary to directly combat the liberal bias of the media.

It won’t hurt to copy the text of the petition and paste it into an email to your Representative and Senators. You can send those three emails very easily at http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/ .

Either we rise up and raise Hell now or in the next election cycle, the only loud voices heard will belong to the Socialists and their media allies; our side will be entirely silenced.

Do you need more information? The MRC has links in their left sidebar. Do you need more arguments? You’ll find them here: Shibboleth: ‘Public Airwaves’ and here: The Fairness Doctrine. See also: Fairness Doctrine Watch: A “progressive” attack on talk radio and Fairness Doctrine Me Arse! .

The Unfairness Doctrine does not have a monopoly on censorship. At the United Nations, the Organization of the Islamic Conference is attempting to ram through the latest version of their Combating Defamation of Religions Resolution. The proposed resolution, expected to come up for a vote between December 18 & 22, calls for national and international laws to censor criticism of Islam. Here is my latest post about the resolution: Defamation of Religions Resolution Revised.

Only 53,209 have signed the ACLJ petition against the UN Defamation Resolution. Now is the time for you to add your endorsement! Why not send an email to your Representative & Senators demanding withholding of foreign aid & MFN status from any and all nations voting for the resolution or abstaining? No guts, no liberties!

FITNA Redux

LiveLeak has had to remove Fitna due to the following:

From the The Jawa Report:

Video follows this message of explanation just posted at Liveleak:

“Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been
left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.

This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to
place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would
like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and
religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a
vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.
Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a
discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can
accept one anothers culture.

We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high

Never fear, YouTube has the movie up here:

FITNA Redux

LiveLeak has had to remove Fitna due to the following:

From the The Jawa Report:

Video follows this message of explanation just posted at Liveleak:

“Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been
left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.

This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to
place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would
like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and
religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a
vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.
Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a
discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can
accept one anothers culture.

We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high

Never fear, YouTube has the movie up here: