Ad Hoc Cmte: Non-Paper

On December 5, 2008, there was issued, on the letterhead of the High Commissioner For Human Rights, by Ambassador Idriss Jazairy, President of the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards, a “Non-Paper Paper” and a cover letter explaining its purpose. [Emphasis & links added.]
[Due to the use of OCR to extract quotes from scanned document images, there will be some spelling errors and a few Anglicized words will be Americanized. ]

The purpose of this “Non paper” is to stimulate a constructive debate on the content and the framework of major areas of vulnerability which for reasons of substance and/or of procedure suffer from protection gaps. Some of these areas are related to the contemporary manifestations of racism, ~ racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.The purpose of this “Non-paper” is also to invite concrete responses and recommendations based on its content.

The Ambassador set forth the Non Paper’s terms of reference.

• Paragraph 199 of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action that recommended to the Commission on Human Rights, now replaced by the Human Rights Council, to elaborate complementary intenational standards aimed at strengthening and updating international instruments against all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
• Decision 3/IO3 of the Human Rights Council that decides, in pursuance of decision and instruction of the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance to establish an Ad Hoc Committee of the Human Rights Council with the mandate to elaborate, as a matter of priority and necessity, complementary standards in the form of either a convention or additional protocol (s) to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racism, racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related Intolerance that will ill the existing gaps in the Convention and also provide new normative texts aimed at combating all forms of contemporary racism, including incitement to racial and religious hatred.
• Resolution 6/21 of the Human Rights Council on the elaboration of new international complementary standards to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The following listed phrases are critical because they are encoded to conceal the true intentions of the committee.

• all forms of racism
• related intolerance
• incitement to racial and religious hatred

We must always bear in mind how the United Nations twist the English language!!! The following quote is from 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;

Islamophobia = racism!!!

The Ambassador directed the member states to keep in mind::

all views expressed and contributions made within the framework of the follow-up mechanisms of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, including:

• The survey of the five experts on the nature and the scope of substantive gaps, with regard to issues of content in the existing international instruments to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (A/HRC/4/W G.3/ 6) ;
• The document of the Committee on the Elimination of racial discrimination on possible measures to strengthen the implementation of the final observations by adopting new recommendations by updating its monitoring procedures (All-IRC/4/WG.3/7)
• The responses provided by the Committee ou the Elimination of racial discrimination to the questionnaire by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights pursuant to decision PC.1/ 10 of the Preparatory Committee of the Durban Review Conference (A/CON’F.2l1/PC.2/CRP.5) including the relevant points of view made by the Members ofthe Committee on behalf ofthe latter; ~
• The Report of the 5^th session of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective implementation of the Durban Conference and Prcgrarnmc of Action (A/HCR/6/10) and all relevant recommendations and conclusions adopted by this Group since its creation, particularly those contained in document(AH.CR/AC.!/I/CRP.2);
• The discussions that took place during the first session of the Ad hoc Committee on complementary standards, held from 18 to 2l February 2008.

The Ambassador lists the following revelations from the two previous sessions.

• There is global collective agreement and commitment expressed during the 2001 World Conference against racism on the principle of claborating international complementary standards to strengthen and update the international instruments against all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (para 199 of the Durban Programme of Action);
• However, no consensus was reached on how the specific form of/manner of giving concrete expression to this commiuncnt in priciple;
• We must also bear in mind the ensuing debate on the links between articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on civil and political rights and the expert meeting of 2 and 3 October 2008, whereafter it was reiterated that the fundamental right of freedom of expression is compatible with the prohibition of any call for national, racial or religious hatred which constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence;
• It is thus imperative to reach the largest possible agreement, through the Ad hoc Committee on complementary standards, on concrete ways and means to implement the commitment in principle made: during the 2001 World Conference against racism.
• The approach suggested to achieve this goal is to stimulate, in a positive and inclusive spirit, concrete proposals on the fields and themes laid out in the “Non paper” for which complementary standardized provisions or other measures designed to fill protection gaps, are necessary.

Of course, the revelations repeat certain code phrases.

• all forms of racism
• related intolerance

Next, we encounter a reference to ICCPR.

• the fundamental right of freedom of expression is compatible with the prohibition of any call for national, racial or religious hatred which constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence

Muslims, liars, lawyers & U.N. bureaucrats do not use words the way normal people do. “call for national, racial or religious hatred which constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence” means any criticism of Islam, specifically the Danish Cartoons & Fitna. In this context, it is asserted that censorship of criticism of Islam does not interfere with freedom of expression.

The Non-Paper begins with a listing of its Purpose, scope and parameters:

• Implementing paragraph 199 of the Programme of Action of the World Conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in which the Conference “Rec0Recommends that the Commission on Human Rights prepare complementary international standards
• to strengthen and update international instruments against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in all their aspects”, as well as the relevant Human Rights Council resolutions, in particular decision 3/103 .
• The need to enhance efforts to counter contemporary and emerging forms of manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
• The need to strengthen the monitoring procedures of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination with a view to enable it to undertake the responsibilities entrusted to it in a more effective manner.
• The need to address double or multiple discrimination a continuing source of concern, as it affects certain individuals and groups, in particular gender-related racial discrimination and double discrimination on the grounds of race and religion.
• The imperative to ensure that measures to combat terrorism respect the fundamental principles and the universally recognized standards of international law, international human rights law and international humanitarian Law.
• The urgency of addressing racial profiling and eliminating it as a pervasive form of discrimination.
• The need for uniform and consistent application of the law at the national and international levels to ensure the effectiveness of international efforts to counter racism and racial discrimination.
• The need to recognize that The prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred and the prohibition of incitement to national, racial -· or religious hatred are compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression.
• The principle of regarding provocative portrayals of objects of religious veneration as a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance which must also be a feature of democratic society.
• The need to re-emphasize that the prohibition of publication of material with the aim of protecting the rights of others and against seriously or gratuitously offensive attacks on matters regarded as sacred by the followers of any religion is a legitimate State objective.
• The need for national and international law to provide adequate legal responses to propaganda of a racist and xenophobia nature committed through computer systems.
• The need to follow the growing trend in many States to include, in their criminal I legislation, offenses in which religious motives are an aggravating factor.

Once again, the code phrases rear their ugly heads.

• related intolerance = Islamophobia = any criticism of Islam.
• contemporary and emerging forms of manifestations of racism = Islamophobia = any criticism of Islam.
• measures to combat terrorism respect the fundamental principles and the universally recognized standards of intemational law, international human rights law and international humanitarian Law. This is a direct attack on surveillance of young Muslim males, such as the “magnificent 19” and other perpetrators of mass casualty attacks. Suspicion of Muslims = “racial profiling”:.
• racial profiling
• The need to recognize that The prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred and the prohibition of incitement to national, racial -· or religious hatred are compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression. A repetition of the egregious attack upon free speech. The reference is to the Danish Cartoons and Fitna.
• provocative portrayals of objects of religious veneration as a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance This is another reference to the Danish Cartoons.
• The need to re-emphasize that the prohibition of publication of material with the aim of protecting the rights of others and against seriously or gratuitously offensive attacks on matters regarded as sacred by the followers of any religion is a legitimate State objective. Refer to the quotes from Reliance of the Traveller in the initial post of this series.
• propaganda of a racist and xenophobia nature committed through computer systems. This is an attack upon blog posts and web sites which expose Islam’s damnable doctrines.

Eight specific themes are listed, here is #3.

3- Terrorism, racial discrimination and racial profiling:

1. A definition of racial profiling, prioritizing human rights protection, could be elaborated and agreed upon.
2. States must ensure that measures to combat terrorism do not discriminate, in purpose or effect on ·grounds of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as on religious grounds, bearing in mind in this context the intersectionality between racial and religious discrimination.
3. Profiling based on stereotypes founded on grounds of discrimination prohibited by international law, including on racial, ethnic and/or religious grounds must be prohibited by law.

Who practices terrorism? Are the majority of terror attacks perpetrated by little old ladies from Iceland? Terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam, established as such by 3:151, 8:12., 8:60, 33:26, 59:2 & 59:13. When you hear hoof beats, they probably come from horses, not from unicorns. Profiling according to current trends in the identity of perpetrators is common sense. Islam is acting through the UN to disarm us.

The fifth listed theme gets down to detail.

5- Incitement to racial, national and religious hatred

1. There is a need for further clarifying and reinforcing at the international level existing obligations on the eradication of all incitement to hatred and ‘ discrimination in any form and to prohibit by law, propaganda for war and advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
2. In this context, complementary standards to be developed should observe the following parameters:
• Article 4 of ICERD shall be extended to the crime of incitement to racial hatred covering offenses motivated by religious hatred against immigrant communities.
• The protection provided shall extend to all individuals and groups within the jurisdiction of the State Party.
• The prohibitions shall equally cover acts committed by any individual, group or organization, including political and media organizations as well as by national or local public authorities.
• The provisions shall apply to any act which, in purpose or effect, incites discrimination, hostility or violence.
• In order to achieve consistent and uniform application and maximize protection for actual or potential victims, any doubt as to the existence of a causal link between an act of incitement and the likelihood of a violation, or the threshold required for reaching such a determination, shall be interpreted in a consistent and coherent manner at the national and international levels so as to ensure appropriate protection of the concerned individuals or groups.
• Addressing acts constituting incitement shall apply whether such acts have aims which are internal or external to the State concerned.
• Requisite standards would explicitly not prohibit advocacy of the sovereign right to self-defence or the right of peoples to self-determination and independence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
• Requisite complementary standards shall include the prohibition of publication of material that direct seriously offensive attacks on matters regarded by followers of any religion or belief as sacred or inherent to their dignity as human beings, with the aim of protecting them against such attacks.
3. In line with the above parameters, States’ general obligations would include:
• Undertaking to promulgate, where they do not exist, a specific legislation prohibiting any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
• Asserting, in the relevant specific legislation, that such propaganda and advocacy are contrary to public policy.
• Providing for appropriate sanction, including of a criminal nature, in case of violation.

The listed item under sub section c would appear to be straightforward. It is not. Muslims, liars, lawyers and U.N. Bureaucrats do not use the English language to communicate, they use it to deceive! In evidence whereof I cite the egregious remarks of the Secretary General on the subject of Fitna, the short documentary by Girt Wielders.

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.”

Fitna does not incite violence, it documents incitement contained in the Qur’an and propagated by Imams in their Mosques

The program of the Ad Hoc Committee runs parallel to the programs of the General Assembly and Human Rights Council in their resolutions combating “defamation of religion” and that of the Durban II review conference. Those programs are documented in detail and their egregious hypocrisy exposed and documented in the following listed blog posts..

• You’ve Been Mooned!
• U.N. Bans Criticism of Islam: Pretext.
• United Nations Ban Criticism of Islam
• Defamation of Religions Resolution Revised
• UN Renews Censorship Demand
• UN Resolutions Revisited: Defamation of Religions
• Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 1
• Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 2
• Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 3
• Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 4
• Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 5
• Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 6
• Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 7

AdHoc Cmte USA Submissionrelated intolerance,complementary standards, Islamophobiarelated intolerance,complementary standards, Islamophobia

Outline for the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards Consultations

An additional mechanism, the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards was created by the Human Rights Council in 2006 to fill gaps in CERD, and to provide new normative standards aimed at combating all forms of contemporary aspects of racism.

The committee’s mission is to write new international legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam. They solicited suggestions from the member nations to get the process started. Islam, because it is false and malicious, can not tolerate criticism. Islamic law prescribes the death penalty for any criticism of Allah, Moe, and their doctrines. Muslims, acting through the OIC and its clique in the United Nations, are demanding the enactment and enforcement of national and international legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam. While specifically complaining of the Danish Cartoons and the short documentary created by Geert Wilders, their demand for censorship is much broader.

Unlike Iran and Pakistan, the United States did not submit demands for criminalizing criticism of Islam. Unfortunately, the two page submission, which begins on page 26, displays an a high level of cognitive dissonance. [ Emphasis added.]

The United States wishes to reiterate its committment to fighting racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and looks forward to working with other States contributing to initiatives that promote tolerance and respect for diversity. The United States is home to individuals from diverse racial, religions and ethnic backgrounds. .We are profoundly aware of the destructive consequences of racism and understand the concerns that have given rise to the work of this Committee.

“Related intolerance” is a code phrase for “Islamophobia”, which is equated with racism. There is no rational basis for fighting rational objections to Islamic doctrine and practice!

The United States has learned from the experience in our own country how crucial robust free expression and a thriving marketplace of ideas are to the promotion of tolerance, religious freedom, greater understanding among individuals of different backgrounds, and ultimately to the defeat of racist and discriminatory ideas in societies. Similarly, the United States believes in the importance of engaging in proactive governmental outreach and policies to
assure racial, ethnic, and religious groups are protected and respect for diversity is promoted. Such governmental outreach can take a variety of forms, including the holding of town hall meetings and conferences with affected groups to listen and learn of the challenges they face and develop ways for the government to better address their concerns. These actions, which are based upon a moral and social responsibility to combat advocacy to national, racial or religious
hatred, rather than a legal obligation to punish hateful expression, are essential to simultaneously maintaining robust free expression and allowing the government to take an active role in the promotion of tolerance and respect.

This would appear, at first glance to be a robust defense of our first amendment freedom of expression. But an examination of the first listed objective throws a bucket of cold water on that hope. “promotion of tolerance”, in this context, can only mean tolerance of the intolerable: Islam.

Combating advocacy to religious hatred requires combating Islam because Islamic doctrine expressed in the Qur’an is the primary source of religion based hatred.

“Rather than a legal obligation to punish hateful expression” is a loaded clause which, while appearing to deny demands for blasphemy laws, actually condemns the Danish Cartoons, Fitna, and all other truthful negative expressions about Islam. as “hate speech”.

“Promotion of Tolerance and respect” is an indication of irrational idocy. In the current context, it can only mean “tolerance of and respect for Islam”. Islam is not worthy of respect and must never be tolerated because it is perpetual war and confers an open season license to kill, enslave, rape, pillage & plunder.

The United States does not believe that amendments to the international human rights legal framework – or new interpretations of existing legal obligations – are warranted to fight the scourges cf racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Rather than seeking additional restrictions to expression, the United States advocates for more robust governmental outreach policies with respect to racial, ethnic and religious groups as well as the institution of appropriate legal regimes that deal with discriminatory acts and hate crimes.

Nothing is warranted to fight “related intolerance“, which is a code phrase for opposition to Islam. Ordinarily, I would happily accept the rejection of Islam’s contumacious demand for legislation unconstitutionally restricting my right of free expression. But that rejection is coupled with an implicit acceptance of the enemy’s false premise, which renders it null and void.

The United States views racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance as serious challenges facing the international community and believes they must be dealt with by the Ad Hoc Committee in a methodical and deliberate manner. The United States submits that this process of self-examination and action by international community begin with greater opporttutities to exchange views and address empirical data and practice on matters related to racial, ethnic, and religious diversity, discrimination, and intolerance so as to broaden our common understanding of these important issues and provide a solid foundation f or a broad-based consensus further actions and initiatives.

Inclusion of “related intolerance“, which refers to objections to Islamic doctrine & practice, implicitly accepts the enemy’s false premise and can not be accepted. It makes me ashamed to be an American. How can my government sink so low as to condemn my advocacy of life & liberty and demand that I tolerate the existence of a predatory institution whose mission is mercenary and whose method is to deprive free men of life, liberty and property?

The submission offers a list of suggested substitutes for the legislative program demanded by Islam. It proposes to study the cause of “advocacy of hatred”, ignoring the fact that the damnable doctrines enshrined in the Qur’an, preached in every Mosque and taught in every Madrassa, are the principal source of that advocacy.

Another suggestion constitutes an irrational surrender.

• Evolution of Legal and Policy Frameworks: An assessment of the evolution of domestic legal and policy frameworks dealing with these issues and how effective they have been in dealing with intolerance and discrimination. Such an assessrnent would also review any distinctions made within these frameworks between actions taken based upon a moral and social responsibility to combat advocacy to national, racial or religious hatred on the one hand and those based upon a legal obligation to prohibit such advocacy on the other, and analyze the relative results of each;

To the extent that a person is rational and informed, he will hate Islam, and no attempt should be made to reduce his ardor or extinguish the fire of hatred. Islam is inimical to human life and liberty. Its supremacism, triumphalism and intolerance render it intolerable. The concept of a divine mandate to conquer the world, terrorizing and killing or enslaving everyone who resists is absolutely intolerable. How can there be a legal obligation to prevent rational discussion of the doctrines and practices of a religion of world domination through genocidal warfare?

While ostensibly objecting to demands for legislation eliminating our right of free expression, our government is actually pandering and attempting to appease the enemy by implicitly accepting their false premise.