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.

Advertisements

AdHoc Cmte: Pakistani Submission

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.

Pakistan’s submission to the committee begins on page 39 and ends on page 41. Since Pakistan acts as the representative of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, there is an emphasis on protecting Islam from criticism. It refers to Human Rights Council decision 3/103, which created the committee, and to ICERD.

The submission lists several “Action Points”, the following items are from that list. [Emphasis added.]

  • further defining the existence of link between an act of incitement and the likelihood of a violation, or the threshold required for reaching such a determinant consistent and uniform application and maximize protection for actual or potential victims.
  • development of new internationally binding normative standards in the area of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance while incorporating the following contemporary issues;
  • defamation of religions, religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols,
  • provocative portrayals of objects of religious veneration as a malicious ` violation of the spirit of tolerance,
  • 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,
  • racio-religious profiling,intolerance and discrimination,
  • incitement to religious hatred, discrimination and violence,
  • abuse of the right to freedom of expression in the context of racio-religious profiling, negative or insulting stereotyping, incitement to
    hatred and violence,
  • Islamophobia, xenophobia, and ideological racism,
  • new instrument should provide for;
    • mandatory prohibition by law to- eliminate racio-religious profiling or profiling based on any grounds of discrimination recognized under
      international human rights law with provisions for legal action against perpetrators, as well as legal guarantees to remedy and reparation for victims,
    • legal restrictions on the dissemination or distribution or production, in public or otherwise, of all ideas in any farm based upon racial and religious superiority or hatred and incitement to hatred, and violence,including by use of modern information and communication technologies,
    • legal prohibition of publication of material that negatively stereotypes, insults, or uses offensive language cm matters regarded by followers of any religion or belief as sacred or inherent to their dignity as human beings, with the aim or protecting their fundamental human rights,
    • legal restriction to public insults and defamation, public incitement to violence, threat against a person or a grouping of persons
      on me grounds of their race, color, language, religion, nationality, or national or ethnic origin,

    The bottom line: Pakistan & the OIC join with Iran in demanding national and international legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam. Western Civilization is under attack by Islam. Effective and adequate defense requires objective identification & description of the enemy and its doctrine set. The proposals from Iran & Pakistan are designed to hamper our self defense efforts.

    They imply that the Danish Cartoons, which portray Muhammad as a terrorist, which, by his own admission he was, constitutes defamation of religion. They imply that Fitna, which juxtaposes Allah’s Jihad imperatives in the Qur’an with Islamic violence, constitutes defamation of religion. They demand that all such expressions be criminalized.

    Ad Hoc Cmte: Iranian Submission

    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.

    The Iranian submission begins on page 12 of the pdf. and ends on page 17. Although capturing the attitude & meaning of the document through excerpts is not satisfactory, I will not reproduce the entire five page submission here. You can click through to the pdf file and enter 12 in the page window to go directly to the full text of the submission.

    The pdf is a scanned document, requiring the use of ocr to cull excerpts. Unfortunately, the printer which created the document needs a head cleaning, and the plate on which it was scanned is dusty, so that ocr was extremely difficult. I have therefore run the spelling checker on the excerpts, they may deviate slightly from the original, but care has been taken to avoid changing the meaning of the text. [Emphasis added.]

    The Iranian submission is not novel, it rehashes malicious malarkey from previous resolutions. The following documents were referenced in the text.

    They are off to a fast start in their Introduction, asserting that Islamophobia is a growing trend, becoming pervasive and often officially condoned.

    The growing trend of defamation of religions is arising from the following factors: the conflation of race, culture and religion, concept of clash of civilizations and religions, all these provides fertile soil for the defamation of religions.
    And also on the fight against terrorism, based on defense of national identity and security, it is reduced to religious
    dimension.

    Note the clause which I emphasized. Who is it that conflates race with religion? If you can’t answer that question, re-read the initial post in this series :
    Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards, paying close attention to the quote from the report of the African Regional Conference in preparation for the Durban Review.

    Unfortunately, insults and intolerance against Islam are being provided intellectual justification by Western scholars
    and political lobbies who espouse anti-Islamic agendas, hence lending support to ideological violence against
    Muslims. Sophisticated slogans are used to provoke systematic insults against Islam. This phenomenon reflects
    the Islarnophobia which afflicts segments of western society.

    This paragraph inverts cause and effect. We developed anti-Islamic agendas precisely because of Islam’s anti-Christian & anti-western doctrines, agendas & actions. Our accurate descriptions of Islamic doctrines & practices are labled insults and intolerance. Accurate and well documented descriptions of Islamic sanctification & mandate of genocidal conquest and terrorism are labled “insults” and “intolerance”.
    The last paragraph of the introduction is severely overloaded by implicit reference to the documents listed and linked above.

    Lack of action to prevent the reprinting of blasphemous caricatures, and indifference in airing the inflammatory documentary against the holy Quran will be perceived as manifestation of insincerity towards the principles and objectives of various efforts within the United Nations system aiming at promoting understanding and respect among cultures and civilizations. [Links added.]

    It should now be clear to you that the Iranian agenda includes criminalizing criticism of Islam, specifically the Danish Cartoons and Geert Wilders’ Fitna.

    The cartoons depict Muhammad as a terrorist, which, by his own admission, he was. He never threw a bomb, because explosives were invented after he died. he used the primitive weaponry available in the seventh century to terrorize his victims with ruthless slaughter. If you do not comprehend this fact, open your Qur’an to 33:26, 59:2 & 59:13 and read them carefully.

    Fitna demonstrates the obvious connection between Islamic doctrine enshrined in the Qur’an. This fact is documented in another blog post. It is extremely unlikely that anyone else will reveal to you the source of Islam’s intense determination to criminalize criticism of itself. I will: It comes from Islamic law, codified in Reliance of the Traveller. Book O, which treats of “Justice”, includes an outline of the conditions imposed upon dhimmis, who were “people of the book” subjugated by Muslims under a “treaty of protection”. Chapter 11.10 lists five acts which violate the treaty of protection and subject the dhimmi to immediate execution. Here is the fifth item in that list.

    -5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

    The perceptive reader will want to know what is impermissible to mention. O8.7 lists 20 items which entail apostasy, and describes the list as nearly endless. Here are a few relevant items from that list.

    -1- to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah;

    -2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;

    -3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as “Allah is the third of three,” or “I am Allah”-unless one’s tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief;

    -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

    -5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

    -6- to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

    -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

    -14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak’a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);

    -15- to hold that any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

    (n: `Ala’ al-din’ Abidin adds the following:

    -16- to revile the religion of Islam;

    -17- to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;

    -18- to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;

    -19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

    -20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24). )

    By now you must be wondering about the penalty. Islamic law has that covered, too.

    O8.1

    When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

    O8.2

    In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

    Islamic law is clear on its face: any criticism of Allah or his Messenger gets you killed. The Ad Hoc Committee On Complementary Standards is only the latest tool developed in pursuit of that objective.

    Under the heading of “Legal Aspects”, Iran describes the cartoons & Fitna as “inconsistent with the spirit of the UN Charter” and various resolutions.

    The elimination of discrimination and the protection against Intolerance is in part a matter of legal protection.

    They jabber on with quotes about universal freedom, equality and dignity, without finding anything relevant to the matter at hand. The next paragraph is mired in excrement.

    Crucially, according to- article 20, paragraph.2 of the ICCPR, ” any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law” This provision represents a clear limitation to-the night to fee speech which according to article 19 of the ICCPR carries with it special duties and responsibilities.

    The cartoons do not advocate hatred, nor do they incite discrimination, hostility or violence. The same is true of Fitna. Few will perceive the irony in Islam’s specious assertion: it is their own scripture, tradition & jurisprudence which advocates hatred and incites violence. If Article 20 were to be enforced, the Qur’an, hadith & Shari’ah would be banned as incitement to violence!

    The committee on civil and Political Rights in its general comment 11 provided that these required prohibitions are fully compatible with the right to freedom of expression as contained in Article 19, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities. This is clear indication that human rights instruments recognize provisions against incitement to religions hatred as being a completely legitimate- safeguard against the abuse of the right to free speech.

    Iran is asserting that accurately describing Allah’s genocidal Jihad imperatives which are found in Surahs Al-Anfal & At-Taubah and confirmed in Sahih Bukhari’s Books of Jihad, Khumus & Expedition and codified in Reliance of the Traveller Book O, Chapter 9, Paragraphs 8 & 9 must be legally prohibited as “incitement to religious hatred”. Islamic obedience to those imperatives has resulted in 270*106 premature deaths in the last 1400 years but we must be prevented, by judicial penalties, from mentioning it.

    Identifying the enemy and describing his doctrines is characterized as an abuse of free speech. This is nothing less than the aggressor’s program for depriving us of the ability to defend ourselves against his aggression.

    The last section of the submission is under the heading of Programme of Action.

    In sum, the right to freedom of expression should be exercised with the responsibilities and limitations as prescribed by law. The international community should initiate a global dialogue to promote a culture of tolerance and peace based on respect for human rights and cultural diversity and urges states, NGOs, religious bodies and media to support and promote such a dialogue. Developing the human rights language to address emerging issues such as defamation of religions was an important step forward that is of interest not only to Muslims but to all the internatioual community.

    Our freedom of expression must not include mention of Islam’s aggressive doctrines & practices: conquest, genocide & terrorism. A culture of tolerance and peace means being led, dumb like sheep, to the slaughter.

    Islamic Republic of Iran urges the Ad hoc Committee on the elaboration of complementary standards to call upon the States to stop the publication of blasphemous caricatures, Elms and media as well as the campaigns for anti-Islamic regulations to take all possible legal and administrative measures to prevent continuation of these deliberate offensive acts, which impinge greatly on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion of the followers of Islam.

    They want to add wording to ICERD to criminalize every criticism of Islam. How in Hell does anything we write or say impinge on the liberty of Muslims? Why must they be allowed to continue in the arrogant assumption that they have a divine right and mission to kill, enslave, rape, pillage & plunder us?

    Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards

    Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards

    What does that title tell us? Only that a special purpose committee was instituted. “Complementary Standards” tells us nothing about its purpose. Complementary to what? What standards might the committee complete?

    We have only a high sounding title, for a committee instituted by men with lofty titles and low morals: the United Nations Human Rights Council.
    Ms. Navanethem Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has a hint for us.

    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.

    They are talking about adding a protocol to the International Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The protocol would be enforceable international law, binding on the signatories. You probably overlooked some key words.

    • contemporary aspects of racism.

    What the Hell does that mean? It does not mean hating people because of their skin color, physiognomy or supposed inferior culture.

    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 implies irrational fear and loathing. Considering Islam’s historical record of 270*106 innocent victims, there is nothing irrational about fearing or loathing Islam.

    Islam is a war cult, not a race. It was contrived by an Arab, but it has enslaved people of several races, and due to their large population base and high rate of reproduction, Asian Muslims now outnumber Arab Muslims.

    The next post in this series will examine the suggestions submitted to the committee by The Islamic Republic of Iran.

    Inter Religious Idiocy

    JTA (Article by Eric Fingerhut July 23, 2009)

    The Foundation for Ethnic Understanding sponsored a conference of Rabbis & Imams to promote ethnic understanding. At the end of the four days of meetings, including visits to New York City and Washington D.C. , a joint statement was issued. Selected excerpts are reproduced below. [Emphasis added.]

    • We should explore together the commonalities in our faiths and traditions. We affirm here that we respect the sanctity of each other’s houses of worship and will stand together in case of an assault on either a mosque or a synagogue. We also stand in solidarity with each other in affirming that both Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are wrong and unacceptable, and we will fight against them together. Bigotry against any Jew or any Muslim is an attack on all Muslims and all Jews. In addition we are united in support of human rights for all peoples.


    • We denounce all forms of violence in the name of any religion or ideology and will do everything we can to prevent the spread of extremism in the name of any faith—including our own.


    • We feel sorrow and pain over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the great suffering it has brought to both peoples involved in that conflict. We pray for a non-violent resolution of that conflict that will allow both Palestinians and Israelis to live with dignity in peace and security. We have resolved to work together to strengthen Muslim-Jewish ties in our own countries and around the world. We will not allow future eruptions of violence in the Middle East to derail our efforts to strengthen Jewish-Muslim ties in Europe and North America because we understand that good Muslim-Jewish relations are necessary for the health of our own communities and our societies.

    The condemnation of “Islamophobia” stands out as a token of idiocy or insincerity. Fear and loathing of Islam is not irrational, since 270*106 innocent people have been slaughtered by Islam in the last 1400 years. Bigotry against Jews is founded in the Qur’an, including 1:7, 2:76, 3:64-65, 4:47, 9:30 & 98:6.

    Denunciation of “all forms of violence in the name of any religion” stands out as a clear case of al-taqeyya. Jihad against Jews is mandated by Surah At-Taubah 29. Renouncing Jihad is an act of Apostasy punishable by death under Shari’ah. Refer to Reliance of the Traveller, O8.7-7.

    Considering the Qur’anic mandate to make war upon Jews and the hadith which prescribes the final genocide as a prerequisite for Judgment Day, the prayer for non-violent resolution of the attempted reconquest of Israel rings hollow.

    Durban II Sham Revision: the Details

    Eye on the UN has published the Durban II revision of 03/17/09. Having read that document, I find that my earlier criticism remains valid.
    A/CONF.211/PC/WG.2/CRP.2
    [Font color & links added; background color in original, signifying text which has been voted on and approved.]

    I find the following listed members of the enumerated list to be unacceptable for the reasons included in this list.

    • 1, 2 : The DDPA is unacceptable due to its demonization of Israel and demand for Islamic blasphemy laws.
    • 3, 4, 9, 10, 16: “racism” & “related intolerance” are code words for “Islamophobia” which is a code word for saying “or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam” [ O11.10-5]
    • 8, 65, 100: thinly veiled attacks upon our attempts at promoting homeland security against Islamic terrorism.
    • 11, 66, 67: “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law; these prohibitions are consistent with freedom of opinion and expression: Those are code phrases for criminalizing publications such as Fitna and delegitimizing the first amendment! Refer to which details Secy. Genl. Ban Ki-moon’s exemplary condemnation of that video.
    • 17: “need to increase appropriate preventive measures to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination” : a veiled demand for legislation criminalizing criticism of Islam.
    • 25: “competent, independent and impartial judiciary to determine in a fair and public procedure whether acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance are prohibited by international human rights law”: a veiled reference to court shopping for biased jurists who will jail us for uttering & publishing the truth about Islam.
    • E: “enhancement of the United Nations and other international mechanisms in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”: a veiled reference to exploitation of international conventions to criminalize criticism of Islam.
    • 26: “call upon States to diligently apply all commitments resulting from international and regional conferences in which they participated, and to formulate national policies and action plans to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;”: a veiled demand for legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.
    • 30: includes by reference Ad hoc Committee on the Elaboration of International Complementary Standards , which demands legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.
    • 50, 51, 53, 54: ” comprehensive and universal approach to preventing, combating and eradicating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”: a veiled demand for legislation criminalizing criticism of Islam.
    • 55: “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…”:Orwellian inversion of language,
    • 56: “the right to freedom of opinion and expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society, since it ensures access to a multitude of ideas and views;”: another egregious inversion of language!
    • 97: “to declare illegal and to prohibit by law 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”: a thinly veiled attack on Flemish & Dutch Freedom Parties which object to Islamification of Europe.
    • 119: “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”: a clear reference to self-censorship; the media which did not re-publish the Danish cartoons.
    • 130: shameless promotion of blasphemy laws.
    • 133: continued co-operation with the O.I.C in demanding imposition of blasphemy laws.

    Samples:

    Review of progress and assessment of implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action by all stakeholders at the national, regional and international levels, including the assessment of contemporary manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

    A. Sources, causes, forms, and contemporary manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance

    1. Reaffirms the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) as it was adopted at the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR) in 2001; [adopted ad ref. ISWG]

    1. Recognizes with deep concern the negative stereotyping of religions and the global rise in the number of incidents of racial or religious intolerance and violence, including Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and anti-Arabism;
    2. Reaffirms that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law, as well as the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority and hatred and acts of violence and incitement to such acts, and that these prohibitions are consistent with freedom of opinion and expression;
      1. Recognizes that prevention, combating and eradication of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance are of crucial importance and key elements for the promotion of cohesion and peaceful resolution of community tensions; [adopted ad ref. informals]
      2. Stresses the need to increase appropriate preventive measures to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination, and emphasizes the important role Governments, international and regional organizations, national human rights institutions, the media, non-governmental organizations and civil society can play in developing such measures and in building confidence; [adopted ad ref. informals, revised by Chair]
      1. Stresses the need for a comprehensive and universal approach to preventing, combating and eradicating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in all parts of the world; [adopted ad ref. ISWG]
      2. Stresses the need for advocating and mobilizing the political will of relevant actors at all levels to eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; [adopted ad ref. ISWG, revised by Chair]
      3. Calls on States to undertake effective media campaigns to enhance the struggle against all manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, inter alia, by disseminating and giving adequate visibility to the DDPA and its follow-up mechanisms; [adopted ad ref. ISWG, revised by Chair]
      4. 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 as a matter of priority;
      5. Calls on States to combat impunity for acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, to secure expeditious access to justice, and to provide fair and adequate redress for victims;

      I call upon President Barack Hussein Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the United States Senate and the European Union to withdraw from, Boycott, discountenance and condemn the Durban II Conference. There is no ground for acceptance of any of the O.I.C.’s contumacious demands no matter how they are veiled or concealed by indirect references and Orwellian inversions of our language.


      Durban II Sham Revision

      Anne Bayefsky reports in Forbes: “Obama Should Denounce Durban II “.

      She reports that a revised draft of the Durban II resolution drops certain offensive language, but commences with a reaffirmation of the DDPA of ’01.
      Inclusion of that reaffirmation brands the revision as an unacceptable sham. While she gives us some paraphrases and brief quotes, no link to the revision is provided in her report or any of the available news reports of the revision.

      In the absence of authoritative text, I reject the revised draft on the basis of what it affirms. Bear in mind while reading the following quotes from the DDPA,, that wherever “racism” is printed, you must read “Islamophobia”. 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;


      DDPA
      pg 12

      59. We recognize with deep concern religious intolerance against certain religious
      communities
      , as well as the emergence of hostile acts and violence against such communities
      because of their religious beliefs and their racial or ethnic origin in various parts of the world
      which in particular limit their right to freely practise their belief;

      60. We also recognize with deep concern the existence in various parts of the world
      of religious intolerance against religious communities and their members, in particular limitation
      of their right to practise their beliefs freely, as well as the emergence of increased negative
      stereotyping
      , hostile acts and violence against such communities because of their religious
      beliefs and their ethnic or so-called racial origin;

      61. We recognize with deep concern the increase in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia
      in various parts of the world, as well as the emergence of racial and violent movements based on
      racism and discriminatory ideas against Jewish, Muslim
      and Arab communities;

      62. We are conscious that humanity’s history is replete with terrible wrongs inflicted
      through lack of respect for the equality of human beings and note with alarm the increase of such
      practices in various parts of the world, and we urge people, particularly in conflict situations, to
      desist from racist incitement, derogatory language and negative stereotyping;

      pg. 15

      79. We firmly believe that the obstacles to overcoming racial discrimination and
      achieving racial equality mainly lie in the lack of political will, weak legislation and lack of
      implementation strategies and concrete action by States, as well as the prevalence of racist
      attitudes
      and negative stereotyping;

      80. We firmly believe that education, development and the faithful implementation of
      all international human rights norms and obligations, including enactment of laws and political,
      social and economic policies
      , are crucial to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and
      related intolerance;

      81. We recognize that democracy, transparent, responsible, accountable and
      participatory governance responsive to the needs and aspirations of the people, and respect for
      human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are essential for the effective prevention
      and elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. We
      reaffirm that any form of impunity for crimes motivated by racist and xenophobic attitudes plays
      a role in weakening the rule of law and democracy and tends to encourage the recurrence of such
      acts;

      85. We condemn political platforms and organizations based on racism, xenophobia
      or doctrines of racial superiority and related discrimination, as well as legislation and practices
      based on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, as incompatible with
      democracy and transparent and accountable governance. We reaffirm that racism, racial
      discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance condoned by governmental policies violate
      human rights and may endanger friendly relations among peoples, cooperation among nations
      and international peace and security;

      86. We recall that the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or
      hatred shall be declared an offence punishable by law
      with due regard to the principles embodied
      in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of the
      International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination;

      pg. 48

      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;

      Those expressions are absolutely unacceptable to lovers of liberty; they should never have been uttered, published & promulgated and must not be affirmed because they constitute a thinly veiled demand for the global imposition of Islam’s blasphemy law.

      Paragraph 150 calls for all states to criminalize Islamophobia through effective legislation. There is no such entity! Phobia implies irrational fear & loathing. Islam has earned fear & loathing; the former intentionally, as celebrated in 33:26 and 59:13. A war cult responsible for 270 million deaths over the last 1384 years is worthy of loating.

      Shari’ah is unacceptable, whether it is imposed by force, legislated directly or sneaked in through the back door. It plainly states that we may be executed for saying anything “impermissible” about Islam.

      Yes, indeed, President Barack Hussein Obama should denounce the sham revision of the Durban II draft. I doubt that he will, I expect him to accept the sham as an opportunity for “engagement”. I will be pleasantly surprised if he does permanently denounce it.