Only the gagged may speak freely 5

An especially revolting example of the sort of low trick that the Obama administration is happy to play is the deception it has now practised, in the (deeply disgusting) United Nations, giving Islam a victory it has long sought: protection from criticism;  while pretending to do the opposite: protecting free speech. It has done it by a sleight-of-mouth, a cunning piece of wording.

With the help of the State Department, the UN General Assembly has passed a resolution that amounts to a resolution against free speech by means of apparently reaffirming it.

General Assembly resolutions carry no legal force, but this one, like so many others, augments the influence of Islam throughout the world.

This is from CNS News:

The U.N. General Assembly on Monday [December 19, 2011] adopted a resolution condemning the stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of people based on their religion, and urging countries to take effective steps “to address and combat such incidents.”

No member state called for a recorded vote on the text, which was as a result adopted “by consensus.”

The resolution, an initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), is based on one passed by the U.N.’s Human Rights Council in Geneva last spring. The State Department last week hosted a meeting to discuss ways of “implementing” it.

See our post about that meeting, Protecting Islam from criticism (December 18, 2011). What was finally worked out by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, when they went into their conspiratorial huddle, was a formula which they trust will pull the wool over your eyes – as well as your mouth.

Every year since 1999 the OIC has steered through the U.N.’s human rights apparatus a resolution condemning the “defamation of religion,” which for the bloc of 56 Muslim states covered incidents ranging from satirizing Mohammed in a newspaper cartoon to criticism of shari’a and post-9/11 security check profiling.

Critics regard the measure as an attempt to outlaw valid and critical scrutiny of Islamic teachings, as some OIC states do through controversial blasphemy laws at home.

Strongly opposed by mostly Western democracies, the divisive “defamation” resolution received a dwindling number of votes each year, with the margin of success falling from 57 votes in 2007 to 19 in 2009 and just 12 last year.

This year’s text was a departure, in that it dropped the “defamation” language and included a paragraph that reaffirms “the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in strengthening democracy and combating religious intolerance.”

The nod to freedom of expression won the resolution the support of the U.S. and other democracies, with the Obama administration and others hailing it as a breakthrough after years of acrimonious debate.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took the opportunity of the State Department-hosted talks with foreign governments, the OIC and other international bodies last week to stress the importance of freedom of speech in the U.S. She argued that “the best way to treat offensive speech is by people either ignoring it or combating it with good arguments and good speech that overwhelms it.”

Nonetheless, the resolution adopted in New York on Monday does contain elements that concern some free speech and religious freedom advocates.

It calls on states “to take effective measures to ensure that public functionaries in the conduct of their public duties do not discriminate against an individual on the basis of religion or belief.”

Governments also are expected to make “a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures.”

“Effective measures” to counter cases of religious stereotyping and stigmatization include education, interfaith dialogue and “training of government officials.”

And in the worst cases, those of “incitement to imminent violence” based on religion, the resolution calls on countries to implement “measures to criminalize” such behavior.

As Austria has done in the case of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who has been sentenced to a fine or imprisonment for telling a truth about Muhammad that Muslims do not like non-Muslims to mention. See our post Sharia is the law in Austria (December 25, 2011).

Also of note is the fact that the resolution singles out for praise only one interfaith initiative – and that initiative was established by Saudi Arabia, a leading OIC member-state with a long history of enforcing blasphemy laws.

Blasphemy in Saudi Arabia includes saying anything positive about any religion other than Islam, or anything against religion as such, and the penalty is death. 

The resolution commends the establishment of the King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz International Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue, “acknowledging the important role that the Centre is expected to play as a platform for the enhancement of interreligious and intercultural dialogue.” …

The US administration, particularly the State Department, is thrilled with the slimy trick its has brought off:

The U.S. representative, John Sammis, said the United States was pleased to join the consensus.

It had been unable to support previous resolutions of this type because they sought to restrict expression and were “counterproductive,” he said, but the new one upholds respect for universal human rights.

Of course it does nothing of the kind. Quite the opposite. It allows Saudi Arabia to go on cutting people’s heads off for criticizing Islam or preaching a different belief, and encourages Austria to go on fining or imprisoning people for speaking the truth about Muhammad and his nasty religion.

“The United States welcomes all international, national, and regional initiatives that respect universal human rights and that recommend these types of measures to promote interfaith harmony and combating discrimination against individuals on the basis of religion or belief,” Sammis said. “Such initiatives can promote respect for religious diversity in a manner that respects universal human rights.”

“Respect for religious diversity in a manner that respects human rights”. Translation: Gagging anyone who tries to criticize Islam on the excuse that to do so is an offense against human rights.

Another victory for Islam. Another abject defeat for Western values.

The UN must be destroyed.

  • Liz

    How else could you possibly describe the Muslims attitude toward Jews (and Christians) besides “stereotyping, negative profiling, and stigmatization of people based on their religion”?  They wrote the book on it. 

  • Phylo

    Of course this also means that the liberal media is no longer permitted to insinuate that the evangelical Right is somehow whacko. 

    • Jillian Becker

      No, Phylo, it won’t mean that. The resolution is worded to make it seem as if it applies to all religions, but in effect it will apply only to one – Islam. The only intolerant religion is to be protected from intolerance.

      Hillary Clinton would never agree to anything that might curb the liberal press in the least degree (which is okay with us who want no restrictions on free speech, much as we despise the liberal press). But she would probably be happy if the conservative media – Fox News, for instance – were silenced. 

      One more thing. We think all believers in the supernatural are whacko. 

    • Don L

      I don’t think that’s correct…?  Only Islam is protected.  The evangelical right is whacko!  And, Islam is a filthy, degenerate, violent and disgusting faith practiced by cowards and losers.

  • Fan of Heather Mac Donald

    Oh Freedom of Speech, I’m going to miss you when you’re gone!!