Hillary's Freudian Slip?

    The first paragraph of this excerpt from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's address to the opening of the UNHRC should raise some concern. I have highlighted the last two sentences of that paragraph.  It appears that she conceives of the HRC as a country instead of a council.  Even the United Nations is not a nation, a sovereign entity. The footnote does not help.  If she did not intend to expand the HRC or its parent organization into a sovereign entity, then the footnote should have corrected the slip.

    The paragraph begins with the first sign of insanity: assertion of a possibility of improving a failed institution whose majority bloc is fundamentally opposed to the council's mission.  Any sane person would know that there is no possibility that one out of 47 members of the council could move it onto the right track. 

    A few paragraphs later, Hillary launches into a sore subject: the annual ritual of condemning 'defamation of Islam'.  She pretends opposition to the ritual & resolution, but we know from the "Freedom of Belief and Expression" jointly sponsored by the State Department and Egypt, that Obomination actually favors censorship.   The transparently false distinction between 'defamation of Islam' and 'negative stereotyping of Islam' stinks like an open sewer.

    Insults?  Stating the fact that Islam's 52 year old founder married the six year old daughter of his bosom buddy, as recorded in muttawir ahadith, is not an insult, it is a statement of historical fact, as is his consummation of that marriage three years later, when Aisha was nine.

    Stating the fact that Islam declared and is prosecuting perpetual warfare against the rest of the human race is not an insult, it is a statement of fact. Since the Qur'an has been translated into multiple languages and posted on the internet, it is possible for us to read it and discover the truth for ourselves.

    Stating the fact that terrorism is an intrinsic, foundational sacrament of Islam is not an insult, it is a statement of fact.  The six canonical hadith collections, like the Qur'an, have been translated and uploaded so that we can  learn that Moe was made victorious by terror. The fatal facts become clear  when certain Qur'an verses are read in the light of Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 and 1.7.331.  Those are 3:151, 8:12, 8:57, 8:60, 9:120,  33:26, 59:2 & 59:13. Yet the resolutions complain that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with terrorism and human rights violations.".

    So Hillary proposes replacing the resolutions with "concrete steps to fight intolerance".  Would she tolerate vampires if they were real instead of mythological?  But she insists that we tolerate the continued existence and expansion of a piracy cult which has murdered an estimated 270,000,000 people since it began its depredations in 622.

    Why  would any sane person tolerate a piracy cult that asserts a divine mandate to conquer the entire world;  declaring the lives and property of non-believers  not to be sacred?  They declare open season on us and we are supposed to tolerate it.  Someone's  head is so far up her anus that she can  perceive neither objective factual reality nor justice. 

    Respect & tolerance must be reciprocal, but Islam is supremely intolerant.  The Qur'an curses us and calls us the worst of living creatures. Islam can not tolerate criticism or questioning because it is false, woven of stories plagiarized from previous faiths. 

    Islam's Shari'ah law prescribes the death penalty for any negative expression about Allah, Moe and their damned cult. The same draconian rule is imposed on conquered Christians.  This annual attempt to impose their rule on us is part of their program of world conquest. We must elect a President who will jam it up their snouts!

[...] In 2009, the United States joined the Human Rights Council because President Obama and I believed we could make a difference by working with you on the inside rather than standing on the outside merely as a critic. And over the past 18 months, we have worked together. We’ve reached across regional lines in an attempt to overcome what hobbles this country^[i] more than anything else, our divisions as member states. The unity of purpose we have forged with respect to Libya offers us an opportunity to continue that progress.

[...]

For example, in this session we have an opportunity to move beyond a decade-long debate over whether insults to religion should be banned or criminalized. It is time to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression and pursue a new approach based on concrete steps to fight intolerance wherever it occurs.

[...]

[i] council more than...

Sphere: Related Content

Ad Hoc Committee Leaves Work Unfinished

UN Watch published, in their blog, links to two apparently recent proposals for the protocol to be added to ICERD by the Ad Hoc Cmte. for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards. [The pdf files contained scanned images, not text, so OCR was required. The format will not be an exact match and there may be errors I failed to spot. ] [Emphasis added.]

Provisions of these proposals are in dispute. It appears that the committee has been bogged down in procedural matters & disputes so that our freedom of expression may be safe for a few months at least, until their next session.

Proposals by Pakistan on behalf of OIC

1. State Parties States shall prohibit any propaganda, practice, or organisation aimed at justifying or encouraging any form of racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discrimination targeting people of particular groups, such as religious groups, refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons, stateless individuals, migrants and migrant workers, communities based on descent, such as people of African descent, indigenous people, minorities and people under foreign occupation.

2. State Parties shall immediately undertake to adopt positive measures designed to eliminate all incitement to racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discrimination in and, to this end, shall commit themselves, inter alia:

1. to declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas aimed at racial, ethnic, national and religious discrimination or hatred, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any particular group of persons;
2. to declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which encourage and incite racial hatred or discrimination, and shall declare participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;
3. not to permit national or local public authorities incite racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discriininationg,
4. not to permit political parties incite racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discrimination. .
5. to strengthen their legislations or adopt necessary legal provisions to prohibit and suppress racist and xenophobic platforms and to discourage the integration of political parties who promote such platforms in govermnent alliances in order to legitimising the implementation of these platforms.

3. States Parties shall, in accordance with the human rights standards, declare illegal and to prohibit all organizations based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote national, racial and religious hatred and discrimination in any form.

4. States Parties shall 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.

To decode the substance of the highlighted expressions, we must keep one linguistic abuse constantly in mind:

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;

That boilerplate from the Durban II Preliminary Document conflates criticism of Islam with racism. Consequently, references to racism in subsequent documents must be read more broadly.

What constitutes incitement to religious hatred? In effect, any negative expression regarding Islam. This fact becomes clear when we examine the documents behind previous resolutions: Fitna & the Danish Cartoons. The Secretary General made the matter abundantly clear.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

According to the Secretary General, a documentary juxtaposing verses from the Qur'an and the ravings of Imams with riots in the Arab street constitutes hate speech and incitement. Geert Wilders proved that the Qur'an inculcates hatred and preaching it incites violence. That is truth, not hate speech! The obvious intention and effect is to make all criticism of Islam a criminal offense.

ICCPR

Article 20

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

If Article 20 of ICCPR was enforced, the Qur'an would have to be outlawed as propaganda for war and advocacy of religious hatred inciting violence.

It is likely that the OIC's proposal will be included, along with boilerplate from previous resolutions, in the anticipated Defamation of Religions resolution. The Nigerian proposal differs: it omits provisions 3 & 4.

Compare the OIC's proposal to Article 4 of the Ad Hoc Cmte Draft Document. See also my analysis of the Pakistan/OIC submission made last spring.

Sphere: Related Content

Combating Defamation of Religions: Anticipation

In May of '09, the OIC issued their 2nd oic observatory report on islamophobia (june 2008 to april 2009). that fifty page pdf file may be our best guide in anticipating the content of the '09 Defamation of Religions Resolution which is expected to be submitted on or before November 3; voting may begin Nov. 12. As of the time of this writing, no draft resolution has surfaced. In anticipation of the resolution, Open Doors has begun a Free to Believe petition campaign asking UN member states to reject the resolution.

Our first warning flag is found in the first sentence of the report's forward.

The common values of mankind must be based on a firm commitment to human rights¹, as well as on the recognition of the inherent dignity of all human beings².

1. Download Islam vs Human Rights to see how well Islamic doctrine complies with international human rights covenants.
2. Read Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 to see Islam's respect for human dignity; our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and we have no rights until we become Muslims.

The second paragraph of the forward is rich and thick with lies.

Islam is a religion that implies "peace" by its very nomenclature³. It advocates respect for all religious beliefs and embraces the truth of the preceding Abrahamic faiths⁴. In reaffirming the preceding prophethoods, it does not, under any circumstances and as a matter of belief, permit any attack on the prophets or other religious symbols of Christianity or Judaism⁵. In this context it must be emphasized and understood that Islam is not a contender of Christianity or Judaism⁶.

3. Islam is peace if and only if submission is peace. Submission is peace to the extent that, if you surrender to Islam, it won't wage war against you.
4. The Jews earned Allah's anger and the Christians went astray. 9:30. And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!
5. Read The Defamation of Jesus Christ to learn how Islam denies his patrimony, crucifixion, death & resurrection and depicts him as a genocidal warlord.
6. Allah's Jihad imperatives, expressed in 9:29 & 9:123 prove the fact that Islam is in a permanent state of war against Jews & Christians.

The third paragraph of the forward is a gold mine of lies, with a little truth mixed in.

Islamophobia signifies the contemporary proliferation of discrimination against Muslims and distortion of Islam and is partly due to the ignorance and lack of understanding of Islam in the West⁷. It would be an unfortunate error in judgment in believing that Islam is linked to terror⁸; that it is intolerant of other religious beliefs⁹, that its values and practices are not democratic¹⁰; that it favors repression of freedom of expression and undermining human rights¹¹.

7. Phobia implies irrational fear & loathing. Is it irrational to loathe an institution which has murdered 270,000,000 people in the last 1386 years? I hate Islam, but I do not distort it; I reveal its evil nature by means of its own canon of scripture, tradition, exegeses & jurisprudence. I am attempting to correct popular ignorance and lack of understanding of Islam.
8. Islam is linked to terror by Allah's declaration that he would cast terror, order to mutilate in conjunction with his casting of terror, declaration that he successfully cast terror, and Moe's declaration that he was made victorious by terror.
9. Allah said that if anyone sought a religion other than Islam, it would never be accepted. Allah commanded Muslims to fight pagans until only Allah is worshiped. Is that tolerance?
10. 33:36. It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error. How democratic is that?
11. The issue of Defamation of Religion & Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolutions results from the OIC's promotion of censorship.If waging war against us does not violate human rights, what does?

In the fourth paragraph, we receive our first hints at the resolution to come.

Islamophobia is a manifestation of racial discrimination¹². It constitutes a two stranded form of racism anchored in both the different physical appearance of Muslims as well as the intolerance of their religion and cultural beliefs. It has now spread to the level of mainstream political activity¹³ and needs to be considered and addressed as one of the most serious threats to the
world’s stability.

12. Criticism of Islam has been equated to racism since the preliminary document for Durban II. Accusation of racism is a favorite method of stifling debate.
13. That is an obvious reference to emerging European parties which object to Islamification.

Following a little consolidation, they'll give us another hint. Muslims are suffering from the Danish Cartoons, Fitna and blog posts that reveal orthodox Islamic doctrines. Muslims are so delicate and temperamental that they require a legal shield to protect them from perceived insult. They are burning homes & churches and killing Christians in Africa & Asia but it is Muslims who need protection from attack. Yeah, right.

The frequency of demonic portrayal and misrepresentation of Islam and Muslims have resulted in a situation where the identity of Muslims,
their self-esteem, human dignity and human rights has suffered tremendously. In short, Muslims need to be afforded protection against the social and psychological damage inflicted by the negative stereotyping and smear campaign which has wrongfully caused discrimination, bigotry, harassment and mental and physical abuse.

It is not extremely clear, we must read between the lines to harvest the next hint from the redundant maundery.

A section of the western media is a major factor in the formation of the collective misrepresentation about Islam and Muslims¹⁴. This has been spreading in the impactful areas of information¹⁵, education and the fertile grounds for the dissemination of the open hostility and the entrenchment of hatred against it.

In the present globalized world, peaceful and harmonious coexistence among diverse religions and cultures is not an option but the only means to survival¹⁶. Spectacular achievements in sphere of information and communication technology that have transformed our world into a single community afford threats as well as opportunities for peaceful coexistence¹⁷. They present mankind with tools to incite hatred and intolerance; discrimination; and distortions of religious and cultural beliefs that can spark violence causing loss of innocent lives and damage to property¹⁸. On the other hand, they can be utilized to do the reverse if we have the collective will not to allow their use to preach hatred and intolerance of other religions and cultural beliefs¹⁹.

14. The media will continue to be a target, as it was in the Durban II Draft, Paragraphs 17, 66 & 119 and paragraphs 3(e) & 8 of the more recent Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution passed by the UNHRC. We can expect them to demand self-censorship again. .
15. "Information" is a code word for the internet. They want to censor blogs and web sites. The reference to education means they want to convert our schools into indoctrination centers to convert our children to Islam.
16. Translation: "embrace Islam and you will be safe", a common theme in Moe's extortion letters.
17. "Threats" means they want to shut down our blogs and web sites. "Opportunities" means they want to set up propaganda sites to recruit converts by concealing the truth about Islam while extolling its non-existent virtues.
18. "Spark violence" is a reference to the Danish Cartoons, which did not cause violence. The violence was caused by rabble rousing sermons at Juma Prayers in Mosques.
19. Clarity at last! The demand for censorship is out in the open.

The conclusions and Recommendations section on page 26 of the pdf reinforces the lies I exposed earlier and the call for Dialogue which they brought out in the Executive Summary, which I did not cover. The Dialogue pitch is boilerplate from past resolutions.

The OIC proposes a frank, sincere and result oriented Dialogue²⁰ geared to curbing Islamophobia through promoting better understanding of different cultures and religions as well as better integration of Muslims in the West²¹. The OIC has remained firm in its commitment towards bringing about a meaningful Dialogue among civilizations and has been working closely with its international partners including the Alliance of Civilizations towards intercultural understanding and defeating the propagators of hatred and intolerance²².

20. The Dialogue got its big start with "A Common Word between Us and You", sent by the Ulema to Pope Benedict XIV. That missive is so full of al-Taqeyya & kitman that I created a new blog, Go Burn With Muhammad to expose it. Moe's idea of Dialogue was 'you surrender or we conquer you'. The modern Dialogue is more subtle, but the bottom line is the same.
21. Many Muslims do not assimilate, they form enclaves and eventually demand the privilege of operating them under Shari'ah.
22. The OIC is practicing projection. Islam is the propagator of hatred and intolerance. Those who doubt this fact should read the litany of hateful and violent Qur'an verses in the Calcutta Quran Petition.

On page 27, paragraph h gives us another important clue. They are going to push for a protocol to ICERD. The protocol, unlike the resolutions passed by the General Assembly and Human Rights Council, will be binding international law, enforcible by the ICJ. The Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards is currently writing it.

Existing international laws on incitement to religious hatred including the International Convention on All forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief, the Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not Nationals of the country in which they live, the Declaration on the rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities and the relevant UN Resolutions must be implemented.

Violation of the above listed covenants is an issue that can and should backfire on Islam. If they were strictly enforced, the Qur'an, hadith, tafsir & Shari'ah would be banned, proscribed by law. We need to make that happen. To the best of my knowledge, the International Qur'an Petition is the only effort along that line.

It is likely that much of the resolution will be boilerplate from previous editions. The '08 Defamation of Religions Resolution is a likely model. My analysis of the Nov. 8 ' 08 draft will either put you to sleep or rouse you to sign the petition at Open Doors.

Sphere: Related Content

UNHRC US Delegation Reveals Treachery

The U.S. Delegation to the UNHRC uttered and published a statement on a human rights report. That statement exposes the Obama administration's treason to scrutiny; I can not resist. I have therefore selected excerpts for dissection. [Emphasis added.]

Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-38_E.pdf

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,UNGA,,,4ab0a9180,0.html

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/493/42/PDF/N0849342.pdf?OpenElement

The Human Rights Council – 12th session
Statement by the Delegation of the United States of America
Delivered by Sarah Cleveland
Geneva, 30 September 2009

While we do not support the concept of “defamation of religions” for reasons well known to this Council, my government is strongly committed to religious freedom and has condemned the use of negative and derogatory stereotypes and discrimination and/or discriminatory policies. We recognize that such stereotyping and discrimination affects individuals of all faiths and races, and express our strong condemnation of the types of such intolerance provided in the report.

It is good to read that the Obama administration does not support the concept of defamation of Islam, but it would be better if they would emphatically condemn it. The term "negative and derogatory stereotypes" raises a red flag. Its implication: 'all Muslims are evil' its reality: Islam is evil. It is a veiled reference to Geert Wilders' video Fitna and the infamous Danish Cartoons. Once that overly broad term is enshrined in law, it will be used to criminalize all criticism of Islam.

As noted in our response to the High Commissioner on the issue of defamation of religion, the United States believes the best way for governments to address the issues underlying intolerance is to develop effective legal regimes to address acts of discrimination and bias-inspired crime; to condemn hateful speech and proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups. We strive to do this while vigorously defending the freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

Crime is crime, regardless of the identity of the victim. Rape or robbery, assault or murder, the effect is the same whether the victims is straight or queer, Atheist or Muslim and ought to carry equal penalty dependent on the offense, not the victim.

Condemning hateful speech raises the issue of definition. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared Fitna and the Danish Cartoons to be hate speech, following the lead of the OIC. From their viewpoint, any truthful criticism of Islam is hateful speech. Their tactical objective is to criminalize all criticism of Islam so that we will be completely disarmed in the war of ideas. The Obama administration is siding with the enemy, against the First Amendment right of free expression.

The advocacy of proactively reaching out to all religious communities ... especially minority groups points out significant hypocrisy.

• condemned the use of negative and derogatory stereotypes and discrimination
• proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups
  

The inconsistency should be immediately obvious to everyone. So should the second incidence of hypocrisy in that paragraph.

• condemn hateful speech
• while vigorously defending ... freedom of expression

When the cartoonists pointed out the fact that Muhammad was a terrorist, their art was condemned as hateful speech. The OIC and its factotums in the UN Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism; I refuted that assertion in Freedom of Opinion and Expression by revealing the source of the association. That is truth, not hate speech. President Obama would condemn it.

Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance are serious challenges facing the international community and the United States believes they must be examined methodically and deliberately. The United States submits that this process of self-examination and action by the international community begin with greater opportunities to exchange views and address empirical data and practice on matters related to racial, ethnic, and religious diversity, discrimination, and intolerance – notably through discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards – so as to broaden our common understanding of these important issues and provide a solid foundation for a broad-based consensus for further actions and initiatives.

You think that racism refers to irrational hatred of people whose skin color is different. That is not what the word means to the OIC and UN. To them, it means criticism of and enmity to Islam.

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;


Since the publication of the Durban II Preliminary Document, when you read racism in a UN document, you can translate it as Islamophobia. No word is safe in the Orwellian UN. Related intolerance is a code phrase for the same concept. Islamophobia implies irrational fear and loathing. What is irrational about fear and loathing of a war cult which has murdered 270*10⁶ people in the last 1386 years?

The Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards has an abstract name which contains no hint of its purpose. The committee is a subset of the UNHRC. Its purpose is to write a legally binding protocol to ICERD. The protocol will make criticism of Islam a criminal offense in international law. The Obama administration just endorsed that damnable program of action which directly contravenes the First Amendment. The details are contained in a series of blog posts.

• Ad Hoc Cmte: Non-Paper 08/04/09 The cmte. President's outline of the program of censorship. This document is crucial to comprehending the related posts which follow in this list.
• Ad Hoc Committee: African Submission 08/03/09 Detailed analysis of the Africa group's proposal to censor critics of Islam.
• Ad Hoc Cmte USA Submission 08/03/09 This nation is governed by irrational idiots & traitors. Read it and weep.
• Ad Hoc Cmte: Pakistani Submission 08/03/09 Detailed analysis of the OIC's proposal to censor critics of Islam.
• Ad Hoc Committee: Iranian Submission 08/03/09 Detailed analysis of Iran's proposal to censor critics of Islam.
• Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards 08/01/09 They aim to add a protocol to ICERD to criminalize these blog posts.

The various national submissions to the committee are contained in this pdf file: Outline for the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards Consultations. The Non-Paper Paper, which makes the objective crystal clear, is contained in this pdf file: http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/7750.pdf.

Sphere: Related Content

Netanyahu Wastes His Breath

An email from UCI informed me of a transcript of remarks by Benjamin Netanyahu. I have selected several excerpts for analysis. David Ben Ariel has an excellent moral critique of the speech.

The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization. It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death. The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day.

Islam vs Harbi is not a function of fanaticism. It is a function of the foundational doctrines of Islam as enshrined in the Qur'an and exemplified in the hadith. Islam began in the seventh century, 610. Muhammad first attacked camel caravans returning to Mekkah, later, as his army grew, he attacked the local Jewish settlements. Muslims are commanded to conquer the entire world for Allah. Muslims are warned that they can not obtain admission to Paradise until they kill the last Jew.

That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction, and the most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world`s most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism? Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

Take action; what action? Sanctions will not have the desired effect. The Imams will continue their bomb project and their oppression regardless of sanctions and resolutions. Bomb the centrifuge plants? That will result in a temporary delay at best. No, it is necessary to invade Iran and remove the regime from power. It is necessary to replace the regime with a secular democracy.

It won't be done because the Security Council operates by consensus. Iran is a client state of China and Russia, who will veto any effective action. None of the mice has the courage to bell the cat.

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

No, the United Nations stands with dictators & tyrants, not with slaves yearning for freedom.

Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy`s civilian population from harm`s way. Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

The UNHRC is loaded with a Muslim majority. It serves the interests of Islam, not the interest of justice and human rights.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth! What a perversion of justice!

Delegates of the United Nations, will you accept this farce? Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.

That is no reversion, the institution has been co-opted and corrupted by the forces of evil, who have never released and will never release their grip on it.

If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity. And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace. Here`s why. When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense.

What legitimacy? What self-defense?

The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us –my people, my country - of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty!

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists? We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.

The UN will always stand with Muslims against Jews because 57 of its members are dominated by Islam and too many other nations are allied with them for economic reasons.

I am extremely offended by the expression: "risks for peace". Israel can not possibly obtain peace by "taking risks". Any and every concession Israel makes will be interpreted as a sign of weakness and lack of will. Any and every concession and "good will gesture" will pay dividends of escalating terror, not of peace. Peace is at the end of a long road that leads to the Islamic cemetery.

Draw a circle around Israel, with a radius equal to the range of the most powerful rocket in Iran's arsenal. Remove all Muslims from the area within that circle and keep them out. Thus you will obtain temporary peace. Otherwise, you will never obtain peace.

There are some fatal facts which must be faced. Few men have the courage to face them. [Emphasis added.]
Why did Umar invade Israel in 638?

Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2477
Narrated Ibn Hawalah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: It will turn out that you will be armed troops, one is Syria, one in the Yemen and one in Iraq. Ibn Hawalah said: Choose for me, Apostle of Allah, if I reach that time. He replied: Go to Syria, for it is Allah's chosen land, to which his best servants will be gathered but if you are unwilling, go to your Yemen, and draw water from your tanks, for Allah has on my account taken special charge of Syria and its people.

Allah took special charge of the Levant on Moe's account, It is Allah's chosen land.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 392:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."

Allah owns the whole world, and he gave it to Moe; the Hijaz was not the only place Moe wanted to rid of Jews.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

"The Hour" means Judgment Day, when the Muslims hope for admission to Paradise. They must kill the last Jew before they can gain admission.

7:167. And (remember) when your Lord declared that He would certainly keep on sending against them (i.e. the Jews), till the Day of Resurrection, those who would afflict them with a humiliating torment. Verily, your Lord is Quick in Retribution (for the disobedient, wicked) and certainly He is Oft­Forgiving, Most Merciful (for the obedient and those who beg Allâh's Forgiveness).

Allah will continually send someone to humiliate and torment the Jews. Who will he send? Ibn Kathir's Tafsir of this ayeh has a clue for us.

In the future, the Jews will support the Dajjal (False Messiah); and the Muslims, along with `Isa, son of Mary, will kill the Jews. This will occur just before the end of this world.

Allah made some promises to the Muslims, here is a sample.

3:125. "Yes, if you hold on to patience and piety, and the enemy comes rushing at you; your Lord will help you with five thousand angels having marks (of distinction)."

13:41. See they not that We gradually reduce the land (of disbelievers, by giving it to the believers, in war victories) from its outlying borders. And Allâh judges, there is none to put back His Judgment and He is Swift at reckoning.

8:66. Now Allâh has lightened your (task), for He knows that there is weakness in you. So if there are of you a hundred steadfast persons, they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a thousand of you, they shall overcome two thousand with the Leave of Allâh. And Allâh is with As-Sâbirin (the patient ones, etc.).

Allah commanded perpetual war against the Jews. Allah will continually send Muslims to humiliate and torment the Jews. Allah will give them victory. Allah will give them an advantage disproportionate to their numbers. Allah will give them the land.

By recapturing a tiny fragment of her ancient patrimony, and defeating Muslims in five wars, Israel proves Allah's promises to be vain. She points to the fact that Allah is an impotent idol. That is the ultimate blasphemy. Muslims can never tolerate it. If Muslims lose their faith, the Imams and tyrants lose their power; they will never tolerate that! They must reconquer Israel, and they will never cease from attacking her until they succeed.

The bottom line: get rid of Islam or suffer perpetual attack. President Obama and the UN side with your enemy; they are not going to help you. You must help yourself. Get a clue before it is too late!

Sphere: Related Content

Rhetoric/Incidents: Islam's Hypocrisy

In the context of seeking hate crime prosecution in a Californian assault case, CAIR brought up a statement by CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper.

“Our nation’s religious, political and community leaders need to address the growing anti-Muslim rhetoric on the Internet and on talk radio that can lead to such incidents,”

Hooper was demanding enforcement of Islamic blasphemy laws, implying that assaults on Muslims are directly linked to criticism of Islam by bloggers and talk radio hosts. He was echoing the rhetoric of U.N. General Assembly and UNHRC resolutions condemning "defamation of Islam".

• Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or
  related intolerance and discrimination against Islam or any other religion, as well as targeting of religious symbols
• Also urges 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, 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;

More recently, the President of the Ad Hoc Committee On Complementary Standards issued a "Non-Paper Paper" outlining strategy for a protocol to ICERD. Pay close attention to this critical excerpt.

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 recent months, there have been news reports of rioting and anti-Christian pogroms in India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria & Kenya. When do those events take place? When did the rioting over the Danish Cartoons take place? Why do riots happen immediately after Juma prayer services? What is preached in those sermons?

Muslims want Fiitna and similar revelations criminalize because the connection between the Qur'an & Islamic sermons and riots is revealed therein. They want this and similar blog posts criminalize because I expose their hypocrisy. Predators who slither in dark crevices and under rocks do not like being exposed in the light of truth.

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.” [Emphasis added.]

The Secretary General labeled Fitna "hate speech" & "incitement to violence" . Click the link and watch the documentary. Where is the hate speech? Where is the incitement? They are only in the Qur'an, hadith & Kutbah displayed; they do not flow from the lips of Geert Wilders.

There is plenty of hate speech and incitement to violence in the Qur'an, enough to make Islam a constant static violation of ICERD & ICCPR. This fact is fully documented in the International Qur'an Petition. It is Islam that must be outlawed, not 'Islamophobia'.

Sphere: Related Content

Defamation of Religions Vote

Eye on the UN reports the results of the UNHRC vote on the "Revised Draft Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions". The resolution is a 357KB Microsoft Word document. Its purpose is to forward the OIC agenda of imposing Islam's blasphemy laws upon the entire world.

Roy W. Brown, IHEU representative in Geneva, provides history and context to this issue in "The Slow Death of Freedom of expression" at Index of censorship.

Partial vote talley from a UN Watch press release;. list of member nations obtained from Wikipedia. I was only able to obtain the No votes and three abstentions. This table tells us who our friends are: the elleven in the middle column. We should reconsider alliance with and aid to the others listed.

For or Abstain	Against	Abstain
Angola	Canada	Bosnia
Argentina	Chile	Brazil
Azerbaijan	France	Mexico.
Bahrain	Germany
Bangladesh	Netherlands
Bolivia	Slovakia
Burkina Faso	Slovenia
Cameroon	Ukraine
China	Switzerland
Cuba	United Kingdom
Djibouti	Italy
Egypt
Gabon
Ghana
India
Indonesia
Japan
Jordan
Madagascar
Malaysia
Mauritius
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Pakistan
Philippines
Qatar
Republic of Korea
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
South Africa
Uruguay
Zambia
23	11	13

Those UNHRC members listed in the first column failed to vote against the resolution which contains these and other egregious statements.

4. Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at creating and perpetuating stereotypes about certain religions, in particular when condoned by Governments;

5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;

6. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general have become aggravating factors that contribute to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of members of target groups, as well as to their economic and social exclusion;

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;

13. 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;

14. 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;

15. Calls upon all States to make the utmost effort, 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;

Since Council members are elected on a regional basis, its membership will always be dominated by Islamic nations and those sympathetic to them. It is therefore impossible for justice, reason or common sense to prevail in the UNHRC. There is no nothing to be gained by seeking membership in that body. I will therefore urge President Obama and my Senators to abandon plans to seek election to the UNHRC and urge them to reject it and its resolutions.We should take no part it its deliberations or its financing.

Readers are urged to use the email form provided by http://www.congress.org/ to send emails to President Obama and their Senators and to include therein this html code which will create therein a link to this blog post.

Defamation of Religions Vote

Sphere: Related Content

Open Letter to the U.S. Senate

Dear Senators:

Bloggers who write about critical public issues invest a great deal of time and effort in the hope of effectively sharing vital information with our fellow citizens and elected officials.

It is frustrating to discover that the fruits of our labor is being passed over with a cursory glance. For example:

1 6th March 2009 17:40:51 0 seconds Firefox 3.0 WinXP unknown

0 Washington, District Of Columbia, United States U.s. Senate Sergeant At Arms (156.33.54.37) snooper.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/un-resolutions-revisited-defamation-of-religion/ snooper.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/un-resolutions-revisited-defamation-of-religion/ No referring link

Some Senator or staffer looked and left, apparently without checking any of the dozen links to vital information contained in that post.
That post is one of the most visited posts on the blog. Because it is outdated, I have updated it with links to more recent posts.

• Quit Aiding Our Enemies!

• Defamation Resolutions: Enough Already!

• Defamation of Religions Resolution Revised

• UN Renews Censorship Demand

• UN: Eliminating Intolerance or Protecting it?

The General Assembly "Combating Defamation of Religions" resolutions are only one facet of Islam's campaign to criminalize criticism of Islam. The Human Rights Council has passed similar resolutions, and similar text is included in the Durban II draft document. All of those resolutions share common fallacies & hypocrisy which I expose and document in these blog posts.

The same conflict continues on another parallel front: "Inter-religious Dialog". You will find posts about that battle front as well as the UNHRC & Durban II in this list of related posts which I urge you to read.

• Durban II: Revised; Reject it!
• UN Resolutions Revisited: Defamation of Religions
• U.N. Bans Criticism of Islam: Pretext
• More UN AssWholliness
• 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
• U.N. Interfaith Dialogue Conference
• Abdullah: On the Level or Sneaky Devil?
• Monologue: Prince Saud Al Faisal Spills the Beans
• Culture of Peace Conference
• You’ve Been Mooned!

In the interest of public education, I will reproduce parts of Book O of Undat as-Salik, which will demonstrate exactly what Islam seeks to accomplish: imposition of its blasphemy laws upon the entire world.

Note the penalty for apostasy:

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.

Emphasis added to make the most important list items stand out: these are acts which will get you decapitated under the rule stated above.

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

(O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

-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;

-8- to mockingly say, ``I don't know what faith is'';

-9- to reply to someone who says, ``There is no power or strength save through Allah''; ``Your saying `There's no power or strength, etc,' won't save you from hunger'';

-10- for a tyrant, after an oppressed person says, ``This is through the decree of Allah,'' to reply, ``I act without the decree of Allah'';

-11- to say that a Muslim is an unbeliever (kafir) (dis: w47) in words that are uninterpretable as merely meaning he is an ingrate towards Allah for divinely given blessings (n: in Arabic, also ``kafir'');

-12- when someone asks to be taught the Testification of Faith (Ar. Shahada, the words, ``La ilaha ill Allahu Muhammadun rasulu Llah'' (There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) ), and a Muslim refuses to teach him it;

-13- to describe a Muslim or someone who wants to become a Muslim in terms of unbelief (kufr);

-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). )

There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)

The following list applies primarily to Kuffar who have been conquered and submitted to a "treaty of protection" as hinted at in 9:29.

Chapter O11.0: Non-Muslim Subjects of the Islamic State (Ahl Al-Dhimma)

O11.1

A formal agreement of protection is made with citizens who are:

-1- Jews;

-2- Christians;

-3- Zoroastrians;

-4- Samarians and Sabians, if their religions do not respectively contradict the fundamental bases of Judaism and Christianity;

-5- and those who adhere to the religion of Abraham or one of the other prophets (upon whom be blessings and peace).

O11.2

Such an agreement may not be effected with those who are idol worshippers (dis: o9.9 (n:) ), or those who do not have a Sacred Book or something that could have been a Book.

(A: Something that could have been a Book refers to those like the Zoroastrians, who have remnants resembling an ancient Book. As for the psuedoscriptures of cults that have appeared since Islam (n: such as the Sikhs, Baha' is, Mormons, Qadianis, etc.), they neither are nor could be a Book, since the Koran is the final revelation (dis: w4). )

O11.3

Such an agreement is only valid when the subject peoples:

(a) follow the rules of Islam (A: those mentioned below (o11.5) and those involving public behavior and dress, though in acts of worship and their private lives, the subject communities have their own laws, judges, and courts, enforcing the rules of their own religion among themselves);

(b) and pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya).

O11.4: The Non-Muslim Poll Tax

The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of gold) per person (A: per year). The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon.

It is collected with leniency and politeness, as are all debts, and is not levied on women, children, or the insane.

O11.5

Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

-1- are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;

-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

-3- are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum";

-4- must keep to the side of the street;

-5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

O11.6

They are forbidden to reside in the Hijaz, meaning the area and towns around Mecca, Medina, and Yamama, for more than three days when the caliph allows them to enter there for something they need).

O11.7

A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan Sacred Precinct (Haram) under any circumstances, or enter any other mosque without permission (A: nor may Muslims enter churches without their permission).

O11.8

It is obligatory for the caliph (def: o25) to protect those of them who are in Muslim lands just as he would Muslims, and to seek the release of those of them who are captured.

O11.9

If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated (dis: o11.11) (A: though if only one of them disobeys, it concerns him alone).

O11.10

The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

-1- commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her;

-2- conceals spies of hostile forces;

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

-4- kills a Muslim;

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

This is a link to the resolution passed 12/18/08 http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/7201.doc.

19. 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;

Durban II: (A/CONF.211/PC/WG.2/CRP.2)

NEW PARA: Calls on States to prohibit by law and adopt necessary policy measures to combat [in accordance with norms of international law] the dissemination of all ideas based on racial superiority or hatred and incitement to hatred; (Racist crimes, hate crimes, urban violence)

152. Calls on States to combat impunity for acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, [and to grant appropriate redress for victims] [by securing access to justice, by granting [and maximizing] [maximum] [fair] [just and adequate] [appropriate] redress for victims];

159. Urges States to take effective measures to address contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and to take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols;

160. Calls on States to develop, and where appropriate to incorporate, permissible limitations on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression into national legislation;

Will you accept Dhimmitude and allow these tyrranical edicts to be imposed upon us by the U.N. and its agencies, abandoning our first amendment rights, or will you rise up and raise Hell?

U.S. Citizens reading this post are urged to include a link to it in an email to their Representative & Senators by copying and pasting this html code into the email form at http://www.congress.org .

Open Letter to the U.S. Senate.

Sphere: Related Content