The OIC's Back-Door "Blasphemy" Campaign at Durban II

One of the few relatively positive developments to have emerged from the UN debacle known as Durban II was the deletion from the draft resolution of language calling for the international criminalization of "defamation of religion." Without going into a previously addressed issue, the Organization of the Islamic Conference did not thereafter cease its attempts to eradicate the right to criticize Islam, promptly securing a UN Human Rights Council resolution to that effect.

However, despite the fact that even the word "defamation" is absent from the final Durban Review Outcome document, it would be a grave mistake to believe that the OIC abandoned its attempts to use the Durban conference to pursue its 'blasphemy' agenda.

At the high level segment of the Durban Review Conference, OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu made certain to restate the claim that "defamation of Islam represents one of the most conspicuous demonstrations of contemporary racism and intolerance, and constitutes a threat to harmonious and cooperative relationship between and among nations."

Continue to full text of posting...

By Aaron Eitan Meyer | April 27, 2009 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

The Human Rights Council Subverts Human Rights Once More

On March 19^th, it was reported that the United Nations draft resolution for the second Durban conference on 'racism' had been substantially altered, notably dropping the provisions calling for measures to be taken against "defamation of religion," which were, in practical terms, meant to shield Islam, and particularly its radical variants, from criticism. This was rightfully seen as a blow against ongoing efforts by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to globally criminalize speech pertaining to Islam.

However, a mere week later, on March 26^th, the Human Rights Council passed a Pakistan-sponsored resolution on behalf of the OIC condemning "defamation of religion," despite loud outcries from numerous governments and a statement from nearly 200 non-governmental organizations, from 50 countries around the world, strongly urging the Human Rights Council not to pass the resolution.

Continue to full text of posting...

By Aaron Eitan Meyer | March 27, 2009 at 12:09 am | Permalink

Geert Wilders and CNN's Warped Mirror

Geert Wilders is without question a controversial figure. His outspoken views on Islam and his film Fitna have resulted in death threats from Islamists, threats of extradition to Jordan for 'blaspheming Islam,' politicized court rulings targeting him in the Netherlands, and British appeasement to Islamists. Concurrently with these actions, a war of words has arisen, with some of Wilders' critics increasingly engaging in crude personal attacks on Wilders.

The rhetorical battle regarding Wilders reached mind-boggling proportions this past November, when a textbook was sent to schoolchildren in the Netherlands that equated Wilders to Adolf Hitler. Only after a fierce battle in Dutch Parliament was an insert sent out to replace the highly offensive assertion.

However, a recent self-fulfilling statement that appeared on CNN on February 26^th may well render the textbook incident tame by comparison. CNN Co-Anchor Christine Romans introduced Wilders as being "sometimes referred to as the 'Al Qaeda of the Netherlands' because of his controversial views about the Koran and Islamic culture." Indeed, CNN entitled the segment ""Al Qaeda of the Netherlands" on Capitol Hill."

Continue to full text of posting...

By Aaron Eitan Meyer | March 3, 2009 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

A Fateful Decision for the UK

In a frightening and cowardly turn, it was reported on Tuesday that the British government has declared Dutch member of Parliament Geert Wilders persona non grata, denying him entry into the United Kingdom on the ridiculous grounds that he is a "threat to public order and public harmony" because of his film Fitna, to which Wilders courageously responded, "Let them arrest me in Heathrow." But what kind of 'threat' could Wilders possibly present to the UK?

The answer is almost certainly linked to the upcoming British Foreign Office's Pakistani initiative. Set to begin next Monday, the public relations campaign will attempt to project Britain favorably for a Muslim audience. And among the four aims of the ad campaign, as reported by the Guardian, are to convince young Pakistani men "that British society is not "anti-Islam"" and "to stimulate and facilitate "constructive debate" on the compatibility of liberal and Muslim values."

Continue to full text of posting...

By Aaron Eitan Meyer | February 11, 2009 at 11:01 am | Permalink

The OIC and the Universality of Human Rights

December 19^th, 2008 saw the opening session of the Organization of the Islamic Conference Inter-Institutional Forum on Universal Shared Values: Challenges and New Paradigms in Geneva. The keynote address was given by the Secretary-General of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. Throughout his speech, Ihsanoglu extolled the virtues of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), but a careful reading of the entire text reveals far more regarding how the OIC really views the universality of human rights.

Immediately after declaring that "the UDHR belongs to all of us" Ihsanoglu stated that Islam "established an exemplary code for human rights" and that "Human rights in Islam are firmly rooted in the equality among all mankind, transcending all considerations of place, colour, language and social status." Ihsanoglu concluded his conceptualization by declaring that "these rights go long way [sic] in line with the contemporary concept of human rights."

However, it is the sentence between the two just cited that is revealing. "These rights are part and parcel of the teaching of Islam that no ruler, government, assembly or authority can alter, curtail or violate in any way." In plain English, if any declaration, law, or covenant is in conflict with the Islamic definition of human rights (as defined by the OIC, of course), then the declaration, law, or covenant must give way.

Continue to full text of posting...

By Aaron Eitan Meyer | January 12, 2009 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

Frankfurt cancels ‘Muhammad look-alike contest' out of fear of offending Muslims

On October 9th, the German Newspaper Der Spiegel ran a story with the provocative headline "German Satire Magazine Shocks with 'Unbelievable Competition'" in which it reported that the magazine Titanic was planning on hosting a Muhammad look-alike competition, even inviting Turkish President Abdullah Gül to participate. Completely tongue-in-cheek, Titanic invited would-be guests to Frankfurt's Museum of Caricature with the tagline "It will be a blast."

Despite some initial outrage, Titanic insisted that it would go ahead with the satirical contest as planned, even marketing it as the most dangerous event at the Frankfurt Book Festival.

Unfortunately, the city of Frankfurt lacked the fortitude of Titanic, and backed out of an earlier pledge to hold the competition, giving only the transparent excuse that "the site initially chosen appeared to be too small to hold the number of people that might show up, given the buzz being generated."

Continue to full text of posting...

By Aaron Eitan Meyer | October 30, 2008 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

Kuwaiti Human Rights head labels ‘profaning' Muhammad the worst human rights violation in the world!

On October 4^th, the London Telegraph reported that YouTube had taken down comedian Pat Condell's video "Welcome to Saudi Britain," with the only explanation being that the video constituted a "terms of use violation." In the video, which is now back up on YouTube, Condell took aim at the institution of Shari'a courts in Britain, terming them fundamentally unfair to women and criticizing the fact that "we're now accommodating Saudi Arabian legal principles here in Britain." A YouTube spokesman told the Telegraph that the site has guidelines regarding certain types of content, including ‘hate speech.'

Distressing as it is that a site like YouTube even temporarily bowed to Islamist pressure to censor free speech critical of radical Islam, that pales in comparison to the statements recently made by Dr. Adel Al-Damkhi, Chairman of the Kuwait Human Rights Society. Amid urging the Kuwaiti government to pressure YouTube into removing "all derogatory statements about Islam and Muslims" he expressed the following basis for his claim.

Dr. al-Damkhi stated that "uttering profanities against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the worst form of human rights violation in the world."

Let's consider for a moment Dr. al-Damkhi's claim, which is not a fringe position, but entirely consistent with recent statements made by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a Jordanian court and even the UN Human Rights Council.

Speaking as the chairman of the Kuwaiti Human Rights Society, al-Damkhi has declared blasphemy of Islam the gravest of all possible human rights violations.

Greater than sending innocent Muslim children strapped with bomb belts into marketplaces and detonating them by remote control amongst crowds of civilians? Greater than ‘honor' killings, where women who have been raped or who flee abusive marriages are murdered by their own relatives? Greater than beheading a journalist in the name of "Islam"? Of course these human rights violations are not considered violations at all by some radical Imams. And that is exactly the problem, as Western court systems and democratic notions of human and civil rights are being manipulated to undermine and cloud the very real distinction between true crimes and mere hurt feelings.

Disturbingly, even amid the recent 60^th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is growing more apparent that there is a legitimate question as to whether there is anything universal about human rights, at least as far as the partisans of radical Islam are concerned. The United Nations has already caved towards an Islamist version of human rights, as exemplified through its Human Rights Council Resolution 7/19 which attempts to bans blasphemy of Islam as a crime against humanity! This from a group that can't even define the word terrorism.

We cannot dismiss the sentiments voiced by Dr. al-Damkhi, despite the fact that he himself is a relative non-factor politically. As noted earlier, the same Islamist ideology that informs his conception of human rights is at the core of recent OIC, Jordanian and UN Human Rights Council statements and resolutions. It's even in line with the US government's adoption of mandatory language guidelines that prohibit the use of words and phrases such as "jihad", "Islamic terrorism", "Islamofascism", etc., when describing the goals and objectives of the "War on Terror".

The danger posed by this perversion of the natural and inalienable right to free speech isn't merely a matter for legal scholars to debate. Open dialogue on issues of public concern is a cornerstone of western government, rightfully seen as an essential part of the functioning of a democracy. When that public concern involves discussion about the grave threat posed by Islamist ideology, the importance of free and open public debate is perhaps at its greatest and the protection of this speech is a matter of national security.

The question for us has become whether we have the fortitude to hold fast to the course of Western human rights development, or whether we allow the definition of human rights to be perverted to serve radical Islam, a theology which cares exceedingly little for protecting inalienable rights of humanity.

By Aaron Eitan Meyer | October 14, 2008 at 5:35 pm | Permalink