From Jihad Watch:
Islamic countries set aside campaign for U.N. resolutions "combating defamation of religion"
For now. We will see this business again when they think they have an opening and the time is right. At the moment, they may have decided they have bigger fish to fry, with opportunities emerging to install Islamic regimes in multiple countries (under the pretense of democracy). They will also try to leverage that situation with regard to Israel, as we have already seen renewed attacks on Israel aimed at drawing it into a conflict for which it will then be roundly condemned in the Wide World of Useful Idiots, who will appeal, of course, to the U.N.
And for that matter, Islamic groups need at this moment to be able to appeal to concepts like freedom of speech to advance their agenda across North Africa, Yemen, and beyond. Making a fuss over insults right now might look a bit funny.
Even so, they have left themselves a loophole: "However, diplomats from Islamic countries have warned the council that they could return to campaigning for an international law against religious defamation if Western countries are not seen as acting to protect believers."
And you know which "believers" they mean. "Islamic bloc drops U.N. drive on defaming religion," by Robert Evans for Reuters, March 25 (thanks to Alexandre):
(Reuters) - Islamic countries set aside their 12-year campaign to have religions protected from "defamation", allowing the U.N. Human Rights Council to approve a plan to promote religious tolerance on Thursday.
Western countries and their Latin American allies, strong opponents of the defamation concept, joined Muslim and African states in backing without vote the new approach that switches focus from protecting beliefs to protecting believers.
No one wants to name names, as with the EU's document of "stuttering timidity" against the persecution of Christians by Muslims.
According to a report by the British Catholic group Aid to the Church in Need, which Roland Shirk discusses here, 75% of religious persecution in the world is committed against Christians. And the report shows how much of that is Muslim persecution of Christians, just over a span of two years. But because protecting Christians does not make for a hip, fashionable cause, the world yawns.
Since 1998, the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) had won majority approval in the council and at the United Nations General Assembly for a series of resolutions on "combating defamation of religion".
Critics said the concept ran against international law and free speech, and left the way open for tough "blasphemy" laws like those in Pakistan which have been invoked this year by the killers of two moderate politicians in Pakistan.
They argued that it also allowed states where one religion predominates to keep religious minorities under tight control or even leave them open to forced conversion or oppression.
But Pakistan, which speaks for the OIC in the rights council, had argued that such protection against defamation was essential to defend Islam, and other religions, against criticism that caused offence to ordinary believers.
Note the perfunctory mention of "other religions." But, no thanks, some of us have thicker skin than that.
Islamic countries pointed to the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed in Denmark in 2005, which sparked anti-Western violence in the Middle East and Asia, as examples of defamatory treatment of their faith that they wanted stopped.
Whose prophet? Partial credit for the lower-case "prophet," at least.
However, support for the fiercely-contested resolutions -- which the OIC had been seeking to have transformed into official U.N. human rights standards -- has declined in recent years.
The new three-page resolution, which emerged after discussions between U.S. and Pakistani diplomats in recent weeks, recognises that there is "intolerance, discrimination and violence" aimed at believers in all regions of the world.
Omitting any reference to "defamation", it condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that amounts to incitement to hostility or violence against believers and calls on governments to act to prevent it.
That will be in the eye of the beholder, and can still potentially cause problems.
The U.S.-based Human Rights First campaign group said the new resolution was "a huge achievement because...it focuses on the protection of individuals rather than religions" and put the divisive debates on defamation behind.
However, diplomats from Islamic countries have warned the council that they could return to campaigning for an international law against religious defamation if Western countries are not seen as acting to protect believers.Posted by Marisol on March 26, 2011 7:33 AM
Islamic countries set aside campaign for U.N. resolutions "combating defamation of religion"
For now. We will see this business again when they think they have an opening and the time is right. At the moment, they may have decided they have bigger fish to fry, with opportunities emerging to install Islamic regimes in multiple countries (under the pretense of democracy). They will also try to leverage that situation with regard to Israel, as we have already seen renewed attacks on Israel aimed at drawing it into a conflict for which it will then be roundly condemned in the Wide World of Useful Idiots, who will appeal, of course, to the U.N.
And for that matter, Islamic groups need at this moment to be able to appeal to concepts like freedom of speech to advance their agenda across North Africa, Yemen, and beyond. Making a fuss over insults right now might look a bit funny.
Even so, they have left themselves a loophole: "However, diplomats from Islamic countries have warned the council that they could return to campaigning for an international law against religious defamation if Western countries are not seen as acting to protect believers."
And you know which "believers" they mean. "Islamic bloc drops U.N. drive on defaming religion," by Robert Evans for Reuters, March 25 (thanks to Alexandre):
(Reuters) - Islamic countries set aside their 12-year campaign to have religions protected from "defamation", allowing the U.N. Human Rights Council to approve a plan to promote religious tolerance on Thursday.
Western countries and their Latin American allies, strong opponents of the defamation concept, joined Muslim and African states in backing without vote the new approach that switches focus from protecting beliefs to protecting believers.
No one wants to name names, as with the EU's document of "stuttering timidity" against the persecution of Christians by Muslims.
According to a report by the British Catholic group Aid to the Church in Need, which Roland Shirk discusses here, 75% of religious persecution in the world is committed against Christians. And the report shows how much of that is Muslim persecution of Christians, just over a span of two years. But because protecting Christians does not make for a hip, fashionable cause, the world yawns.
Since 1998, the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) had won majority approval in the council and at the United Nations General Assembly for a series of resolutions on "combating defamation of religion".
Critics said the concept ran against international law and free speech, and left the way open for tough "blasphemy" laws like those in Pakistan which have been invoked this year by the killers of two moderate politicians in Pakistan.
They argued that it also allowed states where one religion predominates to keep religious minorities under tight control or even leave them open to forced conversion or oppression.
But Pakistan, which speaks for the OIC in the rights council, had argued that such protection against defamation was essential to defend Islam, and other religions, against criticism that caused offence to ordinary believers.
Note the perfunctory mention of "other religions." But, no thanks, some of us have thicker skin than that.
Islamic countries pointed to the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed in Denmark in 2005, which sparked anti-Western violence in the Middle East and Asia, as examples of defamatory treatment of their faith that they wanted stopped.
Whose prophet? Partial credit for the lower-case "prophet," at least.
However, support for the fiercely-contested resolutions -- which the OIC had been seeking to have transformed into official U.N. human rights standards -- has declined in recent years.
The new three-page resolution, which emerged after discussions between U.S. and Pakistani diplomats in recent weeks, recognises that there is "intolerance, discrimination and violence" aimed at believers in all regions of the world.
Omitting any reference to "defamation", it condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that amounts to incitement to hostility or violence against believers and calls on governments to act to prevent it.
That will be in the eye of the beholder, and can still potentially cause problems.
The U.S.-based Human Rights First campaign group said the new resolution was "a huge achievement because...it focuses on the protection of individuals rather than religions" and put the divisive debates on defamation behind.
However, diplomats from Islamic countries have warned the council that they could return to campaigning for an international law against religious defamation if Western countries are not seen as acting to protect believers.Posted by Marisol on March 26, 2011 7:33 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment