in America
---
Judaic World Tells American Lawmakers: Defamation of Judaism Must be
Prevented -- in America
On Dec 14, 3:37 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Guess what…it ain't gonna happen … in America.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthin...
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> [image: Description:http://www.americanthinker.com/images/at-logo.gif]
> Return to the Article<http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/islamic_world_tells_clinton_de...>
> ****
>
> December 14, 2011 ****
> Islamic World Tells Clinton: Defamation of Islam Must be Prevented -- in
> America****
>
> *By* *Clare M. Lopez* <http://www.americanthinker.com/clare_m_lopez/>****
>
> As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomes Secretary General of the
> Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu to
> Washington this week, it is critical that Americans pay attention to what
> these two leaders intend to do. From 12 to 14 December 2011, working teams
> from the Department of State (DoS) and the OIC are going to discuss
> implementation mechanisms that could impose limits on freedom of speech and
> expression.****
>
> The OIC's purpose, as stated explicitly in its April 2011 4th Annual
> Report<http://www.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/Islamphobia/2011/en/islamphobia_r...>on
> Islamophobia, is to criminalize "incitement to hatred and violence on
> religious grounds." Incitement is to be defined by applying the "test of
> consequences" to speech. Under this twisted perversion of falsely "yelling
> 'fire' in a crowded theater," it doesn't matter what someone actually says
> -- or even whether it is true or not; if someone else commits violence and
> says it's because of something that person said, *the speaker will be held
> criminally liable*.****
>
> The OIC is taking direct aim at free speech and expression about Islam.
> Neither Christianity nor Judaism is named in the OIC's official documents,
> whose only concern is to make the world safe from "defamation" of Islam --
> a charge that includes speaking truthfully about the national security
> implications of the Islamic doctrine of jihad.****
>
> Incitement to hatred under the OIC definition includes artistic expression
> like the Danish cartoons, literary expression like Salman Rushdie's *The
> Satanic Verses*, or Pastor Terry Jones' burning of his personally owned
> copy of the Qur'an. According to the "test of consequences," if Muslims
> feel compelled to burn, loot, riot, and kill in response to such exercises
> of free expression, under the laws the OIC wants the U.S. to enact, it
> would be the editor and cartoonist of the *Jyllands-Posten* newspaper,
> Salman Rushdie, and Terry Jones who would be held criminally responsible
> for any damage or deaths that ensue.****
>
> Last March, the State Department and Secretary Clinton insisted that
> "combating intolerance based on religion" can be accomplished without
> compromising Americans' treasured First Amendment rights. But if that were
> so, there would be no possible excuse for engaging at this level with an
> organization like the OIC that is openly dedicated to implementing Islamic
> law globally. This is why it is so important to pay attention not only to
> the present agenda, but to a series of documents leading up to it, issued
> by both the U.S. and the OIC. From 12 to 14 December 2011, the DoS and OIC
> working teams will focus on implementation mechanisms for "Resolution
> 16/18," a declaration that was adopted by the U.N. Human Rights Council in
> April 2011.****
>
> Resolution 16/18 was hailed as a victory by Clinton, because it calls on
> countries to combat "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization"
> based on religion without criminalizing free speech -- except in cases of
> "incitement to imminent violence." But if the criterion for determining
> "incitement to imminent violence" is a new "test of consequences," then
> this is nothing but an invitation to stage Muslim "Days of Rage" following
> the slightest perceived offense by a Western blogger, instructor, or radio
> show guest, all of whom will be held legally liable for "causing" the
> destruction, possibly even if what they've said is merely a statement of
> fact. The implications of such prior restraint on free speech would be
> chilling (which is precisely the point).****
>
> In fact, the "test of consequences" is already being applied rigorously in
> European media and courts, where any act or threat of violence -- whether
> by a jihadist, insane person, or counter-jihadist -- is defined as a
> "consequence" of statements that are critical of some aspect of Islam and,
> therefore, to be criminalized. Recent trials of Dutch political leader
> Geert Wilders, Austrian free speech champion Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff,
> and Danish Islamic expert Lars Hedegaard (as well as the witch hunt for
> "instigators" that followed the murderous attacks by Norwegian blogger
> Anders Behring Brevik) all attest to the extent of these "hate speech"
> laws' oppressive pall over what is left of the European Enlightenment. Now,
> if the OIC and the Obama administration have their way, it's America's turn.
> ****
>
> Once it's understood that under Islamic law,
> "slander<http://mhamdanbr.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/slander-and-talebearing-%D8...>"
> is defined as saying "anything concerning a person [a Muslim] that he would
> dislike," the scope of potential proximate causes of Muslim rage becomes
> obvious. For instance, in the Preamble to the Resolutions on Legal
> Affairs<http://www.oic-oci.org/38cfm/en/documents/res/LEG-RES-38-CFM-FINAL-2.pdf>Adopted
> by the 38
> th Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the OIC in Astana,
> Kazakhstan in June 2011, under paragraph 9, the OIC:****
>
> Denounces media campaigns and fabrications made by some quarters in
> non-Member States [*i.e.*, the *Dar al-Harb* or West] regarding the
> mistreatment of non-Muslim minorities and communities in the OIC Member
> States under the slogan of religious freedom and so on.****
>
> Consider what is likely to be a bloodbath for Coptic Christians that will
> occur as soon as the Muslim Brotherhood and its Salafist allies are firmly
> in control of Egypt. This provision means that any Western media that
> accurately report that coming massacre could be legally charged with
> "incitement to imminent violence" under the test of consequences, in effect
> blaming those who raise the alarm instead of those who perpetrate the
> violence.****
>
> Clearly, the OIC feels some sense of urgency to get the rest of the
> non-Muslim world, and especially the U.S., on board with these objectives
> as Paragraph 10<http://www.oic-oci.org/38cfm/en/documents/res/LEG-RES-38-CFM-FINAL-2.pdf>
> :****
>
> Expresses the need to pursue as a matter of priority, a common policy aimed
> at preventing defamation of Islam perpetrated under the pretext and
> justification of the freedom of expression in particular through media and
> Internet.****
>
> In this same document is the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers' "Resolution
> No. 1/38-LEG<http://www.oic-oci.org/38cfm/en/documents/res/LEG-RES-38-CFM-FINAL-2.pdf>On
> Follow Up and Coordination of Work on Human Rights," which makes
> reference to the OIC's new "Independent Permanent Commission on Human
> Rights" and stipulates that it "shall promote the civil, political, social,
> and economic rights enshrined in the Organization's covenants and
> declarations and in *universally agreed human rights instruments*, in
> conformity with Islamic values." [Emphasis added.] This wording alone
> should set off alarm bells in view of the OIC's 1990 Cairo Declaration on
> Human Rights in
> Islam<http://www.arabhumanrights.org/publications/regional/islamic/cairo-de...>(CDHRI),
> which explicitly declared that when the Muslim
> *ummah* (as represented by the OIC) uses the term "human rights," what is
> meant is Islamic law (sharia). "Universally agreed" or not, the CDHRI was
> served as an official document to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in
> 1993, thereby creating an established instrument of reference on the
> Islamic definition of "human rights." ****
>
> The foundational documents upon which the Muslim *ummah* -- the OIC -- now
> relies to undergird its sharia agenda were drafted years ago. The 1966 U.N.
> Commission for Human Rights International Covenant on Civil and Political
> Rights <http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm> (ICCPR), which entered
> into force in 1976, was based firmly on the Universal Declaration of Human
> Rights and preceded the 1969 creation of the OIC by just a few years. The
> ICCPR's Articles 19 (3) and 20 nevertheless foreshadow sharia Islam's
> demand for restrictions on free speech in an explicit and chilling way --
> and, as will be seen, in a way the OIC is trying to exploit:****
>
> Article 19****
>
> 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference****
>
> 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression: this right shall
> include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all
> kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in
> the form of art, or through any other media of this choice****
>
> 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article
> carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be
> subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as provided
> by law and are necessary.****
>
> (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;****
>
> (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre
> public), or of public health or morals.****
>
> 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.****
>
> Clearly, the OIC is trying to exploit these international standards, as
> shown in its April 2011 4th Annual
> Report<http://www.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/Islamphobia/2011/en/islamphobia_r...>on
> Islamophobia posted at its online Islamophobia Observatory. Given the
> ICCPR's assertions above, the OIC's objective has long since been entered
> into official U.N. language. It required only a narrowing of the focus from
> the generality of the ICCPR down to the OIC's exclusive interest in
> protecting *Islam* from discrimination. It also required bringing the U.S.
> on board with the program to enforce Islamic law on slander. With the
> willing participation of the Obama administration, the OIC has tackled both
> of these challenges. In Section 6 of the Islamophobia Report, "Conclusions
> and Recommendations," the language references the OIC goal of "removing the
> gaps in international legal instruments" to force the non-Muslim world to
> comply with its plan to criminalize "slander" of Islam (emphasis added):****
>
> d. Ensuring swift and effective implementation of the new approach
> signified by the consensual adoption of HRC Resolution 16/18, entitled
> 'combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and
> discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based
> on religion or belief', by inter alia, *removing the gaps in implementation
> and interpretation of international legal instruments and criminalizing
> acts of incitement to hatred and violence*...****
>
> e. Constructively engaging to *bridge divergent views* on the limits to the
> right to freedom of opinion and expression, *in a structured multilateral
> framework*...geared toward *filling the 'interpretation void' with regard
> to the interface between articles 19(3) and 20 of the ICCPR* based on
> emerging approaches like applying the '*test of consequences*.'****
>
> Those "gaps in implementation and interpretation" refer to U.S. objections
> to criminalizing free speech (in violation of the First Amendment), and the
> "structured multilateral framework" would appear to be the agenda in
> Washington, D.C. from December 12 to 14 at the meeting between Clinton and
> OIC Secretary General Ihsanoglu. It would not be overreaching to conclude
> that the purpose of this meeting, at least from the OIC perspective, is to
> convince the Obama administration that free speech that rouses Muslim
> masses to fury -- as defined by the "test of consequences" -- must be
> restricted under U.S. law to bring it into compliance with sharia law's
> dictates on slander.****
>
> Clinton's own statements<http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/07/168636.htm>reflect
> the OIC language on the "gap" (emphasis added):
> ****
>
> ... together we have begun to overcome the *false divide* that pits
> religious sensitivities against freedom of expression, and we are pursuing
> a new approach based on concrete steps ... to use some old-fashioned
> techniques of *peer pressure and shaming*, so that *people don't feel that
> they have the support to do what we abhor*.****
>
> Despite disingenuous protestations by Clinton, another OIC document likely
> to be on the table at the Department of State/OIC working sessions abandons
> all pretense that any other religion besides Islam is the point of
> discussion. The Resolutions on Political
> Affairs<http://www.oic-oci.org/38cfm/en/documents/res/POL-RES-38-CFM-FINAL-2.pdf>Adopted
> by the Thirty-Eighth Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers at
> the June 2011 OIC Council of Foreign Ministers in Kazakhstan (emphasis
> added):****
>
> 5. Affirms that freedoms have to be exercised with responsibility and with
> due regard for the fundamental rights of others and, in this context, *condemns
> in the strongest possible terms, all blasphemous acts against Islamic
> principles, symbols and sacred personalities, in particular, the despicable
> act of burning of the Holy Quran in Florida, USA on 20 March 2011,
> publication of offensive caricatures of Prophet Mohammad* (PBUH), all
> abhorrent and irresponsible statements about Islam and its sacred
> personalities, and screening of defamatory documentary about the Holy Quran
> [Wilders' *Fitna*] and dissemination of this hate material under the
> pretext of freedom of expression and opinion[.]****
>
> Subsequent sections in the same document stress "the need to prevent the
> abuse of freedom of expression and press for *insulting Islam* and other
> divine religions" and to reaffirm "that terrorism cannot and should not be
> associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or group." It
> furthermore:****
>
> [c]alls upon all States to prevent any advocacy of religious
> discrimination, hostility or violence and *defamation of Islam* by
> incorporating legal and administrative measures which *render defamation
> illegal and punishable by law*, and also urges all Member States to adopt
> specific and relevant educational measures at all levels[.]****
>
> It may be recalled that the Obama administration claimed, obviously
> incorrectly, that defamation
> <http://www.aina.org/news/20110407115120.htm>was no longer part of
> these agreements. The language of these resolutions
> instead stresses "the importance of expediting the implementation process
> of its decision on developing a *legally binding international
> instrument*to prevent intolerance, discrimination, prejudice and
> hatred on the grounds
> of religion, and *defamation of religions*[.]"****
>
> The Department of State is not the only U.S. government agency committed to
> achieving compliance with the OIC's "Islamophobia" censorship agenda. The
> Departments of Justice and Homeland Security both have committed publicly
> to an overhaul<http://www.radicalislam.org/print/analysis/criticism-islam-could-soon...>of
> their training materials to ensure that nothing in the curriculum
> gives
> "offense" to Muslim Brotherhood affiliates such as the Islamic Society of
> North America (ISNA) or the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), with
> which both departments maintain close relationships. Instructors who
> previously taught the intrinsic connection among Islamic doctrine, law, and
> scripture and Islamic terrorism henceforth will be blacklisted by the U.S.
> government. As documented by the intrepid columnist and author Diana
> West<http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1945/Uncle-Sam-Wants-Y...>,
> the Department of Defense also has made its obeisance to Islam, with troop
> instructions on how to handle the Qur'an and avoid spitting, urinating, or
> sleeping with feet pointed in the direction of Mecca.****
>
> Capping the administration's campaign to align U.S. national security
> policy within the parameters of Islamic law, the White House published
> "Strategic
> Implementation Plan<http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/sip-final.pdf>for
> Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United
> States" in December 2011. The plan makes clear that "violent extremism,"
> not Islamic terrorism, is the primary national security threat to the
> homeland. According to this "strategy," the solution is partnership with
> "local communities" -- the term used for the administration's favored
> Muslim Brotherhood front groups, which already are using such relationships
> to silence their critics, both inside and outside government. These new
> rules of censorship state that the term "violent extremism" can no longer
> be used in combination with terms like "jihad," "Islam," "Islamist," or
> "sharia." And these new rules are already being taught to U.S. law
> enforcement, homeland security offices, and the military nationwide.****
>
> The agenda of this week's Department of State/OIC meetings may mark an
> important "milestone," as Sayyed Qutb might put it, on the pathway to
> sharia in America. If -- under the "test of consequences" -- those who
> speak truth about Islam, sharia, and jihad may be held criminally
> responsible for the violent actions of those who say they find such truth
> "offensive," then, in the future, "violent extremists" could be just about
> anyone...anyone the government, in obedience to the sharia dictates of the
> OIC, decides they are.****
>
> Further, if the rubric is to be based on this "test of consequence," then
> it creates a real temptation to any administration so inclined to "create"
> consequences that will justify a change in America's free speech rights. By
> way of example, analysts have suggested that the motive for the Department
> of Justice's "Fast and Furious" scandal, now under congressional
> investigation, may have been to create a "crisis" -- a "consequence" --
> caused by U.S. guns shipped across the border to Mexican drug-dealers (and
> used in multiple homicides, including an American Border Protection
> officer) to "nudge" public consensus to expand gun control laws.****
>
> Even if Obama's State Department seems fully enamored with a "test of
> consequences" on speech critical of Islam, most Americans across the
> political spectrum will realize that this perverts the traditional
> understanding of the First Amendment. It is to be hoped that dedication to
> the Constitution -- rather than to the OIC's definition of "slander" of
> Islam or the "test of consequences" -- will prevail among the ranks of our
> national leadership. Regardless of what's going on behind closed doors at
> the State Department this week, Americans should be aware -- and outraged.
> An informed citizenry, as always, remains the final defense of the Republic.
> ****
>
> *Clare M. Lopez is a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and
> also at The Clarion Fund.*****
>
> *Page Printed from:http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/12/islamic_world_tell...<http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/islamic_world_tells_clinton_de...>
> * at December 14, 2011 - 07:33:02 AM CST ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> image001.png
> 11KViewDownload
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment