The OIC argues that religion needs to be protected from “defamation” – acts such as the publication of newspaper cartoons satirizing Mohammed, or the suggestion that the Koran promotes violence against non-Muslims.
By Patrick Goodenough,/CNS News
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu: whatever it takes to shut you up….
(CNSNews.com) – As support wanes for its campaign to secure controversial but non-binding “defamation of religion” resolutions at the United Nations, the Islamic bloc is pushing ahead with an alternative route – one that would carry the weight of international law.
Other News:
- Osama Saeed Goes on the Defensive
- Saudi Arabia: The Source Of Islamization In US Military
- Radical Imam: Hasan was ‘Providing Evidence to Me’…
- (Spain) Islamists on Trial for Subway Bombing Plot…
- Mumbai Terrorist Claims Father ‘Sold’ Him to Lashkar…
- Chicago Man Pretended to be Jewish to Case Mumbai Center…
The OIC is now attempting to have a key U.N. panel amend an existing international treaty to encompass supposedly religiously defamatory speech.
Unlike the resolutions, changing the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) to cover religion would be legally enforceable.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has for the past decade overseen the passage of non-binding resolutions at the U.N. General Assembly and human rights bodies.
Last week, the most recent effort passed in the General Assembly’s Third Committee, which deals with social, cultural, and humanitarian issues. It will go before the full General Assembly for a vote next month, but the committee vote indicates a continuing, measurable decline in support.
Eighty-one countries voted for the resolution, 55 opposed it and 43 abstained. The result showed less support for and more opposition against the resolution than for those introduced by the OIC over the last three years. (see graph)
As in past years, most support came from the 57-member OIC (although two members, Burkina Faso, and Cameroon, abstained) plus non-Muslim allies in the developing world, led by China, Russia, Cuba and Venezuela.
Comparisons of voting records from 2006 to date reveal a continuing erosion of support in Latin America. Chile, Mexico, Panama, Uruguay all voted against the OIC-led resolution this year, having abstained in 2008. Elsewhere, Lesotho and Sri Lanka were among those who moved from supporting the resolution in 2008, to abstaining this year.
The OIC argues that religion needs to be protected from “defamation” – acts such as the publication of newspaper cartoons satirizing Mohammed, or the suggestion that the Koran promotes violence against non-Muslims.
Although its resolutions purport to cover all religions, Islam is the only one cited by name. The text passed by the Third Committee voices concern that “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.”
The OIC campaign has been confronted by freedom of expression advocates who say the bloc is trying to shield Islam, its teachings, practices, institutions and leaders, from legitimate criticism or scrutiny.
Critics say defamation prohibitions should cover individuals, not religions. They charge that resolution proponents are trying to introduce in Western societies similar restrictions to those enforced in some Islamic countries, where converts from Islam or those with dissident views risk trial for apostasy or blasphemy.
‘Binding normative standards’
Unlike the nonbinding U.N. resolutions, the OIC’s alternative strategy proposes to develop “new binding normative standards relating to religious ideas, objects and positions,” including “legal prohibition of publication of materials that negatively stereotypes, insults or uses of offensive language on matters regarded by followers of any religion or belief as sacred.”
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
The Islamic law on Apostasy must be removed from sharia. In addition, all countries must sign up to remove the Islamic law on Apostasy from their countries, and give an explicit undertaking to that effect at the UN. If any country does not do so, their membership of the UN to be removed, and the state to be declared a rogue state.
I second that.
I am so sick of these bastards.
I can’t even watch their videos anymore for fear of puking!
1. Apostasy
2. Stoning
3. Amputations
4. All nations who decline should be considered a “human rights abuser-terrorist-rogue nation”
5. Put that in your hookah and smoke it.
we need protection from evil religous nut jobs!
Leave the UN, and boot it off American soil.
Hugh | April 23, 2010 6:17 PM | Reply
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu appears in the last few paragraphs of “Islam For Infidels” 9Part Three, Section Two0, put up here some years ago:
“And many more words and phrases will need to be carefully redefined to protect Islam from prying eyes and minds. Certain words that could prove too hot to mishandle may have to be eliminated altogether. One word that seems to be getting much disturbing attention lately, is “dhimmi.” If Infidels were to visit the website http://www.dhimmitude.org, or even read the books of Bat Ye’or, they might develop a negative view of Islam. And that would never do. Muslims are keenly aware of the problem – hence all the talk of “protected peoples” and the Compact of Omar.. No less a personage than Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, a Turkish historian of Ottoman science, who is now the Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Countries, helpfully explained in a recent address to an audience of American Infidels, that the “privilege of becoming a protected minority via an act of dhimmiship was given only to the followers of a prophet to whom a sacred book was revealed.”
In defining “dhimmiship” as the “privilege of becoming a protected minority” Dr. Ihsanoglu did his best. But those who are so solicitious of the public image of Islam and of Muslims in mind realize that it should not be left up just to NPR, or the BBC, or Le Monde; we all have to pitch in, and do our bit. It might be better if “dhimmi” were to be jettisoned altogether. The word upsets Infidels, and it does nothing for Muslims, either.
Instead of “dhimmis” why not call them “Friends With Benefits”?”