Willary & Ihshanoghlu plot to replace freedom of speech with blasphemy laws

Bad news. Really bad news:

Ishanoghlu wants mutual understanding, tolerance, respect and empathy for Islam. Strange that he doesn’t offer mutual understanding, tolerance, respect and empathy for Christianity or Judaism, don’t you think?

This is it, people: If the Alinsky disciple Willary succeeds in shutting down freedom of speech we will face serious persecution.

Remember: once freedom of speech is lost, nothing can be gained without violence.


US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed with a major global Islamic organization on Friday to pursue new ways of resolving debates over religion without resorting to legal steps against defamation.

Mrs. Clinton met Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the head of the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), in Istanbul to help set up new international mechanisms both protect free speech and combat religious discrimination around the world.

“Together we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of religion. We are pursuing a new approach based on concrete steps to fight intolerance wherever it occurs,” Secretary Clinton said.

Under heavy US pressure, the OIC agreed in March to set aside its 12-year campaign to have religions protected from defamation, a step which allowed the UN Human Rights Council to approve a broader plan on religious tolerance.

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.

Mr. Ihsanoglu underscored that the OIC’s aim was not to limit free expression, but to combat religious intolerance which he said was spreading dangerously around the world.

(“not to limit free expression”, but to limit all free expression against Islam, of course)

“Our cause, which stems from our general concern, should not be interpreted as calls for restriction of freedom,” he said.

“We believe that mutual understanding, tolerance, respect and empathy should also be accompanying components when we advocate supremacy of freedom of expression.”

Both Mr. Ihsanoglu and Mrs. Clinton outlined steps they would take to cultivate religious and cultural diversity along guidelines set by the UN Human Rights Commission, part of a process that will be overseen by the United Nations.

“These are fundamental freedoms that belong to all people in all places and they are certainly essential to democracy,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We now need to move to implementation.”

(Better not move at all, Mrs Clitman!)

The new approach calls on countries to protect freedom of religion and counter offensive expression through education, dialogue and public debate. It also calls for prohibitions on hate crimes and discrimination, but not to criminalize speech unless there is incitement to imminent violence.

Debates over international moves to “combat defamation of religion” have occurred regularly since 1998, pitting opponents who say such steps would violate free speech and against proponents who say they are necessary.

Since 1998, the 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 allowed states where one religion predominates to keep religious minorities under tight control or even leave them open to forced conversion or oppression.

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.

STFU, you bastards!

Secretary of State Clinton tells Islamic organization dedicated to crushing free speech that Islam and the West can agree on tolerance

In the current state of affairs, in a way, they can, but not in the way the Secretary of State meant in her comments to the Organization Formerly Known As The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OFKATOIC). Islamic groups continue to press their demands while their spokesmen engage in deliberate deceit about the limitations of Islamic tolerance. They speak of “tolerance,” “justice,” and “human rights” with the expectation that Western listeners will project their own understanding of the terms onto what is being said.

Much of the West, for its part, operates on the article of faith that those values are shared and do fundamentally match, because all cultures are supposed to be based on the same values and vision of the future. It is on that gelatinously shaky ground that they tend to come into agreement, and it is to the benefit of organizations like the OIC.

Clinton’s defense of free speech is not unwelcome, of course, but the OIC will say “yes, thank you, that’s very nice,” and press on with its agenda. “Clinton: Islam, West can agree on tolerance,” by Matthew Lee for the Associated Press, July 15 (thanks to JW):

ISTANBUL — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says she’s hopeful that a religious tolerance agreement between the West and Islamic countries will end efforts to criminalize blasphemy that threaten freedom of expression.

Talk of a “tolerance agreement” threatens to dignify the OIC’s position with a response, when no response is warranted except an intensified refusal to compromise on free speech.

Clinton said Friday in Turkey that an initiative by the U.S., the European Union and the Organization of the Islamic Conference will promote religious freedom without compromising free speech.

The Associated Press seems to have missed the memo on the OIC’s great re-branding as the equally awkward-sounding “Organization of the Islamic Cooperation.”

Many Muslim nations have laws that punish perceived insults to Islam. As a way to rationalize those laws, those countries have long sought U.N. action condemning the defamation of religion.

“Rationalize” is an odd word, and doesn’t seem to fit. All of the global initiatives are simply an extension of the same supremacist impulse that drives those laws on the national level.

The U.S. and others were concerned that such a step could stifle legitimate debate. Earlier this year, the U.S. brokered an agreement that removed defamation language from a U.N. resolution and focused instead on ending religious discrimination.

9 thoughts on “Willary & Ihshanoghlu plot to replace freedom of speech with blasphemy laws”

  1. A little more emerges from the fog:

    World Bulletin

    OIC head says what is important is implementation of a resolution


    [In the resolution, the UN Human Rights Council expresses its concern that incidents of religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of individuals on the basis of religion or belief, continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, as set forth in the present resolution, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents; and condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means.]

    * Rest of the article is worth reading – just being cautious about fair use

    * “Combatting intolerance” of what, I wonder?

  2. Promoting a “culture of tolerance” /flying_pig


    Practical measures to promote a culture of tolerance

    [‘‘Intolerance, including anti-semitism, islamophobia and christianophobia, is on the increase’’ said UN Human Rights chief Navi Pillay at a panel discussion on the promotion of a culture of tolerance held last June in Geneva.]

    [Pillay opened the expert panel stating that “through dialogue and collaboration “ States could step up to their obligations and take practical decisive actions and measures to address and eliminate incidents of intolerance. ’’

    Experts at the panel discussion identified intercultural dialogue, awareness-raising, education and criminalization of incitement to hatred and intolerance, as practical measures that could possibly combat religious intolerance and promote a culture of tolerance.

    Pillay said that States should act as catalyst for intercultural dialogue. She identified education as crucial in ‘‘fostering respect for all human rights and religious diversity,’’ and said that by committing in practice – through laws, measures, words and deed – to all human rights, “States can promote religious harmony and facilitate the intercultural dialogue which helps create peaceful and stable societies.” ]

    * I have a feeling that it will be opposition to islam / islamisation that will be criminalised, with Christians and Jews being targeted for prosecution and ultimately for extermination.

  3. When all is done and we have our Nation back, Hilliary will face the peoples civilian court.
    At that time she will be arrested and put on Trial for treason.
    The Civilian Court has nothing to do with any Government agency etc.
    She will be tried by the people.
    The civilian court is made up of a Constitutional person from the ranks of the people and there will be twelve jurors of the people.

  4. If we don’t all fight this with everything we have we are done for. It will be over and we will have submitted to islam. End of story.

  5. Oh and heads up people! Despite popular opinion the good guys don’t always win and truth does not always win. Mark my words.

Comments are closed.