Yesterday the UN Human Rights Council rushed out a resolution to protect Islam from all those nasty writers and artists, just in time for the release of Geert Wilders’ movie. According to Iranian Press TV:
UN HRC condemns Islam’s defamation
The UN Human Rights Council has passed a resolution expressing concern about the defamation of religions and urging states to prohibit it.
The UN Human Rights Council adopted Thursday the resolution — proposed by Islamic countries — on a 21-10 vote over the opposition of Europe and Canada.
EU countries, including France, Germany and Britain, voted against because they wanted to stop what thay [sic] called using religious anti-defamation laws to limited free speech.
But the Saudi delegation told the council ‘ it is regrettable that there are false translations and interpretations of the freedom of expression.’
Ah yes, false translations. Getting the Declaration of Independence into Arabic and Farsi must be a chore, since “freedom” and “liberty” have no exact translations in those languages. “Not yet stoned to death”, perhaps? “Still at large from the muttawa”?
The story continues:
- - - - - - - - -
The European Union said the text was one-sided because it primarily focused on Islam as the only religion specified as being attacked.
It certainly is one-sided. Have you heard any rabbis calling for a law against defaming Judaism? Try getting that one past the UNHRC.
And has the Pope called for laws against defaming Christians? Has the Dalai Lama been heard from?
However, Saudi Arabi [sic] said “maybe Islam is one of the most obvious victims of aggressions under the pretext of freedom of expression.”
Theo van Gogh lying dead on the street with a knife in his chest. Ayaan Hirsi Ali hounded into exile. Kurt Westergaard living under the constant threat of death. A death fatwa on Salman Rushdie.
All for simply making movies, speaking their minds, drawing cartoons, and writing books.
And “Islam is one of the most obvious victims of aggressions”?
What’s the Arabic word for “chutzpah”?
The resolution “notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001.”
This author notes with deep concern the slaughter of three thousand innocent people in the name of Allah on Sept. 11, 2001.
It expresses “grave concern at the serious recent instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media,’’ referring to insulting caricatures Of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) published in a Danish magazine and The film Fitna made by Dutch MP Geert Wilders — critical of the Koran — which is posted on the internet.
Remember: the above paragraph was written and the resolution was passed before anyone had even seen the movie.
The resolution also “urges states to take actions to prohibit the dissemination … of racist and xenophobic ideas’’ and material that would incite to religious hatred.
This UN drivel seems like nonsense. But I think it’s the wave of the future.
People like B. Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton — not to mention certain Supreme Court justices — want to hand over the decisions of American jurisprudence to the tender mercies of the UN, so that the deliberations of international law may be taken into consideration.
Well, folks, the output from the UNHRC is “international law” at its finest.
Oh, yes, it’s international enough — every member of the OIC is on board.
But “law” — that’s another matter entirely.
Hat tips: Paul Green and Steen.
3 comments:
"Theo van Gogh lying dead on the street with a knife in his chest. Ayaan Hirsi Ali hounded into exile. Kurt Westergaard living under the constant threat of death. A death fatwa on Salman Rushdie."
I would like to add to that list the name of Robert Redeker, a French professor who received death threats, had to stop teaching, and went into hiding protected by the police, just for writing in a national newspaper, once, a few of the nasty truths about Mohammed that are routinely published here.
He got very little support from the French government, media and intellectuals. And quite a bit of flak for saying un-PC things.
"Getting the Declaration of Independence into Arabic and Farsi must be a chore, since “freedom” and “liberty” have no exact translations in those languages."
I am curious to know whether this is a sort of metaphor, or if it is indeed to be taken literally.
Yes, it's a metaphor. Or more precisely, bitter sarcasm, in reference to the fact that liberty is all but non-existent in the Muslim world.
There may be an Arabic word for "freedom", but I have no idea exactly what it means to Arabs.
Post a Comment