But some of the NGOs are on our side, and David Littman is involved in several of them. Nobody has done more than he to expose the corrupt chicanery and dangerous appeasement practiced by the UN and the EU.
And for that reason, the United Nations Human Rights Council has attempted to silence him:
The top U.N. human rights official said Wednesday she was concerned at possible “taboo” subjects at the U.N. Human Rights Council after the chair blocked any discussion on Islamic Sharia law.- - - - - - - - -
The 47-member council “should be, among other things, the guardian of freedom of expression,” Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour told journalists.
“There are obstacles at the council level,” said Arbour, who steps down from her post at the end of the month.Her comments follow the decision of Council chair Doru Romulus Costea on Monday to cut off a speaker who raised the subject of Islamic Sharia law in relation to human rights.
David Littman, reading a joint declaration by two NGOs, the Association for World Education and the International Humanist and Ethical Union, had highlighted the plight of women in countries which apply Sharia law, including the death penalty by stoning for alleged adultery.
His words sparked a furious response from Arab and Islamic members of the council, with Egyptian ambassador Amr Roshdy declaring: “Islam won’t be crucified before this Council”.
The chair intervened to say that “this Council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth,” and warned Littman he would be interrupted should he try to raise the issue again.
Costea defended his stance Wednesday, insisting that “the Council doesn’t have the expertise to debate about the fascinating links between religion and human rights.”
“It’s a matter in which we have to be very careful,” he added.
The Council doesn’t have the expertise to debate about the fascinating links between religion and human rights.
In other words, if your religion makes you commit atrocities, they’re not atrocities in the eyes of the United Nations. If people are oppressed in the name of religion, then it’s not oppression.
According to the United Nations, freedom of religion gives Muslims carte blanche to do whatever they want to anyone at any time, and it’s of no concern to the UNHCR.
Human rights? We don’t need no stinkin’ human rights!
We’ve got Islam instead.
Hat tip: Frontinus.
7 comments:
Her comments follow the decision of Council chair Doru Romulus Costea on Monday to cut off a speaker who raised the subject of Islamic Sharia law in relation to human rights.
This is the big one. Finally, people are starting to make the connection between shari'a law and its persistent, comprehensive violation of human rights.
This is the one issue that Islam cannot confront and survive. It is also a foot-in-the-door for the eventual banning of Islam. There is exceptionally little hope that Muslims will ever find the moral courage to purge shari'a law of its brutality. Being one of Islam's pillars, shari'a is trapped in amber like Koranic doctrine and its commentaries.
While reciprocity with respect to religious freedom is a significantly larger dispute, few other Islamic practices combine such an in-depth catalog of barbarous, cruel, unjust, misogynistic and intolerable practices as that of shari'a law.
“Islam won’t be crucified before this Council”.
Islam will be crucified and rightly so for being one of the most vicious forms of tyranny ever to have trod this earth. This no one's fault but Islam's, no matter how much they try and blame others. Unlike with terrorism, it will be exceptionally difficult for Islam to demonstrate how outside forces have forced it to maintain the Neanderthal rule of shari'a law.
This is one albatross that Islam has taken great pains to keep securly fastened around its own begrimed neck. All that remains is for Western cultures to highlight every worst aspect—and they are myriad—about shari'a law and let Islam's obstinate defense of such barbarity be its own crucifixion.
Wow, why would anyone ever want to discuss human rights violations with a sense of context? That would be almost....logical.
On a side note, this sort of argument would seem to have the "unintended" effect of forcing certain parties to avoid references to "zionism" and "zionists" - but maybe I'm just overly optimistic.
What is really disgusting is that America pays about 25% of the UN budget, so we are paying 25% of this "councils" expenditure. We are paying to have this evil "human rights" council plot our destruction. Of course we also pay the Pals to plot our destruction, Pakistan to plot our destruction. It is simple. Islam should be starved of anything from the West, money, education, immigration. Period. Instead we have these 'councils' and 'tribunals" that are given legitimacy when they deserve none and no money.
Ron Paul, sorry, I agree with him on this, introduced a bill, HR 1146, on American sovereignty and getting out of the UN. It's been in committee since Feb. 2007!
Tom
Slightly OT:
found on kleinverzet.blogspot.com:
"Dutch police goes after bloggers"
An anonymous blogger is summoned to the police station today at 6PM to be interrogated about his/her writings without any further details. Why Friday at 6PM? Difficult to reach a lawyer? Friendly overnight stay?
Thanks to Zenster for a genuinely uplifting post. When debate over shari'a becomes more widespread it should serve to divide the umma effectively. Plenty of Western Muslims have no wish to live under those tyrranical laws, one more reason they left home in the first place. We still have to recognize though that many of these "soft" faithful still believe in the ultimate supremacy of Islam.
Faced with boycotts, repatriation and the banning of shari'a, it will be interesting to witness the response of a group already saturated in "honor culture" and a deep mistrust of their own kind.
Are Muslims just programmed to be miserable?
Strikes me that the U.N. has become about as useful as the League of Nations was.
If it was a dog you'd be prosecuted if you didn't put it out of its misery.
Post a Comment