Floyd Abrams, New York Daily News, January 14, 2009
It is difficult to believe that in the 21st century anyone would seriously propose that conduct such as Luther’s should be deemed illegal. But a few weeks ago, the General Assembly of the United Nations took a giant step in that direction. It adopted—for the fourth straight year—a resolution prepared by the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference calling upon all UN nations to adopt legislation banning the “defamation” of religion. Spurred by the Danish cartoons of 2005, some of which portrayed the Prophet Muhammed in a manner deemed offensive by the OIC, the resolution was opposed by the United States, most European nations, Japan, India and a number of other nations.
Nonetheless, it has now been adopted.
While relevant, the American experience is hardly the most relevant one. Far more telling is the distressing experience of nations that supported the OIC resolution. There was the student in one Islamic nation who was sentenced to death in January 2008 for distributing supposedly blasphemous material regarding the role of women in Islamic society. There was the teacher in another Islamic nation who was sentenced to jail for “insulting religion” after naming a class teddy bear “Mohammad” at the request of a 7-year-old with the same name. And there was the tragic case of the 22-year-old Hindu who, as reported by the European Centre for Law and Justice, was beaten to death by three of his fellow workers at a factory for allegedly committing blasphemy (a crime punishable by death); the workers were arrested and charged not with murder but with failing to inform the police that blasphemy was underway.
From the very first OIC resolution to the current one there has never been any ambiguity about its purpose: to intimidate those who might criticize Islam. As phrased in the original OIC resolution introduced by Pakistan in 1999, Islam was “frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.” But it is a fact that however one may debate about whether “Islam” bears any responsibility for acts of terrorism ranging from the murderous 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington to the more recent massacre in Mumbai, terrible acts of violence have been committed in the name of Islam. It is also the case that repeated human rights violations, including female genital mutilation, also have occurred in the name of Islam.
(Posted on January 14, 2009)
This is because the United Nations membership is overrun by Islamic countries.
The Judeo/Christian West must withdraw from this insidious setup and form its own United Nations.
I see the Islamic OIC is as usual, practicing the old Al Takiyya again. They must be stopped one way or another.
Incidently, when is the international community going to insist that the Islamic world return all the lands Muslims have stolen from the many natives of non-Muslim religions and cultures over the last fourteen hundred years. They have no rights whatsoever to any of them. After all, they stole them by massacre and enslavement to death of the rightful owners.
If they refuse then they shall have to be forced to.
Posted by A Swain at 6:58 PM on January 14
This is because Islamic countries, secular but pro-Islamic countries, and countries that aren’t Islamic but despise whites for reasons of racial jealousy, outnumber first-world countries in the UN. US out of UN, and vice versa.
Posted by Question Diversity at 7:25 PM on January 14
This has always been the problem: How to have a tent so large (United Nations) that all nations could fit inside. NATO has already found out the obvious problems and challenges of including nations outside of Western Europe. The EU is fast discovering limitations they never expected.
How is it possible to combine Christian, democratic, free, republican nations with nations that are opposed to everything we stand for?
Answer: only by complete and unconditional surrender. Either they have to surrender or we do, and they will never surrender.
Like the old cigarette commercial, I had “rather fight than switch.”
Posted by Memphomaniac at 7:40 PM on January 14
“And there was the tragic case of the 22-year-old Hindu who, as reported by the European Centre for Law and Justice, was beaten to death by three of his fellow workers at a factory for allegedly committing blasphemy (a crime punishable by death); the workers were arrested and charged not with murder but with failing to inform the police that blasphemy was underway.”
The one thing that I must state with both a clear conscious and wholehearted determination, is that I see why the “Religion of Peace” is so favored by the multicultural elites in the West. If there is anything that not only reflects their perverted values, but also provides them with some marginal cover while wallowing in them, it is Islam. It is one slightly more sophisticated cult of terrorism and death, engaging in a symbiosis with a mildly more primitive one.
Sort of like the bipedal pigs on the Animal Farm finding common cause with some wild boars who maul the sheep, in a retelling of that Orwellian tale!
As always, God help us all!!!
Posted by John PM at 9:48 PM on January 14
One of the most precious, and perhaps most the central, pillars of Western civilization — freedom of thought, opinion, and expression — is under attack by anti-Western religious fanatics (and others with their own self-serving agendas). These anti-Westerners envy the wealth and technology of the West – even enjoy the welfare systems, and the multiple inventions – but do not understand the source from which all of this comes.
We did not just get these benefits, this level of civilization, from out of nowhere. We had to struggle painfully upward from out of the Dark Ages to get them. Our people fought many terrible wars – religious wars, civil wars, revolutions – we suffered terrible persecutions and oppression, over centuries, before we were finally able to speak and write our opinions without being tried for heresy…. without living in fear of the gallows or the stake.
Even now, these precious, fragile, liberties are being gnawed at once again, under the pressure of non-westerners, non-Europeans, who are living in our midst … uncomprehending people who relish the eggs from the golden goose, but who do not appreciate the goose. In fact, while they like the eggs, they despise the goose intensely. That’s utterly illogical, but they don’t see the irony. And if need be, the more fanatical among them would be willing to go back to living in the 8th century, dragging everyone else along with them.
Appeasing such fanatics does not work. They are mentally ill. They have got to be confronted and thwarted very firmly and not allowed to spread their illness. Let them wallow in backwardness and superstition in their own countries, if they so wish, but they must be granted no right to impose any of their lunacy upon anyone else.
Posted by ghw at 11:07 PM on January 14
Yet another absurdity that follows from the “all peoples are equal” false axiom. And you would thing that one proof by contradiction is enough to establish its falsehood.
Posted by A Reader at 5:13 AM on January 15
Definition: “Hate Speech”… publicly stating ANYTHING about any minority which members of that minority would prefer not have the general public become aware of. Like the propensity for Blacks and Mexicans to commit crimes far out of proportion to their actual numbers. Like the Muslim religion encouraging violent action against ANY non-Muslim.
Posted by Fed Up at 7:42 AM on January 15
I guess with this new “law”(is it a law?) the following people would be arrested:
It’s well worth the time to watch that “horror film”.
Posted by Silvia at 4:24 PM on January 15
“This is because the United Nations membership is overrun by Islamic countries.” …..A.Swain
Another part of the problem (with the UN) is that every tiny island or speck of territory — such as Barbados, Antigua, Tonga, Dubai, Qatar, Bahrain, etc. are admitted and considered as a “nation” equivalent to the United States. This is patently absurd. But if it is to be so, then each one of our 50 states should be counted separately so as to give some reasonable balance. For populous countries, such as Germany or Japan, to be given only the same voice as Grenada or the Bahamas is beyond ridiculous.
Posted by Anonymous at 5:07 PM on January 15
Can anyone on this blog give me one credible reason that we should remain a member of the U.N.? It’s not a rhetorical question. I really do wonder, and I seek an answer from those more politically astute than me.
Posted by Lex Concord at 5:11 PM on January 15
I say outlaw the criticism of whites and of the U.S. Make it a law because I said so! (if that’s the way they want to play)
Posted by 24/7 at 8:23 PM on January 15