More than 100 organizations, including Muslim and secularist ones, have signed a petition against the proposed U.N. resolutions on the "defamation of religions," which they contend will do more harm than good for religious freedom.
The “Common Statement from Civil Society on the Concept of the ‘Defamation of Religions,'” signed by organizations in over 20 countries, opposes the Organization of the Islamic Conference’s (OIC) proposal for the United Nations to adopt a binding treaty that would protect religions from defamation. The groups pointed out that a similar resolution adopted earlier this year only cites Islam as the religion that should be protected.
Moreover, human rights groups say the resolutions will give credit to anti-blasphemy laws in countries such as Pakistan and Sudan.
Reports indicate that blasphemy laws have been widely abused to justify violence and abuse against religious minorities in predominantly Muslim countries. Blasphemy laws can also be used to silence critics of a religion and restrict freedom of speech.
“In seeking to protect ‘religion’ from defamation it is clear that existing international human rights protections will be undermined, specifically freedom of religion and belief and freedom of expression,” said Tina Lambert, Christian Solidarity Worldwide’s advocacy director.
“For the sake of those who already suffer unjustly under such legislation (blasphemy laws) and for the protection of our existing international human rights framework, it is vital that member states act to prevent such a treaty or optional protocol being established,” she said.
Since 1999, when the “defamation of religions” resolution was first proposed, this is the first time that sponsors have asked for it to become a binding treaty.
Angela C. Wu, international law director of the Becket Fund, one of the groups that signed the petition, argued, “Human rights are meant to protect the individuals, not ideas or governments. Yet the concept of ‘defamation of religions’ further empowers governments to choose which peacefully expressed ideas are permissible and which are not.
"It is pivotal for human rights defenders around the globe to unite against this flawed concept before it becomes binding law."
"without religious freedom, there is no freedom at all"
ReplyDeleteYour motto is true, on its face, but there is a more significant node in the hierarchy of rights.
Without life, there is no freedom and no rights.
We learn from Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387, that our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims until we submit and become Muslims. We also discover the fact that we have no rights until we become Muslims.
That same hadith confirms the orders to fight contained in Surah Al-Anfal & At-Taubah.
Rights and responsibilities are reciprocal. Since Islam does not reciprocate, granting rights to it is suicidal.
The practice of Islam involves jihad, which involves genocide(8:67) & terrorism (8:12).
We learn from Islamic law: Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9, in O9.1, that Jihad is a communal obligation upon the Muslims, in every year.
We learn from Sunan Abu Dawud 23.3455, that if Muslims abandon jihad, Allah will make disgrace prevail over them until they "return to their original religion.
The religion of Islam is Jihad, defined in Reliance O9.0 as war against non-Muslims.
The Combating Defamation of Religions resolution will not make this comment illegal unless it results in legislation passed by Congress. That legislation would be unconstitutional.
The proposed protocol to ICERD would become binding, enforcible international law, and would be construed to criminalize this comment.
Very few people know about the Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards and its proposed protocol. The cmte. met from Oct. 19 to Oct. 30. I have not been able to discover its schedule, but presume that it will meet again next March.
I doubt that there is any possibility of preventing the passage of the protocol. Given the predilections of the Obama administration and left wing Congress, it will be signed and ratified.
I know of only one possible tactic to combat this assault against our right of free expression: a counter attack.
The International Qur'an Petition has been created to point out Islam's static violation of ICCPR, ICERD & CPPCG. The petition prays to the World Court for injunctive relief.
While the petition campaigns sponsored by Open Doors and ACLJ have been receiving some publicity, the International Qur'an Petition and H.Res.763 are being widely ignored.
A side note: I found this excellent article by means of a Google Alert, but I see that this page is not ranked. I suggest that you implement some basic SEO tactics to improve that situation. The use of title, description & key word meta tags and sub headings may help.