UN resolution on the ‘defamation’ of Islam
But the most concerning development is its increasing tendency to express its desire for limitations on the freedom of expression, and its decision to pass a resolution against ‘defamation of religions’ is a coup for the Islamic countries which proposed it. It means, of course, that the UN now officially opposes ‘speaking the truth about the elements of Islamic teaching that jihadists use to incite to violence’.
The motion on defamation of religions has been a priority for the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) since September 11th 2001. It acquired fresh impetus following a Danish newspaper's publication in 2005 of cartoons satirising Mohammed.
Introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the OIC, it passed by a 108-51 margin, with 25 abstentions. As with many of the other votes, the US lined up with democracies in Europe, Asia and elsewhere against developing nations, including repressive regimes. Although the resolution contains much with which any modern liberal democracy would find fault - referring generically to the defamation of ‘religions’ - it is highly significant that Islam is the only religion named in the text. It also takes a swipe at counter-terrorism security measures by talking about ‘discrimination’ against Muslims, ‘ethnic and religious profiling’, and ‘laws that stigmatise groups of people belonging to certain religions and faiths under a variety of pretexts relating to security and illegal immigration’. The resolution decries ‘the negative projection of Islam in the media’ and voices ‘deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism’. All of this perpetuates the carefully-honed perception of Arab and Islamist ‘victimhood’.
The fact that the terrorists themselves profess Islam and routinely commit atrocities with the Qur’an in one hand and a bomb in the other, proclaiming Islamic teachings with cries of ‘Allahu Akbar’, is an inconvenient fact to which one may no longer refer. Is it really 'defamation' if it is substantiated truth?
OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu addressed an international conference last year on ‘Islamophobia’, and told the gathering that freedom of expression was being used as a cover in the West to promote anti-Islam sentiment. It is therefore imperative that such freedom be restricted.
The OIC now has the official support of the UN in the global propagation of the theology and political philosophy of the Dar al-Islam; that it is wrong to resist the jihad not only physically, but also in speech and print. In passing this resolution, the UN has shown itself to be utterly deficient in both its discernment and diplomacy, for any special protection of the Islamic religio-political worldview can only be made at the expense of the Christian one. It eschews objectivity and truth, and constitutes an unacceptable moral inversion.
Cranmer rather wishes John Bolton had been made UN Secretary General...