Wednesday, January 02, 2008

UN resolution on the ‘defamation’ of Islam

The General Assembly of the United Nations busied itself over the Christmas period with a raft of human rights-related motions, even calling for a moratorium on the death penalty. While no-one really takes any notice of the conceited self-importance of this body, it cannot be denied that resolutions passed by it possess at the very least a certain symbolic significance which occasionally resonates around the world.

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...


Blogger Dr.D said...

This is yet another reason why the UN needs to be disbanded. It is nothing more than a platform for troublemakers.

Anyone foolish enough and sufficiently lame to feel themselves bound by this PC idiocy is welcome to follow it. Free people who think for themselves with simply blow it off. No one can tell me how to think or what to say about Izlam or anything else. Damned fools!!

2 January 2008 at 13:44  
Blogger Dr.D said...

Bolton would make a great Secretary General of the UN, just the sort of thing that would never, ever be considered acceptable by all the far left-leaning/Izlamic-based countries of the world. Cranmer, you are dreaming, but I'll admit it is a nice dream!

2 January 2008 at 13:52  
Anonymous mickey said...

The UN is the voice of the world (or should be), so when it speaks we must take note. We will not win this global battle of ideas with derogatory cartoons.

John Bolton shouts from the parapets of Fortress America and seems to care little for those living beyond the walls. Quite why he pursued a career in diplomacy is a mystery to me.

2 January 2008 at 15:14  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

Apologies and diatribes are all very good but the bigger question is this: why are they doing this?

"Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future" by Fr. Seraphim Rose:

"The goals of the New-Age include a "convergence of religions" in tandem with a "confluence" of political and economic forces toward World Government. The plan for a New World Order would include a universal credit system, a universal tax, a global police force, and an international authority that would control the worlds food supply and transportation systems."

"All forms of Discrimination would cease, and peoples' allegiance to tribe or nation will be replaced by a planetary conciousness"

"It should be pointed out that many New-Agers today would not be aware of, much less subscribe to, all the point of "The Plan". As we have seen, the movement incorporates a diverse array of groups, ideas and practices. If it can be called a "conspiracy", this is certainly not because all New Agers are working together secretly, o an organizational level, toward fulfilllment of "The Plan". Ultimately, "The Plan" is being orchestrated not on a human but on a demonic level, and the architects of the New Age movement are, to a large degree, only mouthpieces of ideas that are not their own"

"Alice Bailey [a UN ideologue] in the 1940s wrote: "the expressed aims and efforts of the United Nations will be eventually brought to fruition, and a new church of God, gathered out of all religions and spiritual groups, will unitedly bring to an end the great heresy of separateness"

"William Swing, Episcopal Bishopp of California and founder/director of the United Religions Initiative, expressed it in his book The Coming United Religions: "The time comes ... when common language and a common purpose for all religions and spiritual movements must be discerned and agreed upon. Merely respecting and understanding other religions is not enough."

On Denatured Christianity: "Although not all globalists share the specifically religious goals, they are certainly united in their view of what kind of religion will not fit into the one-world system they are working to create. Conservative, traditional adherents of a religion, who believe that their religion is a unique fulfilment of the fullness of the truth, will not be welcome in the "global village". As Paul Chaffe, board member of the United religions Initiative, said in 1997: "We can't afford fundamentalists in a world this small." The same view was expressed at the 1998 State of the World Forum, Jim Garrison announced: "If my theology is an impediment, than I have to get rid of my theology."

"Also in 1998, this subject was discussed in some detail by one of the more recent ideologues of the "new religious consciousness," Ken Wilber. A popular author whose works have been praised and avidly studied by both former President Clinton and Al Gore, Wilber outlined the agenda that the world must follow in order to combine science with religion, as well as to establish a "Universal Theology" [Global Warming anyone?] which all religions can embrace without losing their outward differences. "Religions" the world over will have to bracket their mythic beliefs," and he cites as examples Moses parting the Red Sea, Christ born of a virgin etc"

"Wilber than says "only those who embrace the new religious consciousness, or who at least bracket their religious beliefs, will survive in the coming global society, which Wilber says will be marked by a "worldcentric" awareness based in "universal pluralism"."

"Unity in Diversity, destroys diversity. If an adherant to a religion believes that all other religions are equal to his own, he can no longer truly hold to that religion; he can no longer be who he is. He becomes a blank - a blank waiting to be filled with a new revelation. There is only sameness based on blankness. This false "unity in diversity" is precisely what Satan will use in order to hypnotize the mass mind in the last days. And if you have no particular religious belief and give yourself over to some kind of vague idea, then the demons come in and begin to act".

2 January 2008 at 16:38  
Anonymous Fran said...


I do not think that this dispute is about a global battle of ideas in the UN. It is a power struggle in which the democratic system of one-country-one-vote (developed in western Christian countries and eschewed by the vast majority of Muslim countries)is used by repressive regimes to impose their loathsome ideas upon truly democratic countries.

It is laughable to call the UN 'the voice of the world'. It has become the voice of dictators who want to extend their dictatorship to those of us who reject and refute their authority.

May the UN implode, and soon.

2 January 2008 at 16:38  
Blogger AethelBald, King of Wessex said...

Here are all the clauses that use the word "defamation". Note that the action item is last and emboldened by me:

Noting with concern that defamation of religions is among the causes of social disharmony and leads to violations of human rights of their adherents,

Recognizing the incompatibility of defamation of religions and cultures with the objectives of a truly globalized world and the promotion and maintenance of international peace and security,

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 11 September 2001;

Expresses deep concern at programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at the defamation of religions, in particular when supported by Governments;

Encourages States, within their respective constitutional systems, to provide adequate protection against all human rights violations resulting from defamation of religions and to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems;

To me, this muted call to action suggests that we can do what we choose. If some craven government decides to make - say blasphemy - illegal, then we can claim that our right to free speech has been infringed if we are punished for a transgression.
But wait, blasphemy is illegal (as far as I can tell what the law is at this instant in time). Well, blasphemy against things upheld by the Church of England, that is. So, for example, it is illegal to publish this utterly disgusting poem that suggests Christ was gay but I may freely call the Pope the Antichrist and still be considered a statesman.

Note the absurdity and inconsistency of all this. It's a complete farce. We are all over the place, and the government has still not had the testicular constitution to implement the Racial and Religious Hatred Act. Are we in a position to advise others on the right way to handle this stuff?

But then, when did not knowing what we are talking about stop us.

2 January 2008 at 18:07  
Blogger Cranmer said...

King Aethelbald,

Blasphemy is actually no longer illegal in the UK, for the law is has fallen into disuse and is thereby rendered obsolete.

His Grace intends posting on this during the week.

2 January 2008 at 18:19  
Anonymous Yokel said...

It seems that the UN have caught a bad dose of the Kuffarphobia that is doing the rounds at the moment. They have been passing anti Israel resolutions since the modern refounding of the state of Israel, just stacking them up ready for use at some time in the future. I think we might fear that it might now be closer than we would wish.

2 January 2008 at 18:34  
Blogger AethelBald, King of Wessex said...

If I may demur from Your Grace, a law that is obsolete may still be the law, or then again it may not be. It depends on who's asking.

The following quote of Lord Denning in 1949 is from the Wikipedia entry on the British law on blasphemy:

"...the offence of blasphemy is a dead letter"

The filthy rhyme referenced by me, above, was successfully prosecuted for blasphemy in 1977, see Whitehouse v. Lemon.

2 January 2008 at 18:36  
Blogger AethelBald, King of Wessex said...

Cranmer rather wishes John Bolton had been made UN Secretary General...

A caution as to what one might wish for: John Bolton, degenerate.

2 January 2008 at 20:42  
Blogger Dr.D said...

Having Larry Flynt say something bad about you is actually a pretty solid recommendation. Flynt is a lying piece of trash and certainly his word is worth absolutely nothing. He should be totally disregarded in all matters.

2 January 2008 at 20:48  
Blogger AethelBald, King of Wessex said...


An ad hominem attack against Larry Flynt may satisfy some, but does not explain why JB's apointment as Amabassador to the U.N. was never endorsed by the Senate. Regular readers of The Washington Note will recognize this comments page.

Larry Flynt's assertions are, I believe, litigable even in the US where libel laws are more relaxed than they are in Britain. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that the allegations are either true, or otherwise substantial. The question of whether or not this should matter is separate.

2 January 2008 at 21:36  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Can we still be very rude indeed about the UN?

I hope so because.


The UN is the biggest danger to our lives next to sleeping all day in the middle of the M1 motorway. No sorry its much worse then that.

Never has a more evil organization been brought into existence, since the SS. The UN does not resolve or stop wars, the UN runs, manages, causes and benefits from wars.

When not sponsoring encouraging promoting murder death torture or genocide directly or the evil dictators that are so in love with their still very often enjoyed, past times.

They make the League of Nations look like a womens institute meeting in comparison. Genghis Khan seem like a happy old lolly pop man. Robert Maxwell, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown seen almost honest.

You cant trust any, almost infinitely large, very rich, and vastly powerful, completely unaccountable to any form of law at all, organization. But you cant trust the one called The UN with anything whatsoever, even more so.

3 January 2008 at 03:04  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Homophobic Horse

Thank you very much for explaining properly what my ranting could not possibly do.

You sum it all up very well, and it is all true, I am very sorry to say.

It all sounds not too bad on paper, except we all should know what usually happens when people start getting VERY BIG IDEAS. Usually lots and lots of people go down the proverbial toilet followed by even worse things.

Big ideas are best left in the rampantly evil minds that create them. It seems we are stuck with this one now. Lets hope when the plan fails like they always do in the end, you and me will still be around to write or consider the history of it all.

Let the Gods help us. Maybe this time they will AGAIN. Although if I was them I would not bother, we simply don't deserve it.

3 January 2008 at 03:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that this is a bad idea. the UN has to take into account the different kinds of government, and how it would effect them. You can't force the people of the US democracy to stop speaking about what they don't like. You can't restrict what people say, because maybe they believe something different then you.

26 February 2009 at 00:47  
Anonymous OldWaysFollower said...

I'm a Pagan, but I vehemently oppose islamic terrorism and I defend freedom for Christians. The resolution you write about, Reverend, is outrageous. I doubt, though, that anybody in the West wanted to enforce this, there are many outraging resolutions (eg. these against Israel, willing to take away this brave country's right to defend Her land), which are powerless and enforced by nobody.
Anyway, I agree with you that UNO has become the agenda for the darkest powers on the Earth. Islamic fanaticism, as previously Soviet communism, made extensive use of UN. I oppose communism, but in such cases as this one I regret that communists never gained more power eg. in Afghanistan, Iran, etc; at least, religious bigotry would be wiped out from those, and as we know, communism would fail anyway along with Soviet Union, so maybe today they would be secular, democratic and pro-Western.
if you like, feel free to visit and comment my blog:
With Pagan greetings,

5 April 2009 at 14:09  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older