Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Islam Has Feelings Hurt Again

It never ceases to amaze me anymore as to the extent to which the liberal apologists will go to appease anybody who moans loudly enough. Islam is the ultimate on my list of moronic fuckwittery. Yet again they're crying and complaining of their wonderfully peaceful religion being mercilessly attacked by evil people who just don't understand. We're hurting Islam's feelings and something needs to be done because it's a very sensitive religion.

On Friday, the UN Human Rights Council approved a resolution that calls on states to limit criticism of religions – specifically Islam. This is the tenth time such a resolution has passed at the UN's primary human rights body. Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, began introducing similar resolutions in 1999 arguing that Islam – the only religion specifically cited in the text – must be shielded from unfair associations with terrorism and human rights abuses.

These so-called "defamation of religions" resolutions also have a perfect record at the UN General Assembly, where the latest version passed in December. The resolutions contain some very appealing language, steeped in standard human rights values such as dialogue, harmony, and tolerance.

But don't be fooled; the resolutions only give clever lip service to these values. In reality they are calling for laws and actions that prohibit dialogue by declaring certain topics off limits for discussion, leading to intolerance of any view that some Muslims may find offensive. For instance, criticizing the practice of polygamy or the greater weight given to the testimony of men over women in sharia law would be forbidden. Such laws that prohibit blasphemy, defamation, or the defiling of Islam already exist in many of the countries that support the defamation of religions resolutions.

Who decides what views defame religion? Governments, of course. And the governments of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) have some of the worst records of respecting freedom of expression and belief in the world. Some of Freedom Houses's lowest-ranking countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran, are frequent sponsors. Other countries with less-than-stellar human rights records, such as Belarus, Venezuela, and Russia, also sign on, seemingly for the purpose of opposing international norms of human rights rather than out of any real solidarity with OIC countries.

Of course, the very idea that you can defame a religion at all flies in the face of both fundamental rights of expression and belief. A religion, like all ideas and beliefs, must be open to debate, discussion, and even criticism. For this reason, religions themselves do not have rights. Rights belong exclusively to people.

Nonetheless, these resolutions present a win-win scenario for OIC countries. They serve to legitimize the repression of minority voices at home, while scoring points with religious leaders and Islamic fundamentalists by fueling views of an antagonistic and "Islamophobic" Western world. Extremists are thus tacitly encouraged to take action against any who dare to defame their religious sensibilities.

Salmon Rushdie, Flemming Rose, and Theo Van Gogh are just some of the better known individuals who have been attacked – and, in the case of Mr. Van Gogh, killed – for expressing views deemed defamatory. Thousands of lesser-known human rights activists, bloggers, academics, and journalists have been threatened, imprisoned, beaten, or killed for expressing their beliefs. Countless Muslims have been persecuted for voicing a brand of faith deemed unorthodox and therefore blasphemous or defamatory. It is impossible to know how many have not dared to raise their voices out of fear of retribution.

Moreover, the OIC is not satisfied with the legitimacy it gains from the passage of nonbinding UN resolutions. Supporters of the "defamation of religions" concept have insidiously begun using language from existing international human rights law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to pervert international human rights norms.

I would like to know why any other belief that I choose to hold can be questioned but when it comes to religion it's simply off limits? This is especially true with Islam which is obviously not an all terrorist religion but so far it has been the religion of nearly all terrorists. Religion is absolutely the cause of the majority of evil in the world. If you haven't read them I would like to recommend a couple of books.




Religion has done just fine all on it's own for thousands of years, I am quite sure that it doesn't need to be protected against anybody's negative opinion. What some religions will do though is use the liberalism of those who oppose it to control and ultimately destroy them. Islam is winning a battle for our very rights on our very soil and it's only going to get worse. The struggle will become more futile with every little battle they win, it starts here... where is it going to end?

If you haven't watched this when I posted it before, or elsewhere, now is the time.

I leave you with this little gem.


No comments: