Universal Periodic Review: High Treason

Now comes the response of the United States to the U.N.H.R.C Universal Periodic Review, delivered orally by the State Department's legal counsel. I would vomit, but I am loath to waste a good meal.  Words lack the capacity to express the depth, breadth & intensity of my disgust, but I will give it a good try.

    The response appears to be carefully crafted by skilled lawyers,  yet it can not pass close examination in the light of objective factual reality.

Completion of the First UPR of the United States: Statement by Harold Hongju Koh

In the context of counter-terrorism, a number of U.S. civil society groups, and countries – such as Egypt and Algeria – have raised concerns regarding discrimination against Muslims. The United States agrees that the problem of terrorism is not unique to members of any religious or ethnic group. Our government does not support attempts to treat entire communities as a threat to our national security, based solely on their race, religion, or ethnicity.

    So, atheists & Catholics have committed acts of terrorism. Over what timeline?  On what scope & scale?  How does their recent engagement compare to that of Islam?  Where in the holy scripture of any other 'religion' do you discover the functional equivalent of the following listed abominations?

• Intention  & sanctification of terrorizing
  • 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).
  • 8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."
• Effective imperative to terrorize
  • 8:57. If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.
  • 8:60. Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
• Celebration of the effects of terrorizing
  • 33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.
  • 33:27. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.
  • 59:2. He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Bani An-Nadir) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But Allah's (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).
  • 59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allah - Islamic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Bani An-Nadir) breasts than Allah. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allah).
    • Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
    • Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220. I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy),
• Eternal reward for terrorism
  • 9:120. It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allah's Messenger (Muhammad SAW when fighting in Allah's Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allah, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness. Surely, Allah wastes not the reward of the Muhsinun.
• Terrorism as life's mission
  • 9:111. Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allâh's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur'ân. And who is truer to his covenant than Allâh? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success .

    Islam, having declared and prosecuted perpetual war against us, is a clear, imminent and persistent threat to our lives, property, prosperity & liberty.  Islam, without Muslims, would be harmless. Muslims; believers as defined in 9:111, 49:15 & 8:2 , constitute an imminent threat and should be removed and excluded from our territory. 

Periodic Review » Releases » US Response to UN Human Rights Council Working Group Report
U.S. Response to UN Human Rights Council Working Group Report

March 10, 2011

Report of the United States of America
Submitted to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights
In Conjunction with the Universal Periodic Review
Response to the U.N. Human Rights Council Working Group Report

A/HRC/IWG.6/9/L9

85. The United Slates delegation responded to a number of questions and concerns regarding
discrimination against Muslims, Arab Americans, and South Asians. The United States is committed to
addressing negative stereotypes, discrimination and hate crimes through measures such as the creation
of a 911 1 backlash task force, litigation to protect religious freedom including the right of school girls to
wear the hijab, nationwide community outreach, and enforcement of employment discrimination
laws. The United States is taking concrete measures to make border and aviation security measures
more effective and targeted to eliminate profiling based on race, religion, or ethnicity.

10. The following enjoy our support:

• 85.

    "The United States is committed to addressing negative stereotypes,"  The highlighted expression refers directly to the connection between Islamic doctrine/practice and terrorism. In a previous paragraph I outlined the Qur'an ayat which establish terrorism as an intrinsic sacrament of Islam and two hadith which exemplify it.  Why is my government "committed to" denying objective factual reality?  The policy is a token of suicidal treachery.

    While they claim to support the first amendment's free speech clause, they declare a policy directly opposed to it; an excellent exemplar of cognitive dissonance.

101. Ban, at the Federal and state levels, the use of racial profiling by police and immigration officers (Bolivia);
Prohibit expressly the use of racial profiling in the enforcement of immigration legislation (Mexico);

102. Revoke the national system to register the entry and exit of citizens of25 countries from the Middle-East, South
Asia and North Africa, and eliminate racial and other forms of profiling and stereotyping of Arabs, Muslims and South
Asians as recommended by CERD. (Sudan);

5. The following recommendations enjoy our support:

• 68, 101, and 219, in that profiling — the invidious use of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion — is prohibited under the U.S. Constitution and numerous pieces of national legislation.

    What is invidious about recognition of the fact that all of the perpetrators of recent mass casualty acts of terrorism were Muslims, acting in Allah's name?  What can be more insane than scrutinizing innocent citizens while ignoring the obvious threat of Islamic affiliation? 

    Only those are believers who fight in Allah's cause, which is global domination; tho "kill others and are killed" and take steps to enrage or injure disbelievers.  The policy of Obamination is suicidal treachery!

190. Take effective measures to counter insults against Islam and Holy Quran, as well as Islamophobia and violence
against Moslems, and adopt necessary legislation (Iran);

191. Continue to create an enabling climate for religious and cultural tolerance and understanding at the grass roots
level (Indonesia);

6. The following enjoy our support, in part:

• 190. We take effective measures to counter intolerance, violence and discrimination against all members of all minority groups, including Muslims. We cannot support this recommendation, however, to the extent that it asks us to take legislative measures countering insults. Insults (unlike discrimination, threats, or violence) are speech protected by our Constitution.

    ¶190-191 reflect boilerplate from recent U.N. resolutions "combating defamation of religions". Islamic law prescribes the death penalty for any negative expression about Allah, his Profit & their damnable system of intra-species predation.  For the benefit of those who value knowledge over prejudice, I present links to the evidence on which the statement above is based. Rational people will follow them, read the relevant Shari'ah and curse Islam.

• O8.1-2: the penalty for apostasy. 
• O8.7: the list of 20 acts entailing apostasy.
• O11.10: applicability of O8.7 to conquered Christians.
• O9.14: the penalty imposed on a Christian who says something "unmentionable" about Islam and its sanctities.
• O9.0-9.9:   predation upon the human race. 

"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil"  It is impossible for a rational and informed person to tolerate Islam and our government should not be attempting to impose irrationality upon us.

---

Related documents from Eye on the UN:

3/10/2011	"U.S. Response to UN Human Rights Council Working Group Report"
11/9/2010	"Response of the United States of America to Recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review Working Group"
11/5/2010	"Interactive Dialogue on the U.S. Universal Periodic Review: Opening Statement by the U.S. Delegation"
11/5/2010	"Interactive Dialogue on the U.S. Universal Periodic Review: Statement by the US delegation on National Security Issues"
11/5/2010	"Interactive Dialogue on the U.S. Universal Periodic Review: Statement by the US delegation on rights and interests of indigenous peoples"
11/5/2010	"Statement by Cuba during the United States Universal Periodic Review"
11/5/2010	"Statement by Iran during the United States Universal Periodic Review"
11/5/2010	"Statement by Israel during the United States Universal Periodic Review"
11/5/2010	"Statement by the DPRK during the United States Universal Periodic Review"

Treasonous State Department Condemns Wrong Prayer

In '02, World Net Daily published translations of several  prayers delivered by Muslim clerics.  Yemen televised Sheik Akram Abd-al-Razzaq al-Ruqeihi praying at their Grand Mosque in Sanaa.

"O God, destroy the United States and its allies and let them suffer, particularly tyrant and arrogant Americans. O God, destroy the Jews, for they are within your power."

    Saudi Arabia televised a prayer by Sheik Sa'ud Bin-Ibrahim al-Shureim's from the Grand Mosque in Mecca. What would he pray for?

"O God, strengthen Islam and Muslims, humiliate infidelity and infidels, destroy your enemies, the enemies of Islam, and protect this country."

Whose destruction was he praying for?

    Sheik Muhammad Abd-al-Rahman Barakat spoke from Al-Rawdah Mosque in Damascus,  the government radio broadcast this prayer.

"O God, help Arabs and Muslims score victory over your enemy and their enemy and destroy the treacherous Zionists and their followers. O God, support our mujahedin brothers in the occupied Arab territories."

Islam Commentaries has a more extensive list of official execrations and source link.

    Who gives a damn?  Certainly not the U.S. State Department.  Google search:

No results found for "State Department condemns prayer".

But the first result without the quote marks is to an August 29 '10 Fox News report about condemnation of a Rabbi who suggested that the Almighty should strike  Israel's Muslim enemies with a plague.

"We regret and condemn the inflammatory statements by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef," State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said ... "These remarks are not only deeply offensive, but incitement such as this hurts the cause of peace. As we move forward to re-launch peace negotiations, it is important that actions by people on all sides help to advance our effort, not hinder it,"

   

Google gave me 53 results, none of them reported State Department condemnation of Muslim execrations.   In further searches, I was unable to find any record of State Department condemnation of prayers for the destruction of America and Israel.

    When a Jew prays for deliverance from evil, he is condemned, when Muslims pray for Israel's destruction, broadcast by state media, they are ignored.  Why are we governed by AssWholes & traitors?  Elections have consequences.    Be careful when voting and make no mistakes!

State Department Principle: Hypocrisy

I have reproduced an excerpt from a speech delivered byHarold Hongju Koh. Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State to the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law in Washington, DC on March 25, 2010. I have added emphasis to some crucial statements and intersperced my commentary.

When the Obama Administration took office, we faced two choices with respect to the Human Rights Council: we could continue to stay away, and watch the flaws continue and possibly get worse, or we could engage and fight for better outcomes on human rights issues, even if they would not be easy to achieve. With the HRC, as with the ICC and other for a, we have chosen principled engagement and strategic multilateralism. While the institution is far from perfect, it is important and deserves the long-term commitment of the United States, and the United States must deploy its stature and moral authority to improve the U.N. human rights system where possible. This is a long-term effort, but one that we are committed to seeing through to success consistent with the basic goals of the Obama-Clinton doctrine: principled engagement and universality of human rights law.

HRC members are elected to the council on a regional basis. The realities of geopolitics dictate the fact that the enemies of human rights will always have a majority on the council. Our side will continue to be out voted, no matter how we pursue our principles. Our engagement is ineffectual.

Our inaugural session as an HRC member in September saw some important successes, most notably the adoption by consensus of a freedom of expression resolution, which we co-sponsored with Egypt, that brought warring regional groups together and preserved the resolution as a vehicle to express firm support for freedom of speech and expression. This resolution was a way of implementing some of the themes in President Obama’s historic speech in Cairo, bridging geographic and cultural divides and dealing with global issues of discrimination and intolerance.

Harold Koh was referring to A/HRC/12/L.l4/Rev. which, contrary to his assertion, does nothing to support freedom of expression, which includes these expressions:

Recognizes the positive contribution that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, particularly by the media, including through information and communication technologies such as the Internet, and full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can make to the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and to preventing human rights abuses, but expresses regret at the promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes of vulnerable individuals or groups of individuals, and at the use of information and communication technologies such as the Internet for purposes contrary to respect for human rights, in particular the perpetration of violence against and exploitation and abuse of women and children, and disseminating racist and xenophobic discourse or content;

In that context, "racism" & "related intolerance" are code words for criticism of Islam. The right to free expression can contribute to ending "Islamophobia"; yeah, right. "Promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes" is a thinly veiled reference to the Motoons & Fitna. The resolution is, in reality, a demand for censorship.

We also joined country resolutions highlighting human rights situations in Burma, Somalia, Cambodia, and Honduras, and were able to take positions joined by other countries on several resolutions on which the United States previously would have been isolated, including ones on toxic waste and the financial crisis. The challenges in developing a body that fairly and even-handedly addresses human rights issues are significant, but we will continue to work toward that end.

How about the human rights abuses subsequent to the stolen election in Iran? What did you do about that in the council?

At the March HRC session, which ends tomorrow, we have continued to pursue principled engagement by taking on a variety of initiatives at the HRC that seek to weaken protections on freedom of expression, in particular, the push of some Council Members to ban speech that “defames” religions, such as the Danish cartoons. At this session, we made supported a country resolution on Guinea and made significant progress in opposing the Organization of the Islamic Conference’s highly problematic “defamation of religions” resolution, even while continuing to deal with underlying concerns about religious intolerance.

So you flipped three votes on the Defamation of Religions Resolution, big deal; it still carried a majority and it will continue to do so every year unless you can flip the votes of four OIC members. The American delegation recently submitted a draft proposal which they would substitute for the draft resolution before the Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards, which would amend ICERD to criminalize all criticism of Islam. I dissected that new draft in a previous blog post.

Where the OIC and its allies are concerned, religious intolerance is not a concern. Islam is extremely intolerant. Truthful exposure of the doctrines and practices of Islam are what they are concerned about. The Motoons depicted Moe as a terrorist, which he was, by his own bragging. Fitna exposed the connection between the doctrines enshrined in the Qur'an and the violence done by Muslim mobs after Juman Salat. Islamic law prescribes the death penalty for reviling Allah, Moe, and their war cult. A Muslim who does that, or who questions any Islamic doctrine is deemed an apostate subject to execution. Turn to http://www.nku.edu/~kenneyr/Islam/Reliance.html and read O8.2, O8.7 and O11.5. {Book O, Chapters 8 & 11}
They want to impose that law on us.

Respect for Religious Differences?

The impetus for the present diatribe came from this article publiched by the U.S. Mission tyo the UN in Geneva.
Promoting Respect for Religious Differences By Suzanne Nossel, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Bureau of International Organization Affairs.

Our government is engaged in subtle, highly polished dissembling. In order to point out the clever lies, I have reproduced excerpts from the article in block quote format, with Helvetica or Arial type face, interspersed with my commentary. I have added bold font emphasis to make the lies easier to spot.

Take a close look at the title of the article, in bold blue text above. Do you spot the lie? The article is about a counter proposal offered as a substitute for the OIC's campaign to outlaw criticism of Islam. It is not about respecting differences, it is about respecting Islam. When the differences between Christianity and Islam are considered, the differences are so stark that respect is impossible.

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, sent to save sinners through acceptance of God's grace. We believe that he was crucified, died and was resurrected. Muslims believe that Isa, their name for Jesus, was fully human, Allah's slave, not God's son, was not crucified, neither died nor resurrected and will return as a genocidal warlord who will lead the Muslim army in its final conquest, exterminating the Jews. How in Hell can any sentient person exepct us to respect that blasphemy? The details, for those who don't know, are documented in The Defamation of Jesus Christ.

Over the last decade, we have witnessed a campaign to attempt to counter religious hatred through bans on speech under the rubric of prohibitions on the “defamation of religions.” This effort has taken root in a series of resolutions at the U.N.’s General Assembly in New York and its Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Far from attempting to counter religious hatred, the OIC, as the representative of Islam in the absence of a Caliphate, is acting out religious hatred by attempting to impose Islam's blasphemy law upon the entire world through the agency of the United Nations. Religious hatred is not the issue. Defamation is not the issue. Proscribing defamation by law would not reduce hatred in any case, it would only cause it to fester. Take a close look at Islamic law, quoted from Reliance of the Traveller, Book O.

• O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam
• -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);
• -5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);
• -6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;
• -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

• -16- to revile the religion of Islam;

• -19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

• O11.10 The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

• -3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

• -5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

The penalty for apostasy is death.

• O8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
• O8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

The code in O11.10 refers to the treaty of protection afforded to conquered Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians who, as an alternative to conversion to Islam, make annual payments of tribute and exist under conditions of humiliation & subjection. When a dhimmi violates those rules, the caliph can kill him at will.

Islam's Hellbent determination to impose its blasphemy law on us is not about defamation, it is about supremacism. Islam claims to have a monopoly on divine truth, all else is false. They are attempting to impose through "international law" what they can not yet impose by force of arms.

Some U.N. member states supportive of these resolutions are banding together to try to impose a global ban on offensive speech in the form of a binding instrument under international law.

Any criticism of Allah, Moe & their doctrines & practices is offensive to Islam. The prime examples they cite are the Motoons and Fitna:. Although the most famous of the cartoons depicts an explosive device, which Moe never had in his possession, he was, by his own admission, a terrorist.

The irony of this effort is that the concept of “defamation of religion” has been used to crack down on religious minorities that espouse beliefs deemed by the State to defame a national or majority-supported religion. Moreover, many of the countries that support the defamation of religion apply the concept to protect one religion only, and are — within their own countries — accepting of hostile language and acts that target minority faiths.

Irony? No, that is the intended result, not a misapplication. Defamation of Islam is a shibboleth created for political purposes, not a real and substantive issue.

These contradictions demonstrate that the drive to impose a global ban on offensive speech will not protect members of all religions on an equal basis, as U.N. resolutions and international legal norms must do. Nor will they address the specific and legitimate concerns about the treatment and mistreatment of Muslim minorities globally. Concerns about the treatment of Muslim minorities warrant concerted action on the international stage, but through steps and measures that actually work, rather than bans on free speech.

Equality of application would not make Islam's blasphemy laws acceptable. If you shield Judiasm, Christianity and other religions from criticism along with Islam, you still make it impossible to accurately identify and characterize the implaccable foe who has declared and is prosecuting war against us. Had Hitler declared Mein Kampf to be divine revelation and National Socialism to be a religion, we would not have been able to use those propaganda posters in WW2 under the proposed regime. The intent is, that in George Washington's words: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”[http://www.georgewashingtonsociety.org/Mission.html]

What legitimate concerns? We have laws against assault & harassment. It is not Muslims who are being murdered, raped, tortured and burned out of their homes, businesses and churches in Egypt,.Indonesia & Pakistan.

It is not mythical assaults and murders they seek to prevent, it is revelation & recognition of the truth about Islam: that it is a war cult which seeks to destroy western civilization and plunge the world into theocratic tyranny. Measures to promote that objective are undesirable, whether or not they are effective.

The United States has worked strenuously to oppose defamation-based approaches on the basis that they are inconsistent with fundamental freedoms of speech and expressions, including the values endorsed by U.N. member states through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The United States has given lip service to the concept of freedom of expression, but, in October of '09, the State Department co-sponsored the Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution, which substitutes "negative stereotyping" for "defamation", a distinction without a difference.

As an alternative to the efforts that would ban speech in order to prohibit “defamation of religion,” we are proposing to achieve the goal of promoting religious pluralism and acceptance of religious difference through the kinds of steps that we have seen be effective in our own country and across the globe: enactment and enforcement of laws prohibiting discrimination; bans on hate crimes; education, training and dialogue to promote religious tolerance.

Get a clue.

• 3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
• 9:30. And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

Islam's scripture says that we are going to Hell and curses us in addition to declaring perpetual war against us. Religious pluralism? Acceptance?? In your dreams!! Why would anyone desire to promote tolerance of a "religion" which sanctifies and mandates genocidal conquest & terrorism? Tolerance must be reciprocal; Islam is not tolerant. The two ayat quoted above prove this fact without any room for doubt.

Islam is a predator; We are prey. For the sake of safety, we must be allowed to truthfully discuss Islam. The Ad Hoc Committee will meet again in March.. We do not know how long it will take them to produce their protocol to ICERD, but I have no doubt that, barring a miracle, President Obama or his successor will sign it and the Senate will ratify it.

Respect for Religious Differences?

The impetus for the present diatribe came from this article publiched by the U.S. Mission tyo the UN in Geneva.
Promoting Respect for Religious Differences By Suzanne Nossel, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Bureau of International Organization Affairs.

Our government is engaged in subtle, highly polished dissembling. In order to point out the clever lies, I have reproduced excerpts from the article in block quote format, with Helvetica or Arial type face, interspersed with my commentary. I have added bold font emphasis to make the lies easier to spot.

Take a close look at the title of the article, in bold blue text above. Do you spot the lie? The article is about a counter proposal offered as a substitute for the OIC's campaign to outlaw criticism of Islam. It is not about respecting differences, it is about respecting Islam. When the differences between Christianity and Islam are considered, the differences are so stark that respect is impossible.

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, sent to save sinners through acceptance of God's grace. We believe that he was crucified, died and was resurrected. Muslims believe that Isa, their name for Jesus, was fully human, Allah's slave, not God's son, was not crucified, neither died nor resurrected and will return as a genocidal warlord who will lead the Muslim army in its final conquest, exterminating the Jews. How in Hell can any sentient person exepct us to respect that blasphemy? The details, for those who don't know, are documented in The Defamation of Jesus Christ.

Over the last decade, we have witnessed a campaign to attempt to counter religious hatred through bans on speech under the rubric of prohibitions on the “defamation of religions.” This effort has taken root in a series of resolutions at the U.N.’s General Assembly in New York and its Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Far from attempting to counter religious hatred, the OIC, as the representative of Islam in the absence of a Caliphate, is acting out religious hatred by attempting to impose Islam's blasphemy law upon the entire world through the agency of the United Nations. Religious hatred is not the issue. Defamation is not the issue. Proscribing defamation by law would not reduce hatred in any case, it would only cause it to fester. Take a close look at Islamic law, quoted from Reliance of the Traveller, Book O.

• O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam
• -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);
• -5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);
• -6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;
• -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

• -16- to revile the religion of Islam;

• -19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

• O11.10 The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

• -3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

• -5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

The penalty for apostasy is death.

• O8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
• O8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

The code in O11.10 refers to the treaty of protection afforded to conquered Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians who, as an alternative to conversion to Islam, make annual payments of tribute and exist under conditions of humiliation & subjection. When a dhimmi violates those rules, the caliph can kill him at will.

Islam's Hellbent determination to impose its blasphemy law on us is not about defamation, it is about supremacism. Islam claims to have a monopoly on divine truth, all else is false. They are attempting to impose through "international law" what they can not yet impose by force of arms.

Some U.N. member states supportive of these resolutions are banding together to try to impose a global ban on offensive speech in the form of a binding instrument under international law.

Any criticism of Allah, Moe & their doctrines & practices is offensive to Islam. The prime examples they cite are the Motoons and Fitna:. Although the most famous of the cartoons depicts an explosive device, which Moe never had in his possession, he was, by his own admission, a terrorist.

The irony of this effort is that the concept of “defamation of religion” has been used to crack down on religious minorities that espouse beliefs deemed by the State to defame a national or majority-supported religion. Moreover, many of the countries that support the defamation of religion apply the concept to protect one religion only, and are — within their own countries — accepting of hostile language and acts that target minority faiths.

Irony? No, that is the intended result, not a misapplication. Defamation of Islam is a shibboleth created for political purposes, not a real and substantive issue.

These contradictions demonstrate that the drive to impose a global ban on offensive speech will not protect members of all religions on an equal basis, as U.N. resolutions and international legal norms must do. Nor will they address the specific and legitimate concerns about the treatment and mistreatment of Muslim minorities globally. Concerns about the treatment of Muslim minorities warrant concerted action on the international stage, but through steps and measures that actually work, rather than bans on free speech.

Equality of application would not make Islam's blasphemy laws acceptable. If you shield Judiasm, Christianity and other religions from criticism along with Islam, you still make it impossible to accurately identify and characterize the implaccable foe who has declared and is prosecuting war against us. Had Hitler declared Mein Kampf to be divine revelation and National Socialism to be a religion, we would not have been able to use those propaganda posters in WW2 under the proposed regime. The intent is, that in George Washington's words: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”[http://www.georgewashingtonsociety.org/Mission.html]

What legitimate concerns? We have laws against assault & harassment. It is not Muslims who are being murdered, raped, tortured and burned out of their homes, businesses and churches in Egypt,.Indonesia & Pakistan.

It is not mythical assaults and murders they seek to prevent, it is revelation & recognition of the truth about Islam: that it is a war cult which seeks to destroy western civilization and plunge the world into theocratic tyranny. Measures to promote that objective are undesirable, whether or not they are effective.

The United States has worked strenuously to oppose defamation-based approaches on the basis that they are inconsistent with fundamental freedoms of speech and expressions, including the values endorsed by U.N. member states through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The United States has given lip service to the concept of freedom of expression, but, in October of '09, the State Department co-sponsored the Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution, which substitutes "negative stereotyping" for "defamation", a distinction without a difference.

As an alternative to the efforts that would ban speech in order to prohibit “defamation of religion,” we are proposing to achieve the goal of promoting religious pluralism and acceptance of religious difference through the kinds of steps that we have seen be effective in our own country and across the globe: enactment and enforcement of laws prohibiting discrimination; bans on hate crimes; education, training and dialogue to promote religious tolerance.

Get a clue.

• 3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
• 9:30. And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

Islam's scripture says that we are going to Hell and curses us in addition to declaring perpetual war against us. Religious pluralism? Acceptance?? In your dreams!! Why would anyone desire to promote tolerance of a "religion" which sanctifies and mandates genocidal conquest & terrorism? Tolerance must be reciprocal; Islam is not tolerant. The two ayat quoted above prove this fact without any room for doubt.

Islam is a predator; We are prey. For the sake of safety, we must be allowed to truthfully discuss Islam. The Ad Hoc Committee will meet again in March.. We do not know how long it will take them to produce their protocol to ICERD, but I have no doubt that, barring a miracle, President Obama or his successor will sign it and the Senate will ratify it.

Respect for Religious Differences?

The impetus for the present diatribe came from this article publiched by the U.S. Mission tyo the UN in Geneva.
Promoting Respect for Religious Differences By Suzanne Nossel, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Bureau of International Organization Affairs.

Our government is engaged in subtle, highly polished dissembling. In order to point out the clever lies, I have reproduced excerpts from the article in block quote format, with Helvetica or Arial type face, interspersed with my commentary. I have added bold font emphasis to make the lies easier to spot.

Take a close look at the title of the article, in bold blue text above. Do you spot the lie? The article is about a counter proposal offered as a substitute for the OIC's campaign to outlaw criticism of Islam. It is not about respecting differences, it is about respecting Islam. When the differences between Christianity and Islam are considered, the differences are so stark that respect is impossible.

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, sent to save sinners through acceptance of God's grace. We believe that he was crucified, died and was resurrected. Muslims believe that Isa, their name for Jesus, was fully human, Allah's slave, not God's son, was not crucified, neither died nor resurrected and will return as a genocidal warlord who will lead the Muslim army in its final conquest, exterminating the Jews. How in Hell can any sentient person exepct us to respect that blasphemy? The details, for those who don't know, are documented in The Defamation of Jesus Christ.

Over the last decade, we have witnessed a campaign to attempt to counter religious hatred through bans on speech under the rubric of prohibitions on the “defamation of religions.” This effort has taken root in a series of resolutions at the U.N.’s General Assembly in New York and its Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Far from attempting to counter religious hatred, the OIC, as the representative of Islam in the absence of a Caliphate, is acting out religious hatred by attempting to impose Islam's blasphemy law upon the entire world through the agency of the United Nations. Religious hatred is not the issue. Defamation is not the issue. Proscribing defamation by law would not reduce hatred in any case, it would only cause it to fester. Take a close look at Islamic law, quoted from Reliance of the Traveller, Book O.

• O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam
• -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);
• -5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);
• -6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;
• -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

• -16- to revile the religion of Islam;

• -19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

• O11.10 The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

• -3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

• -5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

The penalty for apostasy is death.

• O8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
• O8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

The code in O11.10 refers to the treaty of protection afforded to conquered Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians who, as an alternative to conversion to Islam, make annual payments of tribute and exist under conditions of humiliation & subjection. When a dhimmi violates those rules, the caliph can kill him at will.

Islam's Hellbent determination to impose its blasphemy law on us is not about defamation, it is about supremacism. Islam claims to have a monopoly on divine truth, all else is false. They are attempting to impose through "international law" what they can not yet impose by force of arms.

Some U.N. member states supportive of these resolutions are banding together to try to impose a global ban on offensive speech in the form of a binding instrument under international law.

Any criticism of Allah, Moe & their doctrines & practices is offensive to Islam. The prime examples they cite are the Motoons and Fitna:. Although the most famous of the cartoons depicts an explosive device, which Moe never had in his possession, he was, by his own admission, a terrorist.

The irony of this effort is that the concept of “defamation of religion” has been used to crack down on religious minorities that espouse beliefs deemed by the State to defame a national or majority-supported religion. Moreover, many of the countries that support the defamation of religion apply the concept to protect one religion only, and are — within their own countries — accepting of hostile language and acts that target minority faiths.

Irony? No, that is the intended result, not a misapplication. Defamation of Islam is a shibboleth created for political purposes, not a real and substantive issue.

These contradictions demonstrate that the drive to impose a global ban on offensive speech will not protect members of all religions on an equal basis, as U.N. resolutions and international legal norms must do. Nor will they address the specific and legitimate concerns about the treatment and mistreatment of Muslim minorities globally. Concerns about the treatment of Muslim minorities warrant concerted action on the international stage, but through steps and measures that actually work, rather than bans on free speech.

Equality of application would not make Islam's blasphemy laws acceptable. If you shield Judiasm, Christianity and other religions from criticism along with Islam, you still make it impossible to accurately identify and characterize the implaccable foe who has declared and is prosecuting war against us. Had Hitler declared Mein Kampf to be divine revelation and National Socialism to be a religion, we would not have been able to use those propaganda posters in WW2 under the proposed regime. The intent is, that in George Washington's words: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”[http://www.georgewashingtonsociety.org/Mission.html]

What legitimate concerns? We have laws against assault & harassment. It is not Muslims who are being murdered, raped, tortured and burned out of their homes, businesses and churches in Egypt,.Indonesia & Pakistan.

It is not mythical assaults and murders they seek to prevent, it is revelation & recognition of the truth about Islam: that it is a war cult which seeks to destroy western civilization and plunge the world into theocratic tyranny. Measures to promote that objective are undesirable, whether or not they are effective.

The United States has worked strenuously to oppose defamation-based approaches on the basis that they are inconsistent with fundamental freedoms of speech and expressions, including the values endorsed by U.N. member states through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The United States has given lip service to the concept of freedom of expression, but, in October of '09, the State Department co-sponsored the Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution, which substitutes "negative stereotyping" for "defamation", a distinction without a difference.

As an alternative to the efforts that would ban speech in order to prohibit “defamation of religion,” we are proposing to achieve the goal of promoting religious pluralism and acceptance of religious difference through the kinds of steps that we have seen be effective in our own country and across the globe: enactment and enforcement of laws prohibiting discrimination; bans on hate crimes; education, training and dialogue to promote religious tolerance.

Get a clue.

• 3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
• 9:30. And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

Islam's scripture says that we are going to Hell and curses us in addition to declaring perpetual war against us. Religious pluralism? Acceptance?? In your dreams!! Why would anyone desire to promote tolerance of a "religion" which sanctifies and mandates genocidal conquest & terrorism? Tolerance must be reciprocal; Islam is not tolerant. The two ayat quoted above prove this fact without any room for doubt.

Islam is a predator; We are prey. For the sake of safety, we must be allowed to truthfully discuss Islam. The Ad Hoc Committee will meet again in March.. We do not know how long it will take them to produce their protocol to ICERD, but I have no doubt that, barring a miracle, President Obama or his successor will sign it and the Senate will ratify it.

Respect for Religious Differences?

The impetus for the present diatribe came from this article publiched by the U.S. Mission tyo the UN in Geneva.
Promoting Respect for Religious Differences By Suzanne Nossel, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Bureau of International Organization Affairs.

Our government is engaged in subtle, highly polished dissembling. In order to point out the clever lies, I have reproduced excerpts from the article in block quote format, with Helvetica or Arial type face, interspersed with my commentary. I have added bold font emphasis to make the lies easier to spot.

Take a close look at the title of the article, in bold blue text above. Do you spot the lie? The article is about a counter proposal offered as a substitute for the OIC's campaign to outlaw criticism of Islam. It is not about respecting differences, it is about respecting Islam. When the differences between Christianity and Islam are considered, the differences are so stark that respect is impossible.

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, sent to save sinners through acceptance of God's grace. We believe that he was crucified, died and was resurrected. Muslims believe that Isa, their name for Jesus, was fully human, Allah's slave, not God's son, was not crucified, neither died nor resurrected and will return as a genocidal warlord who will lead the Muslim army in its final conquest, exterminating the Jews. How in Hell can any sentient person exepct us to respect that blasphemy? The details, for those who don't know, are documented in The Defamation of Jesus Christ.

Over the last decade, we have witnessed a campaign to attempt to counter religious hatred through bans on speech under the rubric of prohibitions on the “defamation of religions.” This effort has taken root in a series of resolutions at the U.N.’s General Assembly in New York and its Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Far from attempting to counter religious hatred, the OIC, as the representative of Islam in the absence of a Caliphate, is acting out religious hatred by attempting to impose Islam's blasphemy law upon the entire world through the agency of the United Nations. Religious hatred is not the issue. Defamation is not the issue. Proscribing defamation by law would not reduce hatred in any case, it would only cause it to fester. Take a close look at Islamic law, quoted from Reliance of the Traveller, Book O.

• O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam
• -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);
• -5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);
• -6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;
• -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

• -16- to revile the religion of Islam;

• -19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

• O11.10 The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

• -3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

• -5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

The penalty for apostasy is death.

• O8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
• O8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

The code in O11.10 refers to the treaty of protection afforded to conquered Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians who, as an alternative to conversion to Islam, make annual payments of tribute and exist under conditions of humiliation & subjection. When a dhimmi violates those rules, the caliph can kill him at will.

Islam's Hellbent determination to impose its blasphemy law on us is not about defamation, it is about supremacism. Islam claims to have a monopoly on divine truth, all else is false. They are attempting to impose through "international law" what they can not yet impose by force of arms.

Some U.N. member states supportive of these resolutions are banding together to try to impose a global ban on offensive speech in the form of a binding instrument under international law.

Any criticism of Allah, Moe & their doctrines & practices is offensive to Islam. The prime examples they cite are the Motoons and Fitna:. Although the most famous of the cartoons depicts an explosive device, which Moe never had in his possession, he was, by his own admission, a terrorist.

The irony of this effort is that the concept of “defamation of religion” has been used to crack down on religious minorities that espouse beliefs deemed by the State to defame a national or majority-supported religion. Moreover, many of the countries that support the defamation of religion apply the concept to protect one religion only, and are — within their own countries — accepting of hostile language and acts that target minority faiths.

Irony? No, that is the intended result, not a misapplication. Defamation of Islam is a shibboleth created for political purposes, not a real and substantive issue.

These contradictions demonstrate that the drive to impose a global ban on offensive speech will not protect members of all religions on an equal basis, as U.N. resolutions and international legal norms must do. Nor will they address the specific and legitimate concerns about the treatment and mistreatment of Muslim minorities globally. Concerns about the treatment of Muslim minorities warrant concerted action on the international stage, but through steps and measures that actually work, rather than bans on free speech.

Equality of application would not make Islam's blasphemy laws acceptable. If you shield Judiasm, Christianity and other religions from criticism along with Islam, you still make it impossible to accurately identify and characterize the implaccable foe who has declared and is prosecuting war against us. Had Hitler declared Mein Kampf to be divine revelation and National Socialism to be a religion, we would not have been able to use those propaganda posters in WW2 under the proposed regime. The intent is, that in George Washington's words: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”[http://www.georgewashingtonsociety.org/Mission.html]

What legitimate concerns? We have laws against assault & harassment. It is not Muslims who are being murdered, raped, tortured and burned out of their homes, businesses and churches in Egypt,.Indonesia & Pakistan.

It is not mythical assaults and murders they seek to prevent, it is revelation & recognition of the truth about Islam: that it is a war cult which seeks to destroy western civilization and plunge the world into theocratic tyranny. Measures to promote that objective are undesirable, whether or not they are effective.

The United States has worked strenuously to oppose defamation-based approaches on the basis that they are inconsistent with fundamental freedoms of speech and expressions, including the values endorsed by U.N. member states through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The United States has given lip service to the concept of freedom of expression, but, in October of '09, the State Department co-sponsored the Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution, which substitutes "negative stereotyping" for "defamation", a distinction without a difference.

As an alternative to the efforts that would ban speech in order to prohibit “defamation of religion,” we are proposing to achieve the goal of promoting religious pluralism and acceptance of religious difference through the kinds of steps that we have seen be effective in our own country and across the globe: enactment and enforcement of laws prohibiting discrimination; bans on hate crimes; education, training and dialogue to promote religious tolerance.

Get a clue.

• 3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
• 9:30. And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

Islam's scripture says that we are going to Hell and curses us in addition to declaring perpetual war against us. Religious pluralism? Acceptance?? In your dreams!! Why would anyone desire to promote tolerance of a "religion" which sanctifies and mandates genocidal conquest & terrorism? Tolerance must be reciprocal; Islam is not tolerant. The two ayat quoted above prove this fact without any room for doubt.

Islam is a predator; We are prey. For the sake of safety, we must be allowed to truthfully discuss Islam. The Ad Hoc Committee will meet again in March.. We do not know how long it will take them to produce their protocol to ICERD, but I have no doubt that, barring a miracle, President Obama or his successor will sign it and the Senate will ratify it.

Respect for Religious Differences?

The impetus for the present diatribe came from this article publiched by the U.S. Mission tyo the UN in Geneva.
Promoting Respect for Religious Differences By Suzanne Nossel, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Bureau of International Organization Affairs.

Our government is engaged in subtle, highly polished dissembling. In order to point out the clever lies, I have reproduced excerpts from the article in block quote format, with Helvetica or Arial type face, interspersed with my commentary. I have added bold font emphasis to make the lies easier to spot.

Take a close look at the title of the article, in bold blue text above. Do you spot the lie? The article is about a counter proposal offered as a substitute for the OIC's campaign to outlaw criticism of Islam. It is not about respecting differences, it is about respecting Islam. When the differences between Christianity and Islam are considered, the differences are so stark that respect is impossible.

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, sent to save sinners through acceptance of God's grace. We believe that he was crucified, died and was resurrected. Muslims believe that Isa, their name for Jesus, was fully human, Allah's slave, not God's son, was not crucified, neither died nor resurrected and will return as a genocidal warlord who will lead the Muslim army in its final conquest, exterminating the Jews. How in Hell can any sentient person exepct us to respect that blasphemy? The details, for those who don't know, are documented in The Defamation of Jesus Christ.

Over the last decade, we have witnessed a campaign to attempt to counter religious hatred through bans on speech under the rubric of prohibitions on the “defamation of religions.” This effort has taken root in a series of resolutions at the U.N.’s General Assembly in New York and its Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Far from attempting to counter religious hatred, the OIC, as the representative of Islam in the absence of a Caliphate, is acting out religious hatred by attempting to impose Islam's blasphemy law upon the entire world through the agency of the United Nations. Religious hatred is not the issue. Defamation is not the issue. Proscribing defamation by law would not reduce hatred in any case, it would only cause it to fester. Take a close look at Islamic law, quoted from Reliance of the Traveller, Book O.

• O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam
• -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);
• -5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);
• -6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;
• -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

• -16- to revile the religion of Islam;

• -19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

• O11.10 The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

• -3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

• -5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

The penalty for apostasy is death.

• O8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
• O8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

The code in O11.10 refers to the treaty of protection afforded to conquered Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians who, as an alternative to conversion to Islam, make annual payments of tribute and exist under conditions of humiliation & subjection. When a dhimmi violates those rules, the caliph can kill him at will.

Islam's Hellbent determination to impose its blasphemy law on us is not about defamation, it is about supremacism. Islam claims to have a monopoly on divine truth, all else is false. They are attempting to impose through "international law" what they can not yet impose by force of arms.

Some U.N. member states supportive of these resolutions are banding together to try to impose a global ban on offensive speech in the form of a binding instrument under international law.

Any criticism of Allah, Moe & their doctrines & practices is offensive to Islam. The prime examples they cite are the Motoons and Fitna:. Although the most famous of the cartoons depicts an explosive device, which Moe never had in his possession, he was, by his own admission, a terrorist.

The irony of this effort is that the concept of “defamation of religion” has been used to crack down on religious minorities that espouse beliefs deemed by the State to defame a national or majority-supported religion. Moreover, many of the countries that support the defamation of religion apply the concept to protect one religion only, and are — within their own countries — accepting of hostile language and acts that target minority faiths.

Irony? No, that is the intended result, not a misapplication. Defamation of Islam is a shibboleth created for political purposes, not a real and substantive issue.

These contradictions demonstrate that the drive to impose a global ban on offensive speech will not protect members of all religions on an equal basis, as U.N. resolutions and international legal norms must do. Nor will they address the specific and legitimate concerns about the treatment and mistreatment of Muslim minorities globally. Concerns about the treatment of Muslim minorities warrant concerted action on the international stage, but through steps and measures that actually work, rather than bans on free speech.

Equality of application would not make Islam's blasphemy laws acceptable. If you shield Judiasm, Christianity and other religions from criticism along with Islam, you still make it impossible to accurately identify and characterize the implaccable foe who has declared and is prosecuting war against us. Had Hitler declared Mein Kampf to be divine revelation and National Socialism to be a religion, we would not have been able to use those propaganda posters in WW2 under the proposed regime. The intent is, that in George Washington's words: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”[http://www.georgewashingtonsociety.org/Mission.html]

What legitimate concerns? We have laws against assault & harassment. It is not Muslims who are being murdered, raped, tortured and burned out of their homes, businesses and churches in Egypt,.Indonesia & Pakistan.

It is not mythical assaults and murders they seek to prevent, it is revelation & recognition of the truth about Islam: that it is a war cult which seeks to destroy western civilization and plunge the world into theocratic tyranny. Measures to promote that objective are undesirable, whether or not they are effective.

The United States has worked strenuously to oppose defamation-based approaches on the basis that they are inconsistent with fundamental freedoms of speech and expressions, including the values endorsed by U.N. member states through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The United States has given lip service to the concept of freedom of expression, but, in October of '09, the State Department co-sponsored the Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution, which substitutes "negative stereotyping" for "defamation", a distinction without a difference.

As an alternative to the efforts that would ban speech in order to prohibit “defamation of religion,” we are proposing to achieve the goal of promoting religious pluralism and acceptance of religious difference through the kinds of steps that we have seen be effective in our own country and across the globe: enactment and enforcement of laws prohibiting discrimination; bans on hate crimes; education, training and dialogue to promote religious tolerance.

Get a clue.

• 3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
• 9:30. And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

Islam's scripture says that we are going to Hell and curses us in addition to declaring perpetual war against us. Religious pluralism? Acceptance?? In your dreams!! Why would anyone desire to promote tolerance of a "religion" which sanctifies and mandates genocidal conquest & terrorism? Tolerance must be reciprocal; Islam is not tolerant. The two ayat quoted above prove this fact without any room for doubt.

Islam is a predator; We are prey. For the sake of safety, we must be allowed to truthfully discuss Islam. The Ad Hoc Committee will meet again in March.. We do not know how long it will take them to produce their protocol to ICERD, but I have no doubt that, barring a miracle, President Obama or his successor will sign it and the Senate will ratify it.