Don't criticise Islam, says UN

[Abdul Alhazred]

Damian Thompson in The Telegraph (UK)

Don't criticise Islam, says UN

It didn’t attract much notice, but the General Assembly of the United Nations ended the year by passing a disgusting resolution protecting Islam from criticism of its human rights violations.

...

The resolution goes under the innocuous title "Combating defamation of religions" – but the text singles out "Islam and Muslims in particular". It expresses "deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism".

...

No shocker really.

Remember this next time someone says something about putting the the UN in charge of something important or having "moral authority"

All purpose disclaimer: Some other people are stinkers too. I am under no obligation to mention your favorites.

 

[Cleon]

Damian Thompson in The Telegraph (UK)

Don't criticise Islam, says UN

The headline alone is a lie. The UN said no such thing.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The headline alone is a lie. The UN said no such thing.

Yes it did, if you check the words of the draft, and if you find "defame" and "criticize" to be synomyms, and for that matter, any other than complementary reference and "criticize" to be synonyms.

Wrongly associated? As of today, terrorists have carried out 10,277 separate attacks since September 11, 2001. They all belong to the same religion, and it ain’t Methodism.

Oh, how dare he call a shovel a shovel. Of course, I think a few Tamils have played along since 9-11, but who in journalism checks facts anymore?

The resolution (which of course makes no mention of the vicious persecution of Christians) was pushed through by the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which has been agitating for it for years. Naturally every Muslim country was among the 108 supporters, but it’s interesting to note how other countries lined up.

Is any of this a surprise? Not to me.

Cuba, China, North Korea and Zimbabwe all voted the same way.

The Third World is The Third World, still.

Self identified.

From another source:

Introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the OIC, it passed on Tuesday by a 108-51 margin, with 25abstentions. As with many of the other votes, the U.S. lined up with democracies in Europe, Asia and elsewhere against developing nations, including repressive regimes.

The words, are in a DRAFT for the General Assembly from 2 November 2007 written by our Pakistani friends in English, and available here.
A few snippets of substance, once one gets through all the fol de rol, it is like most GA documents filled with filler, and damned little substance.

Reaffirming that discrimination against human beings on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes an affront to human dignity and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter,
Convinced that respect for cultural, ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity, as well as dialogue among and within civilizations, is essential for peace, understanding and friendship among individuals and people of the different cultures and nations of the world, while manifestations of cultural prejudice, intolerance and xenophobia towards different cultures and religions generate hatred and violence among peoples and nations throughout the world,

An affront to human dignity?

Typical UN GA horseapples.

The affront to human dignity represented by FGM and the various abuses of women sanctioned by numerous Islamic codes currently in practice seems an affront, but maybe that's my bias in play. Maybe I need to open my heart to stoning adulteresses in the year 2007.

Hmm, a dead, stoned Ms Spears.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Maybe not such a bad thing? (I keeeeed)

Reaffirming the need for all States to continue international efforts to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding among civilizations, cultures and religions, and emphasizing that States, regional organizations, non-governmental organizations, religious bodies and the media have an important role to play in promoting
tolerance, respect for and freedom of religion and belief,
Underlining the important role of education in the promotion of cultural and religious tolerance and the elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief,

There is your chum in the water, Skeptic Friends, feed away.

Noting with concern that defamation of religions is among the causes of social disharmony and leads to violations of human right

Ya got that, Skeptic Friends?

Any of you calling religion "woo" leads to a violation of human rights. OMFG!!!

For shame, Skeptic friends, for that thought crime, the GA will be out to get you, as soon as they come back from a coffee. Dearest Skeptics, you need to wet yourselves and cower in a corner.

Uh, not.

Cleon, you pulled the trigger a bit early there.

Try reading the resolution (yes, you may puke in your mouth before it is over, my apologies) since Abdul seems to have put a pretty good summary of it forward.

9. Stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, Islam and Muslims in particular;

Right from the bloody document. Given how broad, two faced, and careless the use of the English language is in that entire document, Abdul has titrated its substance down pretty well.

Ladies and gentlemen, I offer you the link, in its entirety, as

The General Assembly Resolution to Coddle Islam.

Like most GA resolutions, it is worth less than the paper it is or isn't printed upon, given that it is a draft and all I have is a .pdf file.

DR

 

[danielk]

Uuuuhhhhh, you evil Islamophobe, how dare you!

(I'm glad to notice that Islamophobe isn't in the Firefox spell checker dictionary. Yet.)

 

[Phil]

What, more "hate the players, not the game" notions?

Let's see . . . . . . reading . . . . reading . . . . .reading.

Nope, just more of the old tried and true "we must all get along, no matter how many people die" gems.

When I shout UN, you shout GA. Here we go:

UN!!

. .

UN!!

. .

UN!!

. .

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Uuuuhhhhh, you evil Islamophobe, how dare you!

(I'm glad to notice that Islamophobe isn't in the Firefox spell checker dictionary. Yet.)

Islamopobia must be the most absurd made-up word in the last few years. You only have to look at what it would be like for a Christian to accuse you of being a 'Christianphobe'. You'd hopefully slap them around the face with a wet fish for being such a wimp (Big stones advocated by Old Testemant tm)

Honestly, is there anything more intolerant than treating Muslims like little schoolchildren who you cannot offend? Somehow this seems to be called tolerance these days.

Daft.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Islamopobia must be the most absurd made-up word in the last few years. You only have to look at what it would be like for a Christian to accuse you of being a 'Christianphobe'. You'd hopefully slap them around the face with a wet fish for being such a wimp (Big stones advocated by Old Testemant tm)

Honestly, is there anything more intolerant than treating Muslims like little schoolchildren who you cannot offend? Somehow this seems to be called tolerance these days.

Daft.

I think you are on to something, Walrus. The draft is an appeal to the global nanny state. (May it crash, burn, and die.)

DR

 

[mrbaracuda]

UN? I thought I read EU. I heard they're getting something like that ready here, too.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

UN? I thought I read EU. I heard they're getting something like that ready here, too.

It's all the rage.

 

[JoeEllison]

The headline alone is a lie. The UN said no such thing.

What's odd is that someone would post a lie like that on a skeptic's site, and assume that no one would catch the lie. Jeez, you'd think that no one's heard of "Google"... but I suppose bigots assume everyone else is as intellectually inadequate as they are?

 

[danielk]

What's odd is that someone would post a lie like that on a skeptic's site, and assume that no one would catch the lie. Jeez, you'd think that no one's heard of "Google"... but I suppose bigots assume everyone else is as intellectually inadequate as they are?

Please explain how it is a lie.

 

[JoeEllison]

Please explain how it is a lie.

"Don't criticise Islam"?!?! Please, do me a favor. Go read the actual UN document, and come back and tell me with a straight face that it says "Don't criticise Islam".

 

[danielk]

"Don't criticise Islam"?!?! Please, do me a favor. Go read the actual UN document, and come back and tell me with a straight face that it says "Don't criticise Islam".

Alarmed at the continuing negative impact of the events of 11 September 2001 on Muslim minorities and communities in some non-Muslim countries and the negative projection of Islam in media

Please tell me with a straight face that sentence doesn't express concern at the idea of publically criticizing Islam. Particularly in light of the way the Western media and Western politicians tip-toed around the elephant in the room after 9/11.

If you think terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with Islam, I've got a bridge to sell to you. Since the UN is apparently alarmed at the idea of someone daring to point out that fact, I'm in effect asked not to criticize Islam publically.

 

[Upchurch]

Wrongly associated? As of today, terrorists have carried out 10,277 separate attacks since September 11, 2001. They all belong to the same religion, and it ain’t Methodism.

This may be overly simple of me, but I like analogies. I find they are a good way to look at a situation with a different perspective. This quote got me to thinking about something a little closer to home: the KKK.

To the very best of my knowledge, the KKK is/was predominately, if not entirely, made up of Christians. They used Christian symbols and the Christian Bible certainly advocates things like slavery. In the Venn Diagram that I'm not going to take the time to draw and post, the big circle of Christianity would have a small circle of KKK entirely in it.

Now, when I hear descriptions of the KKK, I hear words like "racist", "extremist", "violent", and even "evil". I don't often hear the word "Christian". Likewise, when I hear descriptions of Christianity, I can't remember the KKK ever being raised. In that regard, I would say that the two would be wrongly associated with one another.

If we now go back to Islam and the terrorists, the terrorist circle would certainly be bigger than the KKK circle is today, but it wouldn't have been such a big difference 50 to 100 years ago. So, why do we associate Islam with terrorists but not Christianity with the KKK?

 

[JoeEllison]

Please tell me with a straight face that sentence doesn't express concern at the idea of publically criticizing Islam. Particularly in light of the way the Western media and Western politicians tip-toed around the elephant in the room after 9/11.

If you think terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with Islam, I've got a bridge to sell to you. Since the UN is apparently alarmed at the idea of someone daring to point out that fact, I'm in effect asked not to criticize Islam publically.

If you want to misrepresent it that way, feel free. Just don't expect to do so without being called out on it.

 

[Praktik]

Please tell me with a straight face that sentence doesn't express concern at the idea of publically criticizing Islam. Particularly in light of the way the Western media and Western politicians tip-toed around the elephant in the room after 9/11.

If you think terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with Islam, I've got a bridge to sell to you. Since the UN is apparently alarmed at the idea of someone daring to point out that fact, I'm in effect asked not to criticize Islam publically.

Well there's a difference between criticizing Islam in a fair-minded, factually based way - and screaming hysterics about "World War IV" and the threat of WMDs passing from Iraq to Syria to "Islamists" (Syria has brutally put down any attempts to bring an Islamic revolution to Syria - a fact that just doesn't get mentioned all that often - Syria's maybe the only Middle Eastern country to be successful at that kind of repression brutal though it was).

What _I read_ the UN statement as saying is concern for that kind of inflated rhetoric, the conflation of disparate threats emerging from the Islamic world into one, monolithic "Islamist" threat, and downright anti-muslim phobia.

Now - it certainly is a mixed bag now isn't it? Its not as if ALL criticism of Islam is unfounded, nor is it true that all criticism of Islam is fair, or grounded in reality (some is grounded in ignorance). So what does the UN statement refer to here?

The other posters here are right. The article in the OP imagines that "criticism of Islam" is somehow "under threat" by the "PC police" over at the UN.

REally? Criticism of Islam is under threat in America and Europe? Tell that to Giuliani and Podheretz! Tell that to the French!

(well if you did, they'd probably agree actually - so maybe thats not the best example..

Looking at the UN document, I see no reason to take the Steyn-like perspective of the article in the OP.

 

[Schneibster]

No fair, Upchurch, you're usin' logic an'... an'... stuff.

 

[JoeEllison]

This may be overly simple of me, but I like analogies. I find they are a good way to look at a situation with a different perspective. This quote got me to thinking about something a little closer to home: the KKK.

To the very best of my knowledge, the KKK is/was predominately, if not entirely, made up of Christians. They used Christian symbols and the Christian Bible certainly advocates things like slavery. In the Venn Diagram that I'm not going to take the time to draw and post, the big circle of Christianity would have a small circle of KKK entirely in it.

Now, when I hear descriptions of the KKK, I hear words like "racist", "extremist", "violent", and even "evil". I don't often hear the word "Christian". Likewise, when I hear descriptions of Christianity, I can't remember the KKK ever being raised. In that regard, I would say that the two would be wrongly associated with one another.

If we now go back to Islam and the terrorists, the terrorist circle would certainly be bigger than the KKK circle is today, but it wouldn't have been such a big difference 50 to 100 years ago. So, why do we associate Islam with terrorists but not Christianity with the KKK?

Because "we"(most of the people here) grew up around more Christians than Muslims, and therefore it is easier to dehumanize Muslims.

These same people would likely defend the Catholic church against a claim that pedophilia is a Catholic phenomenon, or that racism is a Christian phenomenon... but, if they are bigots, they WILL claim that terrorism is an Islamic phenomenon.

 

[fuelair]

Yes it did, if you check the words of the draft, and if you find "defame" and "criticize" to be synomyms, and for that matter, any other than complementary reference and "criticize" to be synonyms.

Oh, how dare he call a shovel a shovel. Of course, I think a few Tamils have played along since 9-11, but who in journalism checks facts anymore?

Is any of this a surprise? Not to me.

The Third World is The Third World, still.

Self identified.

From another source:

The words, are in a DRAFT for the General Assembly from 2 November 2007 written by our Pakistani friends in English, and available here.
A few snippets of substance, once one gets through all the fol de rol, it is like most GA documents filled with filler, and damned little substance.

An affront to human dignity?

Typical UN GA horseapples.

The affront to human dignity represented by FGM and the various abuses of women sanctioned by numerous Islamic codes currently in practice seems an affront, but maybe that's my bias in play. Maybe I need to open my heart to stoning adulteresses in the year 2007.

Hmm, a dead, stoned Ms Spears.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Maybe not such a bad thing? (I keeeeed)

There is your chum in the water, Skeptic Friends, feed away.

Ya got that, Skeptic Friends?

Any of you calling religion "woo" leads to a violation of human rights. OMFG!!!

For shame, Skeptic friends, for that thought crime, the GA will be out to get you, as soon as they come back from a coffee. Dearest Skeptics, you need to wet yourselves and cower in a corner.

Uh, not.

Cleon, you pulled the trigger a bit early there.

Try reading the resolution (yes, you may puke in your mouth before it is over, my apologies) since Abdul seems to have put a pretty good summary of it forward.

Right from the bloody document. Given how broad, two faced, and careless the use of the English language is in that entire document, Abdul has titrated its substance down pretty well.

Ladies and gentlemen, I offer you the link, in its entirety, as

The General Assembly Resolution to Coddle Islam.

Like most GA resolutions, it is worth less than the paper it is or isn't printed upon, given that it is a draft and all I have is a .pdf file.

DR

Or, to put it shorter, the UN needs to bend over for Mohammed and someone needs to toss them a bomb vest armed.*


*This is in no way meant against Muslims who only wish to be left alone to a happy, essentially secular life and who do not embrace the murder, torture, etc. of persons family or other who do not happen to follow ancient religious OR tribal (since many seem to really be that)practices that embrace such murder, torture,etc. Just the equivalent of the Xtian fundament nuts.

 

[Upchurch]

Please tell me with a straight face that sentence doesn't express concern at the idea of publically criticizing Islam. Particularly in light of the way the Western media and Western politicians tip-toed around the elephant in the room after 9/11.

It does, but that sentence fragment doesn't say don't criticize Islam. It notes that Islam is criticized and, apparently, the UN is alarmed about that and....

Alarmed at the continuing negative impact of the events of 11 September 2001 on Muslim minorities and communities in some non-Muslim countries and the negative projection of Islam in media, and the introduction and enforcement of laws that specifically discriminate against and target Muslims,

(the entire line)

...the enforcement of discriminatory laws. They don't actually tell anyone to do anything until point 7 where they urge, encourage, and call upon states to not discriminate against people based on their religion. (Man, those folks put my run-on sentences to shame.)

Anyway, that's a long way from "Don't criticize Islam".

eta: It's closer to "Don't discriminate against people because of their religion and, yes, that includes Muslims."