New York (IRIB) – Die Vertreter der Mitgliedsländer der Blockfreien Bewegung (NAM) und der Organisation der Islamischen Konferenz (OIC) haben in getrennt veröffentlichten Erklärungen gegen die von Kanada vorgeschlagene Resolution gegen Iran protestiert. Laut unserem Reporter aus New York, bezeichneten die Mitglieder der NAM und der OIC die Resolution als böswillig und politisch und verkündeten, diese Maßnahmen würden den Menschenrechtsaktionen in der Welt Schaden zufügen.
Der syrische Botschafter bei der UNO sagte: “Die OIC ist gegen die instrumentale Nutzung der Menschenrechte durch die opponierenden Länder.” Er wies die von Kanada eingebrachte Resolution zurück und bezeichnet sie als haltlos.
Der kubanische UN-Boschafter gab ebenfalls in Vertretung der Blockfreien Bewegung die Auflehnung gegen die iranfeindliche Resolution Kanadas bekannt und hob hervor: “Diese wurde mit politischen Zielen und zur Druckausübung auf die IRI vorgelegt.”
Der iranische Botschafter und ständige Vertreter bei den Vereinten Nationen schalt auf der Sitzung des dritten Ausschusses der Vollversammlung das ambivalente Verhalten westlicher Länder die angelblich die Menschenrechte  verfechten  und bezeichnete die von Kanada  eingebrachte Resolution gegen Iran als einen schwarzen Punkt bei den Menschenrechtsaktivitäten der UNO.
Khazaei sagte: “Die auf diese Resolution erwirkenden Länder sind die falschen Verfechter der Menschenrechte, die vor einiger Zeit gegen eine Resolution in Sachen Kriegsverbrechen des zionistischen Regime in Gaza stimmten und sich gegen die Forderung der Weltgemeinschaft zur Prozessführung gegen die Anführer des zionistischen Regimes stellten.”
Khazaei deutete dann auf das bestialische Verhalten der kanadischen Polizei und Regierung gegenüber den Immigranten und Eingeborenen des Landes hin und fügte hinzu: “Es ist zu bedauern, dass die UNO und die zugehörigen Institutionen zum Werkzeug einiger Länder geworden sind, die selber über schändliche Akten hinsichtlich der Verletzung von primären Menschenrechten ihrer Bürger verfügen.”
Die kanadische Botschafter bei der UNO bezog keine Stellung zur Frage über die Menschrechtslage der Eingeborenen im Land und behauptete: “Unser Ziel ist es, die Einhaltung der Menschenrechte in Iran zu unterstreichen.”
Die westlichen Länder unter der Führung von Kanada, Amerika, England, Frankreich und Deutschland verabschiedeten ein weiteres Mal eine Resolution zur Druckausübung auf Iran, in der behauptet wurde, dass die Rechte religiöser Minoritäten in Iran werden verletzt.

Egypt Hosts OIC Conference on “Children’s Rights”

By R.E.A.L. Organization

On November 23 and 24, 2009, Egypt will host a meeting of the Islamic supremacist “Organization of the Islamic Conference”  (OIC) member states, UNICEF, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and others on the “Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC) and Islamic Jurisprudence.”

The event is listed by the OIC as an OIC conference on their web site, and is described as the “International Conference on Implementing by OIC Member States of Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

The meeting to be held in Cairo on “CRC and Islamic Jurisprudence” is promoted as “celebrating the 20th anniversary of The Convention on the Rights of The Child & The National Council for Childhood and Motherhood.”

The concept note for the meeting states that “On the 20th November 2009, we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) by the General Assembly of the United Nations. This event provides us with the opportunity to revisit the implementation of this convention in the Islamic State Parties.  Over the past 20 years a number of national seminars and meetings were held to discuss the relationship between the  CRC and the Islamic Shari’a.  On the other hand, few international gatherings of Islamic countries and international experts on the Rights of the Child, were held for sharing experiences on the implementation of the CRC in Islamic States — analyzing achievements, obstacles and closely identifying challenges. This Conference is an opportunity for Islamic States to exchange views and experiences on ways and means to strengthen their commitment to the CRC. Some Muslim State Parties to the CRC have made reservations to the effect that the CRC would only be implemented if it is not in conflict with the Islamic Shari’a. The Conference will provide an opportunity for Muslim States to examine the extent to which such reservations have varied from one Muslim country to the another. This is an indication that there is a need for consensus in the areas that may or may not be in harmony with the Islamic Shari’a.”

Many nations with preponderence of Islamic adherents who choose to be signatories to The Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC) took exception to it based on Sharia law or Islamic law.

The OIC promotes its own “Covenant on the Rights of the Child in Islam,” where children’s rights are all based on Islamic Sharia Law.

The OIC organization rejects the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (UDHR), which is a fundamental basis for the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC).  Instead, the OIC organization has promoted the “Cairo Declaration of Human Rights,” where all human rights are dependent on Islamic Sharia law.

The Cairo conference planners seek to have children participants as well to show the press.  Child participants are urged to know “what you are NOT prepared to talk about” and “remember you do not have to answer any or part of the questions that are being asked.”  The guidelines for child participants in interacting with the media also warn them to consider “Are there people who might want to harm you if they see your story?” and “How would you feel if your story appeared in the media in a few years time/ was still be read many years from now.”

Egypt has recently partnered with the United States in a UNHRC resolution that seeks to challenges freedom of speech or press raised against Islamic views, as “religious stereotyping.”

Egypt has long been notorious for its oppression of Coptic Christian girls and women who have frequently been kidnapped, raped, and forcible converted to Islam.  The the Christian Solidarity International and the Coptic Foundation for Human Rights recently issued a report on this human right crisis entitled “The Disappearance, Forced Conversions, and Forced Marriages of Coptic Christian Women in Egypt.”

Egypt: Coptic Christian Women and Girls Reportedly Kidnapped for Forced Conversion to Islam

In addition, Egypt has also been notorious for oppression of religious minorities in general, including Islamic supremacists threatening leading Egyptian figures, such as Dr. Sayed Mahmoud El Qemany.

On November 17, 2009, AINA reports that “15-year-old Egyptian girl Dina el-Gowhary, who converted from Islam to Christianity, has sent a plea to President Obama, complaining of mistreatment by the Egyptian Government and asking for his mediation.”

Peter Athanasius and 15 year old Daughter Dina

The OIC state Cairo conference on “children’s rights” is sponsored by Nike.

Nike is currently marketing new sports shoes to the Middle Eastern market called “Master Control.”

Nike’s “Middle East” Campaign for “Master Control” Shoes

Sign at R.E.A.L.’s Protest of OIC

Das sich wirklich ungeheuer um die Menschenrechte bemuehende Menschenrechtskomitee der UN ist einmal seinem hauptberuflichen Auftrag, antiisraelische Resolutionen zu verfassen, nicht nachgekommen. Und hat auf Antrag Kanadas eine Resolution verabschiedet, die tatsaechlich von “serious, ongoing and recurring human rights violations” im Iran spricht. Mit 74 Ja-Stimmen bei wohlgemerkt 48 Gegenstimmen und vollen 59 Enthaltungen.

Die Bewegung der Blockfreien, deren Vorsitz der Iran demnaechst uebernimmt, und die Organisation der Islamischen Konferenz haben umgehend die Stimme des Protestes erhoben.

“The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) opposes misusing human rights as a tool against other countries and rejects the resolution introduced by Canada as baseless,” the Syrian ambassador to the UN said. The Cuban envoy speaking on behalf of the Non-aligned Movement also condemned the resolution, calling it a ‘politically-motivated move’ used as a leverage to increase pressure on Iran. Press TV

Chanel is launching a new magazine titled “31 Rue Cambon” with art direction and design by the great Olivier Zahm. The mag looks like it will highlight several aspects of the Chanel brand through B&W unreleased photos. Details are slim at this point but Olivier says it will be distributed at Chanel boutiques worldwide!

(Btw, you absolutely must check out his photos from S/S’10!)

Photo: Olivier Zahm @ purple DIARY

xx

Religion Clause, the blog of Professor Howard M. Friedman,  published an article revealing the existence of a letter from the OIC to the Chairman of the  Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards.  The letter was issued coincident with the introduction of the current draft of the Defamation of Religions resolution in the Third Committee.  It is an attempt to reinforce the supposed necessity of protecting Islam from criticism.

The blog post also reported the existence of  a U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom publication:   The Dangerous Idea of Protecting Religions from “Defamation”: A Threat to Universal Human Rights Standards.

There is a clear contrast between the OIC’s letter and the USCIRF’s report.  Reading both of them will help you to understand the necessity of defeating the Defamation resolution in the General Assembly.

KUALA LUMPUR 11 Nov. (utusan) – Bekas Mufti Perlis, Dr. Mohd. Asri Zainal Abidin memberitahu beliau tidak dipelawa menyertai UMNO dalam pertemuannya dengan Bendahari Kelab Penyokong-penyokong Kerajaan Barisan Nasional (BNBBC), Datuk Mohamad Aziz di Parlimen malam ini.

Sebaliknya kata beliau, pertemuan yang turut disertai 15 ahli Parlimen Barisan Nasional (BN) itu adalah untuk memperjelaskan kontroversi penahanannya oleh Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (JAIS) baru-baru ini.
“Ini perbincangan biasa, sebahagian Ahli Parlimen tanya apa yang sebenarnya berlaku, masuk politik adalah pintu terakhir jika saya langsung tak boleh bercakap.

“Saya juga terima ratusan khidmat pesanan ringkas (SMS) dan e-mel jangan masuk mana-mana parti, saya rasa sokongan ini kerana saya tidak berparti, kalau berparti habislah saya,” katanya kepada pemberita selepas pertemuan itu.

Dr. Mohd. Asri ditahan oleh JAIS pada 1 November lalu ketika menyampaikan ceramah agama tanpa tauliah dari JAIS di sebuah rumah di Taman Seri Ukay, Hulu Kelang.

Dalam perkembangan berkaitan, Mohd. Asri berkata beliau risau hubungan diplomatik negara terjejas apabila ada pihak menuduhnya sebagai Wahabi dan kemudiannya merujuk kepada Arab Saudi.
Katanya, tindakan melepas geram itu umpama marahkan nyamuk dengan membakar kelambu sehingga semuanya kerugian.

“Apa jadi hubungan negara kita sebagai sebuah negara anggota Pertubuhan Persidangan Islam (OIC), akan ada implikasi negatif,” katanya.

With the relief of al-Bashir not coming- I speculate that gov’t requested him not to come instead of rejecting his visit to save face- OIC summit takes place without much incidence? I guess so. But western media increasingly ask where Turkey heads. OIC summit triggered another wave of op-eds in this line. Turkey is not only making friends with Islamic countries but also other non-Islamic countries. Her foreign policy cannot easily be dubbed as being Islamized as many commentators argue…

Turkey’s President Abdullah Gul checks his time as he waits for other leaders at the COMCEC Economic Summit in Istanbul, November 9, 2009. COMCEC is the Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

REUTERS/Murad Sezer

Al-Bashir is a test for credibility

Conducting foreign policy requires finesse, elegance and sophistication, but most of all, consistency. This is particularly true of a democracy. Falling into double standards, although not always willingly implemented, is one of the characteristics of the community of countries that claim to be sensitive to human rights and violations thereof.

Erdogan’s blind faith in Muslims | Seth Freedman | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Kamil Pasha quotes from BBC:
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan questioned the charges against Mr Bashir and said that “no Muslim could perpetrate a genocide“, according to Turkey’s Anatolia news agency…
PM Erdoğan has such a naive cenception of Islam, I should say..

ANALYSIS: Cancelled Turkey visit by Sudan leader raises questions – Monsters and Critics

Turkey playing with the wolves photo: (!)

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (C) poses for a group photo with his counterparts Abdullah Gul of Turkey (L) and Bashar al-Assad of Syria (R) during the COMCEC Economic Summit in Istanbul, November 9, 2009. COMCEC is the Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).REUTERS/Osman Orsal

‘Moral politics’

The term “moral politics” has recently been used more frequently in politics, especially in international relations. Now, in the context of Sudanese President al-Bashir’s visit to Turkey, we see references to this concept.

Turkey Denies Policy Shift Toward Iran – World Watch – CBS News

Different aspects of al-Bashir controversy

Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes in Darfur, had been scheduled to arrive in İstanbul on Monday for a meeting of Muslim countries, but Ankara conveyed a polite message to Khartoum stating that the Sudanese president’s visit might create problems in the wake of rising international reactions over al-Bashir’s possible visit.

Bashir and Turkey

Omar al-Bashir is a vicious dictator, one for whom the International Criminal Court (ICC) has even issued a warrant for arrest. The panorama of people killed under his watch include babies and women as well as the elderly.

An Islamic summit minus one

In the end, Ankara was forced to rely on a man charged with crimes against humanity to rescue its “no problems with neighbors” policy. Omar al-Bashir, the president of Sudan, let his Turkish hosts off the hook with a last-minute decision not to attend this week’s summit in İstanbul of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

Different views of Turkey in the American press

Is Turkish foreign policy turning Islamist? Instead of attempting to answer this trendy question myself, I decided to share with you the views of two Western analysts by quoting them at length. Both views appeared in the American press last week. The first one is an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal by David Schenker. The second one is by Patrick Seale in The New York Times.

A Western ‘expert’ for a militarist Turkey

DONT LET HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF: Greek Cypriots and the Looming Turkish Strategy

Series of signs and reports lately denote the construction/ emergence of a new cooperative towards the Greek and Greek Cypriot side strategy of Ankara with related consequences for the Turkish/ Turkish Cypriot stance towards the ongoing negotiations on the Cyprus issue. Along this lines, the looming assessment of Turkey’s EU progress this December seems to play an important role.

An ‘axis’ debate in Washington

Turkey As An Emerging Donor, Interview with the TIKA President

- Interview with the President of the TIKA by the New Horizons magazine

- Turkey has come a long way in terms of development aid. These aids, achieved through rapidly increasing budgets, have greatly contributed to Turkey’s emerging role as a donor.

In this context, Bridging South-South Cooperation and Emerging Donor Roles: Strengthen Turkey’s Participation in International Development Cooperation project, in partnership with UNDP Turkey Office, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey and Turkish International Cooperation and Development Agency (TIKA), aims to strengthen Turkey’s national capacity by increasing the capacity of TIKA, an institution that coordinates the development efforts in Turkey. We as New Horizons spoke with TIKA President Musa Kulaklıkaya about TIKA’s recent activities in terms of Turkey’s emerging donor status, capacity development and South-South Cooperation project.

New nuclear trends to require new thinking for Turkey – Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review

FT.com / UK – Urgency and frustration grow in Ankara

Is the West losing Turkey? Probably not

Historic breakthrough Controversies: Will Azerbaijani lands be free soon? by LEILA ALIEVA

The Caucasus region is once more at the eve of events of historical significance — a century-old conflict between Armenia and Turkey may be coming to an end.

Turkey’s transformers (II): Ankara’s ambitions – Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review

EU info centers to be replaced with new ones – Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review

QUO VADIS, TURKEY?

By Dr. Balkan Devlen (Izmir University of Economics, Turkey)

The axis of Turkish-Israeli relations is shifting and this is not in the interest of Turkey, contrary to what some might argue. The latest “crisis” with Israel, over the Turkey’s last-minute decision not to include Israel in the Anatolian Eagle exercise and the following provocative new TV series on state television, led many around the world to rethink Erdogan government’s attitude towards Israel. When the infamous “one minute” comment was made by Erdogan in Davos, many in Turkey and Israel thought it was a gesture for domestic consumption. Erdogan’s defense of Iranian nuclear program in the UN and his comments about Israeli nuclear deterrent rai

In remarks about the pending Defamation of Religions resolution, Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference, said this.

“It is important to note that passage of these resolutions by a majority vote beyond the membership of the OIC lends international legitimacy to the OIC position on this issue,”

That confirms the obvious: passing defamation resolutions legitimizes Islam’s malicious malarkey.  Lets drill down to the crucial details.

In his introduction to the OIC Observatory on Islamophobia, March 31 ‘08,  Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference, had this to say about Islamophobia.

The Muslim Ummah has noticed with utmost concern the continued attacks by a section of marginal groups and individuals in the West on the most sacred symbols of Islam including the Holy Quran and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in an offensive and denigrating manner, the most recent being the reprints of the blasphemous cartoons by 17 Danish newspapers on February 13, 2008 and the release of the film Fitna by a Dutch Parliamentarian on March 27, 2008. This apart, Muslims continue to be stereotyped, discriminated and profiled in many Western countries that have contributed to the issue. [Emphasis added.]

Notice that the argument begins with an ad hominem argument: “marginal groups and individuals”.  Ihsanoglu slapped a “marginal” label on the cartoonists and Geert Wilders.  Note that the cartoons are labeled “blasphemous”. Is that label deserved?  In the cartoons, Moe is depicted as a terrorist; is that blasphemy if the depiction is true?  Consider what codified Islamic oral tradition tells us about the matter.

• Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey. [Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331]
• I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy) [Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220] [Emphasis added.]

The cartoons exaggerate, because Moe never possessed a bomb, but they are they blasphemy if their message is true?

Fitna is described as an attack on the Holy Quran because it displayed verses which incite violence, demonstrated their use in kutbah and displayed images of the results. Refer to  Fitna: Supporting Documentation for documentation of the Qur’an verses used in Fitna and Wilders’ address to the Dutch Parliament. Is truthful speech blasphemy?

CNN reported on remarks by the OIC and other Muslims and included a quote from Ban Ki-moon.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the film, calling it “offensively anti-Islamic” while urging calm.

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” he said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

Ban Ki-Moon labeled Fitna hate speech and incitement to violence, but the hate speech, incitement & violence depicted in the documentary came from the pens,  tongues & hands of Muslims, not from Geert Wilders, his narrative is objective and accurate.

Payvand’s Iran News reported on remarks by the OIC General Secretary.

“The film was a deliberate act of discrimination against Muslims” that aimed to “provoke unrest and intolerance,”

Pakistan, which frequently introduces the OIC resolutions to the General Assembly and Human Rights Council, was also quoted.

Pakistan said it told the Dutch ambassador that it was incumbent on the Netherlands to prosecute Wilders for defamation and deliberately hurting Muslim sentiments, according to IRNA reporter in Islamabad.

Islam wanted Wilders prosecuted for defamation of Islam. In a few months, he will be defending himself before a Dutch tribunal. The OIC’s resolutions seek the persecution of all who criticize Islam.

Examine the remarks of Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu to the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers in Uganda, June ‘08.

Fourth: The level of the OIC Islamophobia Observatory, which we have established in order to monitor and document all manifestation of this scourge, and to deal with them in an interactive manner.

Taken together, this plan has proven its merit and we have been able to achieve convincing progress at all these levels mainly the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and the UN General Assembly.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted similar resolutions against the defamation of Islam.

In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna”, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.

The Ten Year Plan proved its merit with the passage of defamation resolutions by the UN.  Note the mention of “red lines that should not be crossed”; that is a thinly veiled threat of physical violence. Does anyone remember what happened to the film maker Theo van Gogh? In the last sentence of the quote, freedom of expression is mentioned, an obvious reference to the  terms of limitation used in the resolutions.

What accounts for Islam’s extreme sensitivity to criticism?  We can find the answer in Islamic law: Reliance of the Traveller’s Book O [Justice]. O8.7 lists 20 things that entail apostasy. Here are a few relevant  items in that list.

-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;

-15- to hold that any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

(n: `Ala’ al-din’ Abidin adds the following:

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

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

-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24). )

One of the rules applied to dhimmis is equally instructive.  What is impermissible to say about Allah or Moe?  According to previously quoted statements, it is impermissible to link Islamic violence with Islamic scripture & tradition.

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 [O8.2]. Remember the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and the reward offered for killing him?  In a recent protest against Geert Wilders visiting England, Muslims displayed signs saying “Freedom Go To Hell” and “Islam Will Dominate.”.

If we are to have an honest and open debate about domestic, foreign and military policies affecting our national security, we must be able to discuss Islam’s fundamental nature and the relationship between the orthodox doctrines expressed in its scripture, exemplified in its traditions and codified in its jurisprudence.  When liars such as George Bush and Barack Obama assert that Islam is peaceful, we must be free to present proof that they are misrepresenting reality.

UN resolutions condemning defamation of Islam have another unacceptable effect: they reinforce and give undeserved legitimacy to blasphemy laws which are used to persecute religious minorities in lands where Allah’s writ runs such as Pakistan where, if the courts don’t execute you for any “blasphemous” word or act, the mob will.

As we wait for revelation of the contents of the ‘10 version, let us examine the history of their campaign to silence their critics.   In 1999, when the original Combating Defamation of Islam resolution was passed, Pakistan made some revealing remarks in the Economic And Social Council.

1. Mr. AKRAM (Pakistan), introducing draft resolution E/CN.4/1999/L.40 on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that were members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that, in the past few years, there had been new manifestations of intolerance and misunderstanding, not to say hatred, of Islam and Muslims in various parts of the world. It was to be feared that those manifestations might become as widespread and endemic as antisemitism had been in the past. There was a tendency in some countries and in the international media to portray Islam as a religion hostile to human rights, threatening to the Western world and associated with terrorism and violence, whereas, with the Quran, Islam had given the world its first human rights charter. No other religion received such constant negative media coverage. That defamation compaign was reflected in growing intolerance towards Muslims. [Emphasis added.]

Examine the emphasized clauses. Reading inter alia, it is obvious that a subliminal link is being drawn between criticism of Islam and Hitler’s holocaust. Akram was setting up a false charge of incipient genocide.  In the second section of emphasized text, there is mention of a media tendency to portray Islam as hostile to human rights, threatening and associated with terrorism and violence.

The clear implication is that those characterizations of Islam are false. Unfortunately, they are not. Islam is hostile to human rights: its doctrine of perpetual war against everyone who does not submit to its demands is a violation of the right to life.  Its declaration that  our blood and property only become sacred to Muslims when we become Muslims denies our human dignity and rights.   These facts are documented in Islam vs Human Rights.

Islam is threatening to the western world. It has a historical track record of invading Spain, Italy, France , Austria, and other western nations.  Islam is associated with violence and terrorism. Two Surahs of the Qur’an are entirely dedicated to warmongering. Four of the six canonical hadith collections have books of Jihad or expedition. Moe preached and practiced terrorism for future generations to emulate.

The Defamation of Islam resolution contained these expressions.

1.             Expresses deep concern at negative stereotyping of religions;

 

2.             Also expresses deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and with terrorism;

 

3.             Expresses its concern at any role in which the print, audio­visual or electronic media or any other means is used to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam and any other religion;

 

4.             Urges all States, within their national legal framework, in conformity with international human rights instruments to take all appropriate measures to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by religious intolerance, including attacks on religious places, and to encourage understanding, tolerance and respect in matters relating to freedom of religion or belief;

The resolution urged states to enact and enforce extremely broad legislation which would violate our First Amendment.

In ‘05, the resolution complained of  involvement of political parties and use of the internet to communicate facts about Islam.  In the spring of ‘09, the resolution included this boilerplate.

14. Reaffirms the obligation of all States to enact the necessary legislation to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and encourages States, in their follow-up to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance,7 to include aspects relating to national or  ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities in their national plans of action and, in this context, to take forms of multiple discrimination against minorities fully into account;

15. Invites all States to put into practice the provisions of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief;3

16. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination,
intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs and the understanding of their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;

If we document the fact that Islam inculcates hatred and incites violence, we are accused of “incitement to religious hatred”.  Turn back to review Ban Ki-moon’s incendiary remarks about Fitna.  There is no excuse for that sort of bigotry. There is no excuse for demands to enshrine it in national & international law.

The following list is included to assist those who desire to delve deeper into the history and philosophy of the defamation resolutions.

UN documents listed in the footnotes of  Defamation of Religions” The End of Pluralism?, published by the Beckett Fund

• Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], Comm’n on Human Rights, Pakistan, Draft Res., Racism,
  Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and all Forms of Discrimination, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1999/L.40 (Apr. 20,
  1999). This is a Microsoft Word document. 15kb when saved as html.
• ECOSOC, Comm’n on Human Rights [CHR], Summary Record of the 61st Meeting, ¶¶ 3, 6, U.N.
  Doc. E/CN.4/1999/SR.61 (Apr. 29, 1999) (German and Japanese representatives expressing concern about the
  draft resolution’s narrow focus on Islam).
• CHR Res. 1999/82, at 280, U.N. ESCOR, 55th Sess., Supp. No. 3, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1999/167 (Apr.
  30, 1999). {As adopted by acclamation, pg 281}
• CHR Res. 2005/3, at 21, U.N. ESCOR, 61st Sess., Supp. No. 3, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2005/135 (Apr. 12,
  2005)
• CHR Res. 2004/6, at 28, U.N. ESCOR, 60th Sess., Supp. No. 3, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2004/127 (Apr. 13,
  2004);
• CHR Res. 2002/9, at 56, U.N. ESCOR, 58th Sess., Supp. No. 3, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2002/200 (Apr. 15,
  2002);
• CHR Res. 2001/4, at 47, U.N. ESCOR, 57th Sess., Supp. No. 3, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2001/167 (Apr. 18,
  2001);
• CHR Res. 2000/84, at 336, U.N. ESCOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 3, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2000/167 (Apr.
  26, 2000);
• Human Rights Council [HRC] Res. 4/9, at 19, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/4/123 (Mar. 30 2007); Ali S.
  Asani, “So That You May Know One Another”: A Muslim American Reflects on Pluralism and Islam, ANNALS
  AM. ACAD. POL. & SOC. SCI., July 2003, at 40, 40, 49–51.
• G.A., 60th Sess., 3d Comm., Yemen: Draft Resolution: Combating Defamation of Religions, U.N. Doc.
  A/C.3/60/L.29 (Oct. 31, 2005).
• G.A. Res. 60/150, U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/150 (Dec. 16, 2005). Resolution 60/150 was adopted by 101
  to 53 votes with 20 abstentions. U.N. GAOR, 60th Sess., 64th plen. mtg. at 11, U.N. Doc. A/60/PV.64 (Dec.
  16, 2005).
• G.A. Res. 61/164, U.N. Doc. A/RES/61/164 (Dec. 19, 2006); G.A. Res. 62/154, U.N. Doc.
  A/RES/62/154 (Dec. 18, 2007); G.A. Res. 63/171, U.N. Doc. A/RES/63/171 (Dec. 18, 2008).
• U.N. GAOR, 60th Sess., 3d Comm., 45th mtg., ¶ 39, U.N. Doc. A/C.3/60/SR.45 (Nov. 21,
  2005)
• HRC Res. 7/19, at 54, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/4/123 (Mar. 27, 2008); HRC Res. 4/9, supra note 7; G.A.
  Res. 63/171, supra note 18; G.A. Res. 62/154, supra note 18; G.A. Res. 61/164, supra note 18.
• The 2008 General Assembly resolution passed with 86 in
  favor, 53 against, and 42 abstentions. U.N. GAOR, 63rd Sess., 70th plen. mtg. at 17–18, U.N. Doc.
  A/63/PV.70 (Dec. 18, 2008).
• In 2007, the OIC hardly held any informal discussions on the defamation of religions resolution in the
  General Assembly. In 2008, the OIC, led by Uganda, held a number of informal discussions in an effort to
  address concerns from many of the Western delegations. New York Update, General Assembly, 63rd Session,
  Oct. 21–Dec. 18, 2008, N.Y. MONITOR (Int’l Serv. for Human Rights, New York, N.Y.), 2008, at 16, available
  at http://www.ishr.ch/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&Itemid=&gid=252.
• HRC Res. 10/22, at 78, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/10/L.11 (Mar. 26, 2009).
• U.N. Durban Review Conference, Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference, available at
  http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/pdf/Durban_Review_outcome_document_En.pdf (last visited July 10,
  2009).
• Githu Muigai, Asma Jahangir & Frank La Rue, Freedom of Expression and Incitement to Racial or
  Religious Hatred, Statement at OHCHR Side Event During the Durban Review Conference (Apr. 22, 2009),
  available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/opinion/docs/SRJointstatement22April09New.pdf.
• Beckett Fund Submission  to OSCE ‘08
• Racism and Religious Discrimination: Is the concept of “Defamation of Religions” productive?
  Intervention at the tenth regular session of the Human Rights Council
  (2 March 2009 – 27 March 2009)
• See the revised version of A/CONF.211/PC/WG.2/CRP.2 at page 7 for draft outcome document as of 23 January 2009. Available at http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/pdf/intersession_open_ended19109.pdf
• See also Durban Review Conference Outcome Document [hereafter DRC Outcome Document] (24 April 2009). Available at http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/pdf/Durban_Review_outcome_document_En.pdf
• A/HRC/12/L.l4/Rev. “Freedom of Opinion and Expression
• PROPHETS, CARTOONS, AND LEGAL NORMS: RETHINKING THE UNITED NATIONS DEFAMATION OF RELIGION
  PROVISIONS JOSHUA FOSTER [Discovered in the process of searching for links to the documents listed above.]

Other relevant  documents of interest:

• General Comment to guide States Parties in the implementation of the right to freedom of expression;
• Chairman Leo Testimony – Implications of the Promotion of “Defamation of Religions”
• Becket Fund Resources and Documents:
  • What is “Defamation of Religions?”
  • Legal Brief
  • United Nations Human Rights Council testimony (2006)
  • United Nations Human Rights Council testimony (2009)
  • Emory Law Review article
• Related blog posts by this author.  These tend to be flamers with great detail and much redundancy.
  • Ad Hoc Committee Leaves Work Unfinished Our freedom of expression is almost safe until their next session. 10/30/09
  • Religious Freedom Report: Suicidal Orwellianism Pay close attention to Hillary’s remarks; compare them with the text of the Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution. 10/27/09
  • Urge Your Rep. to Support H.Res.763! The sense of the House resolution against the OIC’s censorship campaign languishes in cmte., urge your Rep to get it to the floor for an immediate vote before the General Assembly approves the Defamation of Religions resolution! 10/23/09
  • Censorship of Islamophobia: Ignite the Backfire Sign and promote the International Qur’an Petition!!! 10/19/09
  • Combating Defamation of Religions: Anticipation The annual resolution is expected to be tabled 11/3 and voted on 11/12. See Reject the Defamation of Religions Resolution! for links to petitions against the resolution, please sign and promote them! 10/19/09
  • UNHRC US Delegation Reveals Treachery The  U.S. Delegation to the UNHRC  uttered and published a statement on a human rights report. That statement exposes the  Obama administration’s treason to scrutiny; I can not resist.10/13/09
  • Reject the Defamation of Religions Resolution! Open Doors USA, an Evangelical Christian  organization, has posted a petition urging United Nations member states to reject the annual Defamation of Islam resolution. I have endorsed their petition, whose text is reproduced below, and urge you to endorse, support and publicize it.  For more information about previous Defamation Resolutions, see: UN Bans Criticism of Islam.10/08/09
  • Unfairness Doctrine Goes Global Bringing a critical detail right up front: President Obama extended his Unfairness Doctrine to a global scope. 10/05/09
  • Ad Hoc Cmte: Non-Paper 08/04/09  The cmte. President’s outline of the program of censorship. This document is crucial to comprehending the related posts which follow in this list.
  • AdHoc Committee: African Submission 08/03/09  Detailed analysis of the Africa group’s proposal to censor critics of Islam.
  • AdHoc Cmte USA Submission 08/03/09 This nation is governed by irrational idiots & traitors. Read it and weep.
  • AdHoc Cmte: Pakistani Submission 08/03/09  Detailed analysis of the OIC’s proposal to censor critics of Islam.
  • Ad Hoc Committee: Iranian Submission 08/03/09 Detailed analysis of Iran’s proposal to censor critics of Islam.
  • Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards 08/01/09  They aim to add a protocol to ICERD to criminalize these blog posts.
  • Durban II Draft 4/15/09 04/17/09 The draft went through multiple edits. It contains information vital to comprehending what OIC and theheir UN dhimmis are up to.
  • How Censorship Could Become Binding 03/14/09  Plans to amend ICERD to criminalize these blog posts and more.
  • Combating Defamation of Religion 03/13/09  See exactly what the UN is up to, in detail.
  • Moral Standing: the Complaint 03/12/09  Delving deeper into the issue raised in the post below. Extremely important information & links.
  • Hints of Compulsory U.N. Censorship 03/12/09 First hints of the proposed protocol to ICERD. Arcane, but important.
  • Defamation of Religions Resolution Revised 12/03/08  Plenty of detail & documentation plus a list of related posts.
  • UN: Eliminating Intolerance or Protecting it? 12/04/08  Exposing more UN hypocrisy.
  • UN Renews Censorship Demand 11/24/08 A final blast at the annual defamation of Islam resolution.
  • Durban II: Execrable Hypocrisy 11/10/08  The Durban II Draft document is divided into five sections . This article examines the hypocrisy involved in demands for censorship. Quotes are taken from sections  one and five, with the headings linked to source documents. Emphasis has been added for clarity. Includes links to the  articles in the  Egregious Arrogance series.
  • Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 7 11/10/08 Seventh in a series.
  • Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 6 11/09/08 Sixth in  a series.
  • Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 5 11/08/08
  • Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 4 11/08/08 Fourth in a series.
  • Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 3 11/07/08 Third in a series.
  • Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 2 11/06/08 Second in a series.
  • Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 1 11/06/08 First in a series on the evolving  resolution . This series exposes extreeme hypocrisy & arrogance.
  • U.N. Resolving to Silence Islamophobes 10/12/08 Deliaring another treacherous UN resolution.
  • U.N. Bans Criticism of Islam: Pretext & Context 09/08/08  This post contains vital information about the documents which serve as a basis for the treacherous resolutions passed by the General Assembly & Human Rights Council. It also has a link to the prime source of UN resolutions.
  • UN Resolutions Revisited: Defamation of Religion 08/7/11 Edited 03/19/09 Detailed analysis & deliaring of UN Defamation of Islam Resolutions.
  • UNHRC Hyprocisy! 06/04/08 Deliaring a Human Rights Council Resolution.
  • More UNHRC AssWholliness 04-04-08  Flamer inspired by UNHRC Defamation of Islam Resolution.
  • Islamophobia: Exposing Malicious Malarkey New blog to exploit two speeches referenced in the post above. Masood Khan & Hemayet Uddin are deliared as examplars of al-taqeyya. Their lies were influential in writing the resolutions cited above.  9/08

Prije cca 7 mjeseci izvijestili smo o naporima islamista da suptilno, preko UNa, uvedu zabranu kritiziranja religije. U međuvremenu, plemenitom stazom terora nad slobodnom misli u interesu opće šizofrenije zakročila je i Irska. U posljednje vrijeme, stvari se zahuktavaju. Prenosimo text Christian Science Monitora (ox i moron u nazivu? prosudite sami!):

Remember the Danish “Muhammad cartoons” that set off riots by offended Muslims more than three years ago? The debate pitted freedom of press and speech against notions of freedom from insult of one’s religion. It rages still – but now in a forum with international legal implications.

For years, Islamic nations have succeeded in passing “blasphemy” resolutions at the United Nations (in the General Assembly and in its human rights body). The measures call on states to limit religiously offensive language or speech. No one wants their beliefs ridiculed, but the freedom to disagree over faith is what allows for the free practice of religion. The resolutions are misguided, but also only symbolic, because they’re nonbinding.

Symbolism no longer satisfies the sponsor of these resolutions – the Organization of the Islamic Council. Under the leadership of Pakistan, the 57-nation OIC wants to give the religious antidefamation idea legal teeth by making it part of an international convention, or legally binding treaty. Members of the UN Human Rights Council are passionately debating that idea in Geneva this week.

Dakle, došli smo u posljednju fazu: traži se međunarodna, zakonski obvezujuća konvencija koja bi zabranila (a vjerojatno i kažnjavala) “uvrede” religiji. Namjerno sam “uvrede” popakirao u navodnike, jer znamo da religijski fanatici svaku kritiku, pa čak i nevino analiziranje dogmi smatraju “uvredom”. Hej, mogu se i ja uvrijediti ako mi netko napiše da imam grešku u prvom paragrafu i da je onaj tekst bio prije 8, a ne prije 7 mjeseci! Hoće li takav čitatelj ovog bloga također u zatvor? Zašto ne? Zato jer Irreverent Impiety nema status religije (za sada )?!

• Je li “uvreda religiji” i ako svoje djete odlučite ne poslati na vjeronauk ili ne krstiti? A na koji vjeronauk i na koje krštenje mislite poslati dijete, tako da se niti jedna religija ne osjeti “uvrijeđenom”?
• Je li “uvreda religiji” i ako obilježavate “krivi” Božić ili Uskrs? Ne znam kako da Vam kažem, no ako proslavite ijedno od toga, “uvrijedit” ćete Islam; ako ne proslavite niti jedno, “uvrijedit” ćete kršćane (kao što Halloween “vrijeđa” Vatikan).
• Je li “uvreda religiji” ako ste homoseksualna osoba? Naravno, svim većim religijama. Dapače, oni koji pod ljudska prava guraju antiblasfemične zakone, obično “problem” homoseksualaca rješavaju odstrijelom istih.
• …

Pošto ne čujem prigovore Vatikana na ovaj grubi napad na ljudske slobode — a zašto i bih? oni su također veliki protivnici tog koncepta — očekujem da se oni misle samo ubaciti u tu priču, kad islamisti obave prljavi dio posla. Dakle, pobrojane teze o “uvredama religiji” su itekako stvarna opasnost, iako vjerojatno tek za nekoliko godina.

Nisam mislio da ću to ikada napisati, no srećom USA se konačno počela baviti ljudskim pravima. Jesu li oni i Europa (unatoč Irskoj) dovoljno jaki da stanu ovoj nakaradi na kraj?

The United States under Barack Obama recently joined the UNHRC, maligned for years as the mouthpiece for countries that are themselves flagrant human rights abusers. A “new” council formed in 2006. President Obama’s hope is that as an engaged member, the US can further reform – and its own interests. This case will test his theory.

Samo primjer onoga što se želi uvesti:

Consider the wording put forth by Pakistan, written on behalf of the OIC. It proposes “legal prohibition of publication of material that negatively stereotypes, insults or uses offensive language” on matters regarded by religious followers as “sacred or inherent to their dignity as human beings.”

Da stvar bude bolja, Pakistan već ima “zakon o blasfemiji”. No, eto, osjećaju se pozvanima naturati ga i drugima! Poznato? Ne znam, zaista, odakle… možda od zakona o MPO… od plaćanja velikih proračunskih para religijskim organizacijama,… od vjeronauka i svećenika (pa i molitva!) na svečanostima u državnim školama i vrtićima,… od križeva po državnim institucijama,…

E, pa daragi moji vjernici, kad više nećete smjeti reći (istinu) da je Muhamed bio pedofil i kad nećete smjeti reći da vaš bog nije Alah, nego Jahve/Bog… tada ćete vidjeti kako je to kad vam naturaju vjerovanja koja ne želite! A bit će kasno za sve nas…

Mnogi su tu na tapeti za ušutkavanje: od raznih (npr. religijskih) manjina, do žena koje traže — saklonimebože! — poštivanje njihovih ljudskuh prava:

This gives broad latitude to governments to decide what’s offensive. Countries such as Pakistan already have national blasphemy laws, but a global treaty would give them international cover to suppress minority religious groups with the excuse that these groups offend mainstream beliefs.

And what about unpopular, even “insulting” dissenters within a majority religion – such as women who seek to interpret Islamic sharia law so that they may gain more rights?

Tračak nade komentatori vide u radikalnoj promjeni politike USA, kao i u okretanju južnoameričkih i prisaharskih država prema demokraciji (što, naravno, nužno povlači odmak od religijskih hegemonija):

Besides, international treaties are meant to protect the rights of people, not ideas. A legal defense of dignity – how a person is viewed – is not on par with a defense of a person’s inherent identity and rights. And treaties already aim to protect individuals from discrimination and violence based on religion.

As a newcomer to the Human Rights Council, the US is vigorously arguing against the OIC’s latest push, as are European countries. They may not get very far in changing minds in the governments of Egypt or Saudi Arabia. But human rights advocates such as Freedom House and the US Commission on International Religious Freedom say Latin American and sub-Saharan African countries could be persuaded to resist the OIC’s push.

These largely non-Muslim countries have typically voted as a bloc on the nonbinding religious defamation resolutions. But the trend has shifted so that more of them are now either abstaining or voting against the resolutions. Chile, for instance, recently switched from abstain to “no” at the March Human Rights Council vote; Liberia switched from “yes” to “no” at the last General Assembly meeting.

These are democracies that understand that suppression of speech in the name of religion can come with a negative effect – suppression of people and theological fault lines that at some point will erupt. It is, conversely, open debate, interfaith dialogue, and righting of misconceptions that will allow religion to flourish – including Islam, whose many followers feel so maligned at the moment.

“Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called antidefamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I strongly disagree,” said Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton this week.

She went on to argue that the best antidote to religious intolerance is enforcement of antidiscrimination laws, government “outreach” to minority religious groups, and “the vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and expression.”

The US is now in a position to persuade along these lines from inside the Human Rights Council. It should proceed with the vigor that Ms. Clinton talked about.

Očito, svijt ide brzim vlakom u smjeru Srednjeg vijeka. Nadam se da će Zapad ipak propustiti taj izlet i da ćemo zadržati civilizacijske tekovine prošlih stoljeća.

Po mogućnosti, bez još jednog besmislenog svjetskog rata…

First and foremost an Offer in Compromise (OIC) should only be used as a last resort.  The IRS will not settle on taxes that a tax payer can repay, and the filing of an OIC suspends the statute of collection.  We represent people every day, we file an OIC only when it is the best option.  A tax payer representative should be very cautious about actions that suspend the statute of collections.  The vast majority of the taxpayers can repay some, most or all of their IRS debt. 

We file few OIC’s because we do not sell a product to a client.  We allow the facts and circumstances of the client’s case to determine the course of action.  If you have the facts and circumstances that support an OIC, we will file that ASAP.

According to an article published by Manuel Davis Jr.: “Getting a favourable and beneficial IRS tax settlement is possible, but you increase the odds exponentially when you use a tax expert as your representative. Tax experts know exactly what the right course of action with IRS is to make your settlement as little as possible. They know all the nuances and changes that occur regularly in tax codes and laws. What people tend not to understand is that the IRS does not want a protracted fight. They want to close the file on your back taxes almost as bad as you do. But, given the chance they will take advantage of your situation.”

I have represented clients that have filed their own OIC, and not a single one got the OIC accepted.  We have a great track record with our OIC’s.  As a rule, we do not send an OIC to the Service Center, we file our OIC’s with a member of the Appeals division of the IRS.  We have a much better success rate with those folks, rather than with the service center.

If you have talked to one of my competitors, please contact my office 1-877-489-8999, we have a vast amount of OIC knowledge and we will help guide you to the correct course of action.  We don’t sell OIC’s, we sell solutions.

The IRS reports the average discount on an accepted Offer in Compromise was 88%.  That is a steep discount, remember the IRS is not going to just give you an 88% decrease, you will have to fight for it.  Choose a professional that is experienced in fighting for your rights.

By: Daily.Pk

A senior Hamas leader has warned that Israel plans to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Al-Quds to build a new temple in its place.

On Sunday, the mosque compound was the scene of violent clashes for the second time in recent weeks after Israeli police invaded the compound and arrested 12 Arab worshippers.

“It is the first step towards dividing the mosque, a prelude to demolishing it and building a temple in its place,” said Hamas political leader Khalid Meshaal in a speech in Damascus.

“Jerusalem belongs to its Arab inhabitants, Muslims and Christians. The future (of the city) will not be settled at the negotiating table, but on the ground of confrontation and resistance,” AFP quoted Meshaal as saying.

The Organization for Human Rights on the Temple Mount (OHRTM), a rightist Israeli group, in a meeting on Sunday had called for a new temple to be built in the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound.

The conference was attended by a number of Knesset members and leading rabbis, Ynet news reported.

Tensions have been high over the past month and the compound has been the scene of fighting after Israeli extremists, backed by Israel’s police force, tried to enter the mosque and clashed with Palestinian worshipers.

Israeli police also denied Palestinians access to the mosque compound for a period of several days.

The blockade was followed by demonstrations in numerous Middle Eastern countries including Iran and Turkey, which resulted in the re-opening of the mosque two weeks ago.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference has also warned Israel of “dangerous consequences” for acts of sacrilege in the holy Al-Aqsa mosque compound.

Por Michelle A. Vu – Christian Post Reporter – 22 de outubro de 2009

O presidente da Comissão do Governo dos EUA para a Liberdade Internacional Religiosa (USCIRF), advertiu que a chamada resolução da ONU contra a “difamação de religiões”, proposta pela Organização da Conferência Islâmica , poderá criar uma “lei global contra a blasfêmia”. “Embora o objetivo da resolução contra a difamação seja proteger as religiões em geral, a única religião e seus praticantes que são especificamente mencionadas nela são o Islã e os muçulmanos”, declarou Leonard A. Leo, que disse que a USCIRF está monitorando de perto essa resolução há vários anos. “Fora o Islã, a resolução não especifica quais religiões merecem proteção ou explica como ou quem determinará isso.” E disse mais: “A resolução parece tolerante e progressista, mas na realidade vai exacerbar a perseguição religiosa e discriminações em todo o mundo”

Envie para um amigo ou: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine

Preocupadas porque essa resolução seria utilizada de forma abusiva para oprimir as minorias religiosas nos países de maioria muçulmana, muitas organizações cristãs e seculares também lançaram várias campanhas este ano para alertar os países membros da ONU sobre o perigo que essa resolução fosse aprovada. Em março, mais de 180 organizações não governamentais (ONGs) de todo o mundo assinaram uma petição solicitando que o Conselho dos Direitos Humanos da ONU não adotasse a resolução. Mesmo assim, a resolução foi aprovada. As ONGs estão preocupadas que essa resolução será manipulada para justificar leis anti-blasfêmia e intimidar ativistas de direitos humanos e minorias religiosas, como os cristãos nos países muçulmanos.

“O que devemos esperar desse foco centrado no Islã (da resolução da ONU) e a ambiguidade de aplicações dos padrões legais? Para nós da USCIRF, sinaliza que a resolução contra a ‘difamação de religiões’ é uma tentativa disfarçada de exportar internacionalmente as repressivas leis de blasfêmia em vigor em alguns países islâmicos. Sob essas leis, acusações criminais podem ser lançadas contra indivíduos por difamar, denegrir, insultar, ofender e blasfemar o Islã, resultando frequentemente em graves violações dos direitos humanos. No Paquistão, por exemplo, as leis internas do país determinam que a blasfêmia contra o Islã é uma ofensa sujeita a penalidades severas, incluindo a morte. As alegações de blasfêmia no Paquistão, que são frequentemente falsas, resultaram em prisões por motivo de fé religiosa, bem com violência por gangues que resultaram na morte das pessoas acusadas.”

Essa resolução da ONU prevê que todos seus países-membros (inclusive o Brasil) devem aprovar legislação para se enquadrar nas leis anti-blasfêmia.

Envie para um amigo ou: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine

Another deadline has come and gone.  Perhaps many out there have not yet filed their income tax return because you know you have a substantial balance due to the IRS and you just can’t pay it right now.  Maybe you have that one project or deal that you are waiting on to come through so that you will have the cash to take care of some outstanding obligations.

Let me start by encouraging you to put the IRS on your payment priority list.  Credit card companies present perhaps the only industry that will hit you with worse penalties and interest for late payment than the IRS.  We have seen plenty of companies and individuals come to us with overwhelming IRS debt which began as several years of small underpayments that have snowballed with interest and penalties.  And out of all your creditors, the IRS is the one that can reach into your bank accounts, garnish your wages, put liens on your assets and business, and make your life completely miserable.

You wan’t to avoid all that, but you can’t pay.  Now what?

If you think you can pay the balance within 120 days, send what you can with your return and then call 1-800-829-1040 to request to pay the balance in full within 120 days. This way you may be able to avoid penalties.  If you don’t want to call the number, you can go to irs.gov and click “I Need To…” in the upper right hand corner, then click “Set up a payment plan”.

If you can’t pay it within 120 days, you will need to do a payment plan.  Pay what you can, and file your return with Form 9465 attached to the front.  You can also apply online the same way you would if you could pay within 120 days.  The cost for a monthly installment agreement is $105 unless you do it through electronic payments, in which case it is $52.  Depending on your circumstances, you may be able to get a reduced charge for the monthly installment agreement.

If you have access to low interest financing, you may want to consider taking out a loan to pay off your balance due.  The IRS charges adjustable interest rates of about 5% per month, plus late payment penalties of up to 1% per month even if you are on a payment plan.  The IRS website suggests that even if you took out a loan with 13% annual interest to pay your tax debt, you may still  save money over a payment plan depending on your situation.

In a worse case scenario, you can file an Offer in Compromise.  Don’t be fooled by the TV ads, this is not a magic solution for people to relieve themselves of small IRS debts so that they can save thousands of dollars and go buy a boat.  The Offer in Compromise process is long and intrusive.  The IRS will calculate exactly how much you owe and what they think you can pay before the statute of limitations expires for each year.  If you have cash left over each month after paying the most basic necessities, assets that could be sold to cover old tax debts, or expenses that you could cut out of your family budget, your best bet is either going with a payment plan or getting a low interest loan and paying of the IRS balance.

One of the worst financial decision you could make is to ignore your IRS debt and hope they don’t notice.

Update Nov. 10, 2009: A new edition of the resolution has been tabled in the Third Committee. Two new posts will bring the reader up to date. The first of these was written before I found the draft document. It contains extensive links to earlier resolutions and related documents. The second contains considerable detail about the new resolution and links to items in the footnotes found in the draft. It also has links to petitions you can sign and promote and a Sense of Congress resolution opposing the OIC’s current tactics.

• Defamation of Religions: Background Info.
• Defamation of Religions Draft 10-29-09

In May of ‘09, the OIC issued their 2nd oic observatory report on islamophobia (june 2008 to april 2009). that fifty page pdf file may be our best guide in anticipating the content of the ‘09 Defamation of Religions Resolution which is expected to be submitted on or before November 3; voting may begin Nov. 12. As of the time of this writing, no draft resolution has surfaced. In anticipation of the resolution, Open Doors has begun a Free to Believe petition campaign asking UN member states to reject the resolution.

Our first warning flag is found in the first sentence of the report’s forward.

The common values of mankind must be based on a firm commitment to human rights¹, as well as on the recognition of the inherent dignity of all human beings².

1. Download Islam vs Human Rights to see how well Islamic doctrine complies with international human rights covenants.
2. Read Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 to see Islam’s respect for human dignity; our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and we have no rights until we become Muslims.

The second paragraph of the forward is rich and thick with lies.

Islam is a religion that implies “peace” by its very nomenclature³. It advocates respect for all religious beliefs and embraces the truth of the preceding Abrahamic faiths⁴. In reaffirming the preceding prophethoods, it does not, under any circumstances and as a matter of belief, permit any attack on the prophets or other religious symbols of Christianity or Judaism⁵. In this context it must be emphasized and understood that Islam is not a contender of Christianity or Judaism⁶.

1. Islam is peace if and only if submission is peace. Submission is peace to the extent that, if you surrender to Islam, it won’t wage war against you.
2. The Jews earned Allah’s anger and the Christians went astray. 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!
3. Read The Defamation of Jesus Christ to learn how Islam denies his patrimony, crucifixion, death & resurrection and depicts him as a genocidal warlord.
4. Allah’s Jihad imperatives, expressed in 9:29 & 9:123 prove the fact that Islam is in a permanent state of war against Jews & Christians.

The third paragraph of the forward is a gold mine of lies, with a little truth mixed in.

Islamophobia signifies the contemporary proliferation of discrimination against Muslims and distortion of Islam and is partly due to the ignorance and lack of understanding of Islam in the West⁷. It would be an unfortunate error in judgment in believing that Islam is linked to terror⁸; that it is intolerant of other religious beliefs⁹, that its values and practices are not democratic¹⁰; that it favors repression of freedom of expression and undermining human rights¹¹.

1. Phobia implies irrational fear & loathing. Is it irrational to loathe an institution which has murdered 270,000,000 people in the last 1386 years? I hate Islam, but I do not distort it; I reveal its evil nature by means of its own canon of scripture, tradition, exegeses & jurisprudence. I am attempting to correct popular ignorance and lack of understanding of Islam.
2. Islam is linked to terror by Allah’s declaration that he would cast terror, order to mutilate in conjunction with his casting of terror, declaration that he successfully cast terror, and Moe’s declaration that he was made victorious by terror.
3. Allah said that if anyone sought a religion other than Islam, it would never be accepted. Allah commanded Muslims to fight pagans until only Allah is worshiped. Is that tolerance?
4. 33:36. It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error. How democratic is that?
5. The issue of Defamation of Religion & Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolutions results from the OIC’s promotion of censorship.If waging war against us does not violate human rights, what does?

In the fourth paragraph, we receive our first hints at the resolution to come.

Islamophobia is a manifestation of racial discrimination¹². It constitutes a two stranded form of racism anchored in both the different physical appearance of Muslims as well as the intolerance of their religion and cultural beliefs. It has now spread to the level of mainstream political activity¹³ and needs to be considered and addressed as one of the most serious threats to the
world’s stability.

1. Criticism of Islam has been equated to racism since the preliminary document for Durban II. Accusation of racism is a favorite method of stifling debate.
2. That is an obvious reference to emerging European parties which object to Islamification.

Following a little consolidation, they’ll give us another hint. Muslims are suffering from the Danish Cartoons, Fitna and blog posts that reveal orthodox Islamic doctrines. Muslims are so delicate and temperamental that they require a legal shield to protect them from perceived insult. They are burning homes & churches and killing Christians in Africa & Asia but it is Muslims who need protection from attack. Yeah, right.

The frequency of demonic portrayal and misrepresentation of Islam and Muslims have resulted in a situation where the identity of Muslims,
their self-esteem, human dignity and human rights has suffered tremendously. In short, Muslims need to be afforded protection against the social and psychological damage inflicted by the negative stereotyping and smear campaign which has wrongfully caused discrimination, bigotry, harassment and mental and physical abuse.

It is not extremely clear, we must read between the lines to harvest the next hint from the redundant maundery.

A section of the western media is a major factor in the formation of the collective misrepresentation about Islam and Muslims¹⁴. This has been spreading in the impactful areas of information¹⁵, education and the fertile grounds for the dissemination of the open hostility and the entrenchment of hatred against it.

In the present globalized world, peaceful and harmonious coexistence among diverse religions and cultures is not an option but the only means to survival¹⁶. Spectacular achievements in sphere of information and communication technology that have transformed our world into a single community afford threats as well as opportunities for peaceful coexistence¹⁷. They present mankind with tools to incite hatred and intolerance; discrimination; and distortions of religious and cultural beliefs that can spark violence causing loss of innocent lives and damage to property¹⁸. On the other hand, they can be utilized to do the reverse if we have the collective will not to allow their use to preach hatred and intolerance of other religions and cultural beliefs¹⁹.

1. The media will continue to be a target, as it was in the Durban II Draft, Paragraphs 17, 66 & 119 and paragraphs 3(e) & 8 of the more recent Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution passed by the UNHRC. We can expect them to demand self-censorship again. .
2. “Information” is a code word for the internet. They want to censor blogs and web sites. The reference to education means they want to convert our schools into indoctrination centers to convert our children to Islam.
3. Translation: “embrace Islam and you will be safe”, a common theme in Moe’s extortion letters.
4. “Threats” means they want to shut down our blogs and web sites. “Opportunities” means they want to set up propaganda sites to recruit converts by concealing the truth about Islam while extolling its non-existent virtues.
5. “Spark violence” is a reference to the Danish Cartoons, which did not cause violence. The violence was caused by rabble rousing sermons at Juma Prayers in Mosques.
6. Clarity at last! The demand for censorship is out in the open.

The conclusions and Recommendations section on page 26 of the pdf reinforces the lies I exposed earlier and the call for Dialogue which they brought out in the Executive Summary, which I did not cover. The Dialogue pitch is boilerplate from past resolutions.

The OIC proposes a frank, sincere and result oriented Dialogue²⁰ geared to curbing Islamophobia through promoting better understanding of different cultures and religions as well as better integration of Muslims in the West²¹. The OIC has remained firm in its commitment towards bringing about a meaningful Dialogue among civilizations and has been working closely with its international partners including the Alliance of Civilizations towards intercultural understanding and defeating the propagators of hatred and intolerance²².

1. The Dialogue got its big start with “A Common Word between Us and You“, sent by the Ulema to Pope Benedict XIV. That missive is so full of al-Taqeyya & kitman that I created a new blog, Go Burn With Muhammad to expose it. Moe’s idea of Dialogue was ‘you surrender or we conquer you’. The modern Dialogue is more subtle, but the bottom line is the same.
2. Many Muslims do not assimilate, they form enclaves and eventually demand the privilege of operating them under Shari’ah.
3. The OIC is practicing projection. Islam is the propagator of hatred and intolerance. Those who doubt this fact should read the litany of hateful and violent Qur’an verses in the Calcutta Quran Petition.

On page 27, paragraph h gives us another important clue. They are going to push for a protocol to ICERD. The protocol, unlike the resolutions passed by the General Assembly and Human Rights Council, will be binding international law, enforcible by the ICJ. The Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards is currently writing it.

Existing international laws on incitement to religious hatred including the International Convention on All forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief, the Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not Nationals of the country in which they live, the Declaration on the rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities and the relevant UN Resolutions must be implemented.

Violation of the above listed covenants is an issue that can and should backfire on Islam. If they were strictly enforced, the Qur’an, hadith, tafsir & Shari’ah would be banned, proscribed by law. We need to make that happen. To the best of my knowledge, the International Qur’an Petition is the only effort along that line.

It is likely that much of the resolution will be boilerplate from previous editions. The ‘08 Defamation of Religions Resolution is a likely model. My analysis of the Nov. 8 ‘ 08 draft will either put you to sleep or rouse you to sign the petition at Open Doors.

And there i was, Asylum at Ann Siang Road.

OIC is a pretty cool co-operative movement between top artists and illustrators in Singapore. 2 more photos. Managed to have a chat with the organizer, Michael.

cool guy lowers his head for me to take my nice oic photo, thanks dude.