Laws that silence, silence ALL
To support a Religion that is non- inclusive is to support a certain Religion EXCLUSIVELY
Islam doesn’t allow for other Religions. It is exclusive.
Islam should be outlawed. Shariah is a LAW. It REPLACES the Constitution. This would then become a de facto Caliphate.
While the UN is tipping more and more toward ISLAM and Shariah, it ignores the atrocities that the Muslim world commits on behalf of ISLAM. The hypocritical nature of the UN, which comprises a HUMAN rights council which IGNORES HUMAN RIGHTS violations by the Middle East .
Meanwhile the BBC ponders – Should there still be such thing as blasphemy? <last story below> What about the people? Don’t they deserve to have protection from being put to death this way?
The US government, by engaging in these talks with the UN is engaing in POLITICAL TREASON.
They are discussing giving away OUR Constitution. The FIRST AMENDMENT is on the chopping block!
Nineteen is the Number to Watch as UN Committee Prepares to Vote on Religious ‘Defamation’
By Patrick Goodenough
(CNSNews.com) – As a U.N. General Assembly committee prepares to vote on a controversial religious “defamation” resolution – possibly as early as Friday – critics will be keen to see how successful their lobbying against the Islamic-led initiative has been.
Nineteen will be the number to better. That was the margin of difference between countries voting for and against the resolution in 2009. The result then was 80-61 in favor of the resolution, with 42 abstentions.
Any margin smaller than 19 this year will be welcome by opponents, although an outright defeat of the measure is the ultimate goal.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)-sponsored text has passed at the General Assembly every year since 2005 (and at the U.N.’s human rights body in Geneva every year since 1999.)
The past three years have seen waning support, however: The 2006 and 2007 resolutions passed by a margin of 57 votes, but that dropped to 33 in 2008 and then to 19 last year. Anything below that number this year will indicate that the opposition – from a wide range of interests including Western governments, religious freedom and free speech advocacy groups – is continuing to make an impact.
The OIC, a bloc of 56 countries, argues that Islam and its teachings, symbols and prophetic figures are being denigrated by non-Muslims as a result of ignorance, prejudice or fear, especially over the period since 9/11.
It includes in these acts of “Islamophobia” incidents such as the publication of newspaper cartoons satirizing Mohammed, security “profiling,” threats to burn copies of the Qur’an, or claims that Islam’s revered text promotes violence against non-Muslims.
OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu voiced dismay last spring about the diminishing support for the annual resolution, warning against “the loss of a political and legal mainstay in the defense of our faith, our values and our sanctities.”
Opponents of the “defamation” drive counter that the OIC is trying to shield Islam, Islamic practices and clerics from legitimate scrutiny or criticism.
They charge that the OIC is trying to introduce in Western societies similar restrictions to those enforced in some Islamic countries, where non-Muslim minorities and converts from Islam face harassment and the risk of prosecution for apostasy or blasphemy.
The Christian religious freedom organization Open Doors USA said this week that while the OIC says the resolution aims to promote tolerance and protect religious freedom, “it does the exact opposite for Christians, other religious minorities and even Muslims who do not adhere to government-approved versions of Islam. In effect, the Defamation of Religions Resolution is an international blasphemy law.”
Open Doors has been lobbying missions at the U.N. and has an advocacy campaign urging Christians to lobby their lawmakers to contact foreign governments about the resolution.
In a recent report the democracy watchdog Freedom House said that blasphemy laws are “responsible for broad violations of human rights, particularly when applied in weak democracies and authoritarian systems.”
Although the OIC’s annual resolutions purport to target “defamation” of all religions, like previous ones this year’s text, introduced by Morocco on behalf of the Islamic bloc, mentions only one religion by name – Islam.
The draft resolution faces an imminent vote by the General Assembly’s Third Committee, which deals with social, cultural, and humanitarian issues.
Although the final and definitive vote for the 2010 text will be taken by the full General Assembly next month, the Third Committee result will give a good indication of the likely outcome.
The bulk of support for the resolutions comes from the OIC itself, backed by non-Muslim allies like China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and numerous countries in Africa.
In the past few years, the measurable decline in support has arisen primarily from non-Muslim developing countries changing their stance from voting for the resolution, to abstaining.
Some countries, notably in Latin America and the Pacific, have shifted from abstaining to voting against the resolution.
On the other hand the OIC has managed to persuade a small handful of countries, mostly in Africa, to move in its direction.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday reiterated the U.S. opposition to the religious “defamation” initiative.
“Some people propose that to protect religious freedom, we must ban speech that is critical or offensive,” she said while releasing the State Department’s annual report on international religions freedom.
“We do not agree. The United States joins in all nations coming together to condemn hateful speech. But we do not support the banning of that speech.”
Clinton argued that communities are enriched by a diversity of ideas.
“Societies in which freedom of religion and speech flourish are more resilient, more stable, more peaceful, and more productive.”
Countries to watch
Among countries that voted for the OIC-drafted resolution in 2009 and may be open to changing change their stance this year are the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Namibia, Swaziland, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
Past abstainers that may be urged to vote against the measure in 2010 include Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Bahamas, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Cape Verde, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nepal, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu and Zambia.
Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy, family files appeal:
Omer Farooq Khan, TNN, Nov 13, 2010, 03.24pm IST
ISLAMABAD: Family of a Pakistani Christian woman, who was sentenced to death by a local court for passing derogatory remarks about Prophet Muhammad, has filed an appeal with the Lahore High Court against the lower court’s judgment.
Asia Bibi, a 45-year-old Christian woman, was sentenced to death by an additional sessions court in Nankana district on Monday, about 75 kilometres west of Lahore. Asia was said to be a farm worker in a village of Ittanwali in Nankana and was asked to fetch water from a well but some Muslim women workers refused to drink it, saying it was unclean since a Christian woman had brought it.
After some days, these Muslim women along with their men went to a local cleric and accused Asia of making derogatory remarks against Prophet Muhammad. Later, a mob attacked Asia and the police was called, who saved her from the infuriated mob but in the end succumbed to pressure and registered a blasphemy case against her.
The FIR was registered by Qari Salim, a local cleric, on June 19, 2009. It was filed under Sections 295-B and C of the Pakistan Penal Code (both sections are punishable by life imprisonment or death sentence).
Asia Bibi has become the first woman who was sentenced to death under Pakistan’s draconian law. SK Shahid, Asia’s counsel, said that he has filed an appeal with the Lahore High Court against the lower court’s judgment.
<Send emails in whatever language or letters – information posted herePLEASE SEND APPEALS BEFORE 29 DECEMBER 2010 TO:President ZardariPakistan Secretariat, Islamabad, Pakistan
Salutation: Dear President ZardariDr. Zaheeruddin Babar AwanFederal MinisterMinistry of Law, Justice & Parliamentary AffairsRoom 305, S-Block,Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad, PakistanFax: +92 51 9202628E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.orgSalutation: Dear MinisterAnd copies to:Justice Iftikhar Muhammad ChaudhryChief Justice of PakistanSupreme Court of PakistanIslamabad, PakistanFax: +92-51-9213452Salutation: Dear Chief Justice Chaudhry
“Among other allegations, Asia was accused of denying the prophet-hood of Prophet Muhammad. How can we expect from a non-Muslim to follow belief of the Muslims?” he asked. Besides sentencing Asia to death, Muhammad Naveed Iqbal, the additional session judge, also imposed a fine of Rs 300,000 ($3,500) on her.
Proceedings in blasphemy cases mostly take place in lower courts under intense pressure, said Ataul Saman, the head of National Commission for Justice and Peace (NCJP) publications.
“Locals gather outside the courts and chant slogans to pressurize the judges into declaring the accused guilty of committing blasphemy,” he said. The lower courts verdicts in blasphemy cases are mostly overturned by the high courts, he added.
Like the Hudood Ordinance, incorporated in Pakistan’s constitution by a military dictator General Zia ul Haq in early 1980s, the blasphemy law too is a draconian law. In most of the cases, the law had been used to settle scores and promote vested interests. Just last year, infuriated mob torched a Christian village of Gojra tehsil in Toba Tek Singh district of the Punjab after some people alleged that the Holy Quran was desecrated there. However, the real issue was about a land dispute but it was given a religious twist to emotionally charge up the Muslim community.
Over the years, blasphemy law had been used as a convenient instrument to instigate mob violence. Leave alone the religious minorities; even Muslims have become victims of this unfair law. Few months back, Lahore High Court released a 60-year-old Zaibunnisa who remained in jail for 14 years on a false charge of blasphemy.
Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy, family files appeal – The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/Christian-woman-sentenced-to-death-for-blasphemy-family-files-appeal/articleshow/6919796.cms#ixzz15lbgzH7i
Should there still be such thing as blasphemy?:
Simon Peeks | 12:30 UK time, Friday, 12 November 2010
Asia Bibi is 45 and mother of five. She’s a Pakistani Christian and she’s facing a death sentence for blasphemy.
Walid Husayin is 26; the son a Muslim scholar. He’s a Palestinian blogger and he’s facing a life sentence for atheistic rants and creating Facebook groups where he spoofed the Koran. Many of his neighbours in Qalqiliya say he “should be burned to death”.
At the UN, blasphemy is also being discussed. Countries with large Islamic populations have once again called for the condemnation of what they call “defamation of religions“.
And so all of this got us questioning whether blasphemy laws should exist these days? And are there countries where they might be more appropriate?
Paula Schriefer in the New York Times says the UN vote is deeply flawed and it would be a weak weapon in the fight against “Islamophobia”.
And Catholic League president Bill Donohue agrees:
It is not just that this U.N. resolution is poorly worded, it is the intent behind it: it is being promoted by member states that are known for disrespecting human rights, including, most spectacularly, religious liberties… the resolution is not a check on religious defamation: rather, it is designed to give Islamist nations the right to plunder the religious rights of non-Muslims–under the guise of fighting religious intolerance!
Do religions need a law to protect them from criticism or ridicule? If they do, should they have them? And if so, what should the punishment be?
Or should all faiths be strong enough to tolerate any denigration?
Breaking Spells blog makes this point:
If a god truly is all-powerful, then why would someone criticizing it in public be any sort of threat? If the god is real, let the god strike the “blasphemer” down. This is a way for religious hierarchy to police it’s followers.
We’re obviously addressing this from the point of view of all religions. Some of you though are saying this is about Islam. But with Islam seemingly under a constant spotlight, does it need particular protection?
<what about the people? don’t THEY need protection?>