As it has done for the past several years, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) is attempting to push through its anti-free speech resolution at the United Nations, an effort, critics say, designed to stifle the non-Muslim world's criticism of brutal and harsh Islamic doctrines and traditions.
Opponents observe that, under the guise of "defamation of religion," the OIC - which represents 56 Muslim nations - has once again foisted its censorial efforts on the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC), which previously had kowtowed to this special interests group and adopted its resolution primarily framed to protect Islam.
And once again, the United States
Government has stepped in to reject what many see as an assault on
basic human rights.
In response to incidents such as
the Danish cartoons, which were met
with violence by Muslims worldwide, the initial IOC attempt several
years ago was worded so that only Islam received this special
protection, but this move was frowned upon by most countries, such
that the resolution's framers evidently felt their efforts would
stand a greater chance of success if described by the nebulous
phrase "defamation of religion."
Thus, according to critics, this resolution is in fact a severe violation of human rights, and the U.N. body's entertainment of it could be viewed as completely opposite to the HRC's very purpose.
As Lee also reports:
Critics likewise call attention to the
fact that human rights are in short supply in the Muslim world,
where freedom of speech is already highly restricted, including by
archaic and barbaric laws against "blasphemy" in countries like
Pakistan, where a christian woman was recently
sentenced to death for alleged
remarks critical of the muslim prophet Mohammed.
Observers warn that "defamation of
religion" is essentially the same as "blasphemy" and that the goal
is to make
Islamic or sharia law as
implemented in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, for example, the binding
legal system globally.
As defined in West's Encyclopedia of American Law (1998; v. 4, p. 49), "defamation" is:
Hence, legally speaking no ideology or inanimate object can be "defamed," as the definition is restricted to a person.
This fact means that religion is
not protected under such laws and that this resolution is
By the OIC and HRC's reasoning,
therefore, Islam itself would represent defamation of Christianity
and should be banned.
Thus, again, Islamic doctrine itself
would be caught up as "defamation of religion" and would need to be
banned, according to this resolution.
They observe that if such a resolution
were enforced, members of minority and non-Abrahamic religions, as
well as atheists, freethinkers and other nonbelievers, would
be far more vulnerable to persecution, as we see abundantly in
OIC members including,
...are all in the top 25 worst nations for human rights globally.
Outside observers argue that the free
and non-Muslim nations need to push back against these censorial
attempts with all due haste and extreme vigor, citing examples of
how Islamist anti-free speech efforts are already wreaking havoc on
legal systems in the non-Muslim world, including in many parts of
Thus, by endorsing the OIC's special interest attempt at forcing Islamic law upon the rest of the world through free-speech restrictions, the United Nation Human Rights Council is advocating a new era of the same religiously based human rights abuses that have led to the deaths of tens of millions over the past centuries.
In other words, critics claim, Big Brother is back, he's watching you, and he's trying to subjugate you under religious tyranny again. Fortunately, activists say, efforts to push back against this blatant imposition of Islamic law are yielding results.
As Banks also reports:
He sent a letter signed by dozens of members of Congress to more than 150 heads of state urging them to oppose the latest resolution.
One of the fundamental principles of the United States of America is embodied in its Constitution's First Amendment, popularly known as the "right to free speech."
It could thus be argued that any such anti-free speech efforts are anti-Constitutional as well, especially when the "church-and-state" or, as the case may be "mosque-and-state," separation clause is factored in.
Therefore, American human rights and
free speech activists urge all citizens to insist on
upholding the Constitution.