SALLY MORRIS: UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL, THE IRRELEVANCY OF TRUTH, AND CRIMINALIZING THE VICTIM
Last March, in a strange and confounding reaction to the assassination of Punjab governor Salman Taseer for his attempt to end or at least ameliorate blasphemy laws in Pakistan which call for capital punishment (readers will recall the continuing ordeal of Aasia Bibi), the United Nations Human Rights Council (“UNHRC”) passed a resolution promoted by the Organization of Arab Cooperation (“OIC”), a long cherished goal of the OIC. The resolution, known as “16/18” calls upon UN member nations to act to curtail speech which constitutes “incitement” to “discrimination, hostility or violence” toward any “religion”. In other words, the best way to deal with assassinations of moderates is to criminalize the moderates. This was supposed to be a great victory for freedom of speech because the word “incitement” was used rather than the original, “defamation”.
FOR SALE: LARGE HOME JUST SOUTH OF BISMARCK
The OIC has used the United Nations and the European Union as tools for the advancement of their program. The EU has cooperated wonderfully. Last week we learned that outspoken critic Elisabeth Sabaditch-Wolf’s conviction of “hate crimes” was upheld by the cooperative judge in her native Austria. Sabaditch-Wolf’s actual crime was to comment on Mohammed’s “thing for little girls”, in reference to the fact that the founder of Islam married a 6-year-old child and consummated the vows when the child was 9 years old. No one disputed her facts. They could not, inasmuch as this fundamental element of Islam is right there in their Holy Book. Apparently only a Muslim is allowed to speak of this fact in Austria. That nation is not alone, of course. We’ve seen the prosecution in the Netherlands of Geert Wilders and over on this side of the pond, Mark Steyn’s prosecution (and that of Maclean's magazine) for being seen to criticize Islam in his best-selling book, America Alone. There are myriad other cases, of course. English bobbies took "preventative action", beating up and incarcerating English Defense League members socializing in a pub on Remembrance Day, on spec, for example.
So, in order to address the murder of Punjab moderate Taseer, the OIC appropriated the UNHRC to basically outlaw Taseer’s kind of speech everywhere else besides, which does seem an odd way of reacting to aggression. One of the OIC’s allies, as we might well expect, was none other than our own Hilary Clinton. In fact, she hails the wording change from “defamation” to “incitement” as a great breakthrough for “freedom of speech”. A word to Hilary: the great breakthrough for free speech was in the First Amendment to our Constitution.
The aberration of Anders Breivik in Norway last summer seems to have put “paid” to free speech throughout Europe and much of the rest of the West. It provided PR to the OIC. So now Western Civilization exists at the whim of such as Breivik . . . and those who would use him. The murder of a moderate Pakistani leader by an Islamist fanatic was the impetus for outlawing other dissent to Islam, and a lunatic’s attack gave it that extra push.
Let’s consider the plans here. Member nations are called upon to take action against those of their citizens whose speech “incites” hatred or violence, against discrimination or derogatory stereotyping or “stigmatizing” of Muslims. It calls for an end to profiling. If you think about it, it basically calls upon the West to institute the kind of blasphemy laws that Taseer was murdered for opposing. I call that progress. For the OIC. I suppose an accurate reading of this Resolution would condemn me for repeating the news of Ghulam Qadir, in Pakistan, who, after a quarrel, tied up his 17-year-old wife and chopped off her nose and lips. I suppose that could incite some feelings of hostility. Or maybe it would if I also repeated the fact that the police refused to act in the matter until she threatened, from her hospital bed, to immolate herself to achieve justice. I suppose that could cause trouble if I said it out loud.
The problem with something like this is that it could rest dormant for months or even years before some violent criminal blows up a mall or shoots up a school and, when apprehended, cites my statement of fact as his “incitement”. So goodbye free speech, for even if I am willing to risk the consequences of state action against me, who would have to courage to put said statement in print? Not only would they be sued, they would be put on trial for committing a crime. We’ve witnessed, right here in remote North Dakota, how one of the state’s major newspapers, which shall remain nameless here, deals with the most civil questioning (mine) of unbridled settlement in a community of a foreign population. Oh, of course, you might not have read about it . . . because it wasn’t printed in the paper. So, in mere jelly-like fear of the atmosphere of political correctness, my freedom of speech was denied in the only newspaper in the community. I’d say that was pretty effective. And that was before any threat of criminalization.
One cannot help but wonder what would happen if one day the local Imam (I imagine we will have one; after all we will have a mosque) were to call on his Islamic followers, as well as the rest of us Infidels, to abuse, let’s say, retailers of alcohol, or purveyors of pork, or, maybe just all Jewish people or all Catholics. Who would the “criminal” be in this case? The abuser or the one who spoke out in defense of the abused? This is a hypothetical question, of course. And, just to let you know - for the record, I would defend the abused in this case. The 16/18 Resolution appears not to interest itself in incitement by Muslims against others. But what about Ghulam Qadir? If you condemn his act of subduing his woman, apparently acceptable to the police under Pakistani law, you could be considered a criminal under the UNHRC 16/18 Resolution. It would all depend on whether a demented person cited you, not on the truth of what you said. This week we’ve had the story of two little Muslim girls, ages 5 and 9, kidnapped by a Muslim family to be “wed” to their sons, ages 9 and 12. Dare we say this is “wrong”? If we do, would it get into print? It would be taken by the OIC as “defamation”; we would all be at the mercy of a random crazy person who would commit an actual crime and cite our statement of truth as his “incitement”.
And, of course, it would put an end to any discussion of perhaps not assigning Islamist extremists to be Army psychiatrists. That, of course, would be “profiling” in violation of the Resolution! According to the UN, far better to have a few dead American infidels than risk an act or statement that could be construed as “derogatory” to Islam!
Is this what we’ve come to? A former First Lady-cum-Secretary of State applauding this effective effort by the OIC and the UN to make an end run around our Constitution and our First Amendment? If she’s the genius we’re supposed to think she is, then she’s a top-notch traitor to our country. But, then, isn’t this what is called for under these resolutions and other business of the UN? Resolution 16/18 calls upon nations to modify their INTERNAL laws:
The International Islamic News Agency (IINA) reports (1 Aug): "According to informed sources in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the two sides, in addition to other European parties, will hold a number of specialized meetings of experts in law and religion in order to finalize the legal aspect on how to better implement the UN Resolution.
"The sources said that the upcoming meetings aim at developing a legal basis for the UN Human Rights Council's resolution which help in enacting domestic laws for the countries involved in the issue, as well as formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions.” (author’s emphasis added)
I would suggest that if Mrs. Clinton prefers to enact the resolutions and institute the quasi-government of the United Nations that she should resign her post with the United States government, because she is once again acting against our laws. Our laws provide for a guarantee of free speech, not only for speech that is popular, but especially for speech that is not. Or speech that expresses opposition. So we have this woman working in concert with the OIC and other foreign entities to subvert our domestic laws – the laws we have spilled blood to protect. Well, whose pay is she in? I thought she was our paid servant.
This, of course, is part of a continuum of assault on our American law and culture. Previously we’ve seen her head-to-head with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which would step in between children and their parents in our communities, the Small Arms Treaty, which would have the UN interfering with our Second Amendment. There will be no end to this. And we can’t take our eyes off of her and her lot. Just last week she and her OIC comrades were meeting to hammer out how the 16/18 Resolution can be put to work here.
This could be a boon to the campaign of Ron Paul, if read correctly as a full-out attack on our freedom in America. In any case, America must redefine its relationship with the United Nations. We are a sovereign nation. We must act in our own national best interests. We must be guided in this by our own moral courage, borne of our own culture and philosophy. This means we cannot accede to such plans as the OIC may have for us and the rest of the world to establish their Caliphate. I believe that the best course to take is for the United States to disavow this and other acts and resolutions endemic to our American freedom and beliefs, end our subsidy of this tool of international conspiracy and deport their headquarters to another country – whoever will take them. Belgium might be good. I note that the plan is to end Western culture in that nation. We should retain only one connection with the UN: our seat on the Security Council. From that seat a truly American government can still veto insane efforts and folly by the rest.
The time has finally come to call it quits with the dream machine of Eleanor Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin. It has never been a positive force for the West. It is just another reason for us to take a hard look at who and what we are and what we’ve become and could become. Personally, I am happy to be a product of Western culture. It has proven its success. Only when we waver and try to be like the Third World or the socialist culture do we fail. Our current national predicament is a testament to the truth of this statement. We should call upon our leaders to repudiate the UN and its program of undermining our Constitution and support those leaders who do so.
Sally Morris is a member of Americans for Constitutional Government and the Executive Committee of the Valley Tea Party Conservative Coalition, for whose website (vtpcc.com) she also blogs.
DakotaBeacon