OIC priorities

Islam is under attack, we hear and OIC, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, is coming to the rescue. Jihadwatch takes a look at the priorities of OIC: Unfortunately the threats that OIC sees are not the sort of violent extremist "hijackers" of the "religion of peace" who perpetrated 9-11, 7-7, etc. but rather "political cartoonists and bigots".
The real offense in their eyes is apparently that it is hard to take them seriously.

Quotes from the video:

Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination,” explained Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC’s secretary general.

AP reported that OIC “delegates were given a voluminous report by the OIC that recorded anti-Islamic speech and actions from around the world. The report concludes that Islam is under attack and that a defense must be mounted.” (…)

In response, the OIC is planning to create a “legal instrument” to combat criticism of Islam. “Islamophobia,” Ihsanoglu declared, “cannot be dealt with only through cultural activities but (through) a robust political engagement.” (…)

Once you declare one group off-limits for critical examination or declare that these people must at all costs not be offended, or that if they are they’re perfectly within their rights to stone, or lash, or imprison, or kill the offender, then you have destroyed free speech. In a free society, people with differing opinions live together in harmony, agreeing not to kill one another if their neighbor’s opinions offend them. (…)

This is especially true since Islamic spokesmen brand as offensive to Islam any inquiry into the use of Islamic teachings by the jihadists. (…)

The upshot of this is that even reporting accurately about the teachings of Islam that jihadists use to justify violence, as Mark Steyn did when he ran afoul of Muslim leaders in Canada, will be branded hate speech that is offensive to Muslims.

That’s why all free people should oppose the OIC’s legal initiative. Not only does it threaten the foundations of Western society, but as it would render us unable to analyze it, it is an attempt to leave us defenseless against the jihad threat.

Straight talk

Ladies and gentlemen, Pat Condell.

Slow creeping death of universal human rights

I have written about them before and once again does the improbably named IHEU (International Humanist and Ethical Union) impress me with a poignant and ominous report on the poor state of the UN’s work for human rights in the face of a majority of Islamic member states that work within the system to establish the dominance of their religion.

IHEU's own short explanation can be read here and I definitely recommend going there but Reuters actually does a better job of boiling the issue down to its core in a short and easy-to-read text, which I quote in full below:

Islamic states seek world freedom curbs-humanists

Wed 12 Mar 2008, 18:53 GMT

By Robert Evans

GENEVA, March 12 (Reuters) - Islamic states are bidding to use the United Nations to limit freedom of expression and belief around the world, the global humanist body IHEU told the U.N.'s Human Rights Council on Wednesday.

In a statement submitted to the 48-nation Council, the IHEU said the 57 members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) were also aiming to undermine the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

"The Islamic states see human rights exclusively in Islamic terms, and by sheer weight of numbers this view is becoming dominant within the U.N. system. The implications for the universality of human rights are ominous," it said.

The statement from the IHEU, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, was issued as the U.N.'s special investigator on freedom of opinion and expression argued in a report that religions had no special protection under human rights law.

Ambeyi Ligabo, a Kenyan jurist, said in a report to the Council limitations on freedom of expression in international rights pacts "are not designed to protect belief systems from external or internal criticism."

MOUNTING SUCCESS

But this argument is rejected by Islamic states, who say outright criticism -- and especially lampooning -- of religion violates the rights of believers to enjoy respect.

The IHEU statement and Ligabo's report came against the background of mounting success by the OIC, currently holding a summit in Dakar, in achieving passage of U.N. resolutions against "defamation of religions."

Although several such resolutions have been adopted by the two-year-old Council and its predecessor since 1999, in December the U.N.'s General Assembly easily passed a similar one for the first time over mainly Western and Latin American opposition.

The OIC -- backed by allies in Africa and by Russia and Cuba -- has been pushing for stronger resolutions on "defamation" since a global controversy arose two years ago over cartoons in a Danish newspaper which Muslims say insult their religion.

The "defamation" issue has become especially sensitive this year as the U.N. prepares to celebrate in the autumn the 50th anniversary of the 1948 Universal Declaration, long seen as the bedrock of international human rights law and practice.

The OIC has been actively promoting its own 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which it argues is complementary to the Universal Declaration but which critics like the IHEU say negate it in many areas.

Humanists, who include believers of many faiths supporting separation of religion and state as well as atheists and agnostics, say the "defamation" drive is part of an effort to extend the Cairo declaration to the international sphere.

The IHEU statement argued the December General Assembly resolution means states "may now legislate against any show of disrespect for religion, however they may choose to define 'disrespect'."

© Reuters 2008. All Rights Reserved.

I want to work for this organization.

Ellemann-Jensen and democracy

Former Foreign Minister and contestant to be Prime Minister of Denmark Uffe Elleman Jensen (Lib.) has been an out-spoken critic of the Mohammed cartoons from the beginning. In a recent post on his blog on major Danish daily Berlingske Tidende's web-site he asks who benefits, Cui Bono, from the publishing of the Mohammed Cartoons and answers himself that since the Taleban are using the cartoons to recruit we should think again before publishing something like that again. Furthermore, because there was no special reason to print the cartoons and the terrorists seem to gain from them, Jyllandsposten was wrong to print them in the first place and the entire Danish press was even more wrong to print them after a plot by radical Islamists to kill Kurt Westergaard, the creator of the bomb-in-turban cartoon, was exposed. So goes his argument.

I used to have the greatest respect for this man but his arguments simply don’t hold water in this case.

First of all, the fact that some idiot may abuse your creation after you put it out in the public is no argument for not putting it out there in the first place. Think of cars, guns, medicine and kitchen utensils. All of which can be used to harm yourself and others and still those reckless producers keep churning out forks when they know that some child is just going to stab himself in the eye first chance he gets. Get the irony?

Second point that “there was no reason to print the cartoons”: well, first of all the press does not need a special reason to print something. That is the whole idea of not having censorship: the press is free to judge what to print without prior acceptance from someone else. Read UN Charter of Human Rights article 19 if you are in doubt. (After printing, the press is of course subject to the courts’ decisions on points such as defamation or disclosure of state secrets but not before). The whole industry of gossip magazines would have a hard time if relevance had anything to do with what was allowed in the press.

The idea that there was no special reason to print the cartoons may also be disputed by trends visible in i.e. the killing of film maker Theo van Gogh, threats against Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Rushdie and others. The sheer fact that the cartoons elicited such an enormous response calling for obeisance to the Islamic taboo on images of the prophet also makes it somewhat difficult in my mind to deny that there is and was a movement towards establishing defamation as a trump-all argument. It was exactly this movement that the cartoons wanted to and did in fact bring into the light. No reason to print the cartoons? I beg to differ.

Mr. Ellemann-Jensen has been active in responding to a wealth of comments on his blog and in one such response he writes that (my translation):

“I think that Danish democracy is threatened from the inside if we do not understand that a stubborn insisting on own values – without understanding that other may perceive things differently – is a threat against democracy.”

(The grammar is a little off but that is how he put in himself).

So by giving into anti-democratic forces we are in fact protecting democracy? By insisting on keeping democracy the way we know works well, we are actually trying to abolish democracy?

I’m sorry but that just doesn’t make sense.

His point is probably that democracy is supposed to let everyone be heard and then move towards consensus. Well, the Muslims have been heard. They have made their point. Democracy has worked thus far but this conversation is a two way deal and they do not get to write the conclusion just like that.

Since their idea that religion is above freedom of speech is directly opposed to the idea of democracy, no compromise can be made without compromising democracy itself. I happen to put democracy before religion and I am therefore unable to accept any form of compromise that gives authority to religious taboos.

Freedom of speech is an absolute cornerstone of democracy and any kind of censorship (religious or otherwise) is a threat to a free society.

Mr. Ellemann-Jensen who was also an ardent critic of the Soviet Union should know better than to give into anti-democratic demands.

More irony

I know that not a soul is going to actually read this but I just need to get it off my heart.

The second round of the Mohammad cartoon crisis is sort of rolling and I just happened to watch a round of the Doha Debates on BBC World (March 8th) where the otherwise intelligently sounding ex-islamist Ed Husain had this argument concerning the cartoons:

Jyllandsposten turned down cartoons of Jesus. Therefore the Mohammed cartoons were inflammatory.

What does that have to do with anything?

If I can find a cartoon of Jesus published by Jyllandsposten, does that mean they were not inflammatory? If I can find two cartoons is it then alright to publish two cartoons of Mohammad? What is the connection?

Whether they published 20 cartoons of 20 prophets or none at all is beside the point: Islamic taboos have no jurisdiction in Denmark. No person, living or dead, religious idol or atheist scientist, is safe from criticism. The job of the press is to point out problems in the real world (which old religious texts do not get to identify) and that is what they did with the cartoons: there is a real problem with Islamic extremism in this world.

The irony of this is that the otherwise intelligent Ed Husain had come to the Doha Debates to argue that the Islamic world is not doing enough to combat Islamic extremism. I totally agree with him and so did 74 percent of the audience in Qatar.

Well the cartoons were simply pointing out that fact.

Stop the terrorists and there will be no need to draw Mohammed with any explosive devices what so ever.

Comments

I can tell people are still checking out this page and if some one should happen to have a comment or two, I will automatically be notified by mail so please don't hold back.
It is always interesting to see reactions to what I have written.

Signing out.

This blog is no longer active.

I simply don’t have the time to keep it up to a decent standard. Quite frankly I ought to erase the last posting for being too shoddy.

For those interested, here are my biggest achievements with this blog:

• Mentioned in The Guardian Unlimited
• Initial Google-rating of four.
• At least three visits by American intelligence services.
  

Best piece imho: China and the environment

A quick run-through

I haven’t written anything here for a very long time now. My situation has changed and I no longer have the time or energy to look through all those news sources.

I used to read a dozen blogs and newspapers every day. Partly because of this blog I then happened to get a job where I sit all day (or night) and write news summaries. Unfortunately it’s only local or national news. That means I spend seven hours of sifting through stories that are of no particular interest to me and when I get back home I’m just too tired to go through all the Asian stuff.

A shame really.

Also, 90% of the people who do happen to hit this site are looking for one of two things: 1) “Essay contest Japan” or “Kurara Chibana gallery”. Everyone is welcome. It's just that the overwhelming majority of these kinds of hits just aren’t particularly encouraging me to write more about aspects of society as I see them.

If I want my political commentary to be read then this medium is obviously not the right place. Or maybe I just don’t know how to use a blog correctly?

If I may catch up on my previous story on what the Chinese would do after UN resolution 1718 condemning North Korea’s nuclear test, I’ll do it quickly here: (old news, sorry) First China balked at doing anything at all but then agreed to pretend to try and check the northern border. The point is that no one can check if they are actually checking and the Chinese themselves made sure to point out that it was actually impossible to go through everything up there. Excuses, excuses. They specifically refused to take part in any naval regime. Beijing probably didn’t want to get into a situation where they would have to turn down a request by someone to stop and search a North Korean ship.

Japan has implemented the resolution and more. So far as I know no North Korean ship is allowed in a Japanese port at the moment. They have had some discussion over the legality of stopping and searching vessels in Japanese waters but I think they will manage somehow. (I’m not in a mood to go and check up on all this.)

When I’m too tired to read more than absolutely necessary I tend to choose news sources with a profile that fits my own observations. Today I happened to spend some time away from home and started reading a different newspaper than usual. It featured an essay by the Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, that I just have to react to. The piece has previously featured in International Herald Tribune. Go read it.

The title, "Open Wide Europe’s Doors". The reason? “A critical part of the soft power of Europe lies in the continued process of enlargement”, he says.

The idea seems to be that expansion of EU is expanding peace and democracy. He then holds up the ten countries that recently joined EU as an example of why we should open the doors to Turkey. In fact those countries are right now slipping back into the political disorder they came from. Now that they don’t have to exert themselves any more to get into EU, the shine has gone considerably off the political and economical polish. What we did for European ideals by accepting the ten countries was more akin to bribing them while they pretended to care about ideals.

Accepting Rumania and Bulgaria is also a huge mistake. The two countries are more or less run by organised crime. And the only reason anyone can come up with, is that “we already promised them that they could join!” Blah. What a bunch of fucking nitwits we have as our negotiators.

Even more of a mistake would be to accept Turkey. For one thing, only a third of Turks actually want to become members. Secondly, their insistence that they actually belong in the European family is just ridiculous. Islam is one thing but the sheer hysteria and irrationality that is integral to Turkish public debate and politics is too much to handle for an EU that struggles hard to find common ground on anything as it is. Putin was polite enough to only make a fool of EU over the lack of unity in private at the latest summit in Finland.

Third, the security problem of extending EU’s borders to Iran and Syria is just overwhelming. They can't control the borders as it is. If EU takes away its border controls as well then the drug road from Afghanistan to Europa will be wide open. Not to mention what else follows in the likes of human traficking and terrorism (do I really need to mention that?).

Having Turkey sign on to some protocol won’t make EU any greater a player on the world stage either. No one listens to Turkey. The arabs don't trust them. Persians don't trust them. EU already can’t figure out where to put its feet. Why would making an even bigger mess of EU’s institutions give us more punch?

“Drawing big lines on big maps of the east of Europe risks becoming a dangerous process. We should know that such a process will have profound effects in those areas or nations that fear ending up on the other side of those lines.”

So we should accept them out of fear of their destructive potential?

If trouble outside our borders is dangerous what is the great idea of inviting it inside?

The historical neutrality of Sweden is not a courageous voice for philosophical pacifism but more of a cowardly refusal to speak out on what is what. Saying something clearly always carries the risk of someone disagreeing with you. If everyone joins EU that means we’ll all agree and be friends, right? Wrong. We need to draw some lines to explain to ourselves and others that we have some standards and values that not everyone can live up to. They are welcome to try but we are not going to finance it.

”I do believe that even more of Europe, in an even larger area, is perhaps the only way of meeting the new challenges now mounting.

But for that to happen, Europe must again believe in itself and in its mission.”

For that to happen we have to first of all agree on what we believe in. Islam does not fit into that category. Secondly we need to accept that the reason why other countries disagree with us is not that they are unenlightened or poor. They won’t change their minds if we just sit down and have a chat. Not even if we subsidise their farming.

That is why EU enlargement is not a critical part of any kind of lasting power. It only lasts as long as it takes to cash the agricultural subsidies check.

The strength of EU lies in our considerable economic wealth and a stability that affords us to go out in the trouble spots of the world and lend a hand.

If we invite trouble inside EU we put our own stability on the line and everybody ends up losing.