Can sharia law be criticized???
Not at the UN Human Rights Commission...
The United Nations' Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has no problem with its members suggesting that the 9/11 attacks were an "inside job" perpetrated by the United States on itself. The human rights of America's 9/11 victims are not a priority for UNHRC's Richard Falk, the special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, who engages in 9/11 conspiracy propaganda, while working for an organization headquartered in New York City funded by U.S. tax dollars. This is Richard Falk's protected freedom of speech.
Denying the role of Jihadists in the 9/11 attacks is apparently perfectly acceptable freedom of speech for the UNHRC, but criticizing Sharia law is another story.
On June 16, 2008, UNHRC president Doru Romulus Costea announced that criticism of Sharia law will not be tolerated by the UNHRC, based on the complaints and pressure by Islamist delegates to the UNHRC. In effect, the Islamist nations represented at the UNHRC have effected a Jihad against freedom of speech at the United Nations when it comes to criticizing Sharia or Islamic supremacist (aka Islamist) theocratic ideologies that threaten the freedom and lives of innocents around the world. This again demonstrates the key imperative of control for Islamists - in this case in terms of controlling ideas, thoughts, and words of an international organization intended to promote human rights. Outgoing UNHRC Commissioner Louise Arbour subsequently raised concerns about debates on Sharia becoming "taboo" within the United Nations group, stating that it "should be, among other things, the guardian of freedom of expression."
The UNHRC ban on debate regarding Sharia came as a result of a three minute joint statement by the Association for World Education with the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) to the Human Rights Council on women's rights and the impact of Sharia law. These NGOs sought to address international issues of violence against women, specifically, the stoning of women, "honor killings" of women, and female genital mutilation, as a result of Sharia law.
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Arab Republic of Egypt vehemently criticized this attempted NGO message, interrupting it via "16 points of order", for an hour and twenty-five minutes per the IEHU. Jihad Watch provides a full transcript of the debate. The Egyptian UNHRC delegate claimed that silencing these NGOs was necessary to ensure "that Islam will not be crucified in this Council," but the fact is that Islamist forces seek to silence any debate on Sharia at all - anywhere, any time.
posted by GayandRight @ 12:21 PM
3 Comments:
If the UN doesn't want Sharia Law to be criticized then the 'good citizens' of Canada had better shut the f!ck up and not criticize Sharia - what if they took away our 'good poodle' status?
''America is at war with radical Islamists,'' Supreme Court Justice Scalia said in a recent dissent.
He is exactly right. It's war - and with your help, we'll fight to win.
In the United Nations (U.N.), the huge 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference is driving for passage of a so-called ''Defamation of Religions'' resolution ... with a probable General Assembly vote in early December but The American Center for Law and Justice is fighting back
This ''Defamation of Religions'' resolution masquerades as a ''tolerance'' law - but in fact, it would target anyone who speaks negatively in any way about Islam! Sharing your faith would become an international crime, punishable by imprisonment or death.
Both our European and American Government Affairs Legal Teams have met with ambassadors from a number of nations - explaining the awful truth about this resolution. Just yesterday, in a preliminary committee vote, we saw encouraging signs that we are persuading nations to either vote ''No'' or ''Abstain'' from voting on the resolution.
For the first time ever in the Third Committee, the Defamation of Religions resolution received fewer ''Yes'' votes than ever before, with the ''No'' votes and ''Abstentions'' outnumbering the ''Yes'' votes 92 to 85. As the fight moves to a vote in the General Assembly, our goal is to keep the ''No's'' and ''Abstentions'' firm and possibly turn a few more of the ''Yes's'' to ''Abstentions.''
We also delivered our arguments before the U.N.'s Human Rights Council. ACLJ members (you can join to at www.aclj.org) are joining us in petitioning the U.N. - letting them know that if resolutions like this are enshrined as international law, it will come at the price of countless Christian lives.
Meanwhile, we are fighting on a second front: The U.K. demanded the deportation of a Syrian citizen who had converted from Islam to Christianity and fled to England.
There was no question he would be subject to ''honor killing'' - probably by his own family - if he returned.
Our European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) counsel argued his case before the U.K. immigration court, and won. The man and his wife were granted asylum, setting a strong precedent for other Christian converts to be granted ''religious refugee'' status.
But now the opposing counsel for the U.K. is appealing the ruling, brazenly claiming that a Christian organization like the ECLJ should not be allowed to provide a defense in such a case!
This is outrageous! We are seeing worldwide persecution of Christians as part of the radical Muslim mission to ''take the world for Islam'' by purging Christianity from the face of the earth.
Therefore, we are fighting back with every possible resource. We've got to win, or this young man will certainly die - and many others will follow.
Christians are under attack, but we are standing for you.
No other organization is as well-equipped to fight this multiple-front battle at the U.N. and in international courts. No one else is giving it the attention it deserves.
If you would like email updates from the ACLJ please visit us at www.aclj.org and get on our email list.
why can you not be open to the possibility that the real reason and cause behind 9/11 may NOT be jihad' versus 'inside job' but a co-operative operation between the parties with a vested interest!
I have studied this for many years, and if you are open to looking, the evidence points more to this than it does to the Official Conspiracy Theory put out.
Exploring this, BELIEVE ME, needs a really open flexible mind--a lets get round the table mind, and LISTEN--not one that seeks to shout down to hold a defensive position. You have to look at all the evidence, and anomalies...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home