Fort Hood Trial: Don’t Say the “T” Word

By Deborah Weiss
FrontPage Magazine
August 22, 2013


The Fort Hood shootings constituted the largest massacre on a military base in the history of the United States. There is overwhelming evidence that the defendant’s motivations were religious in nature. But as the trial ensues, the US government continues to bend over backwards to avoid calling the massacre an act of Islamic terrorism, consistent with Islamist demands not to associate Islam with terrorism.

On November 5, 2009, Army Major and psychiatrist Nidal Hasan took his semi-automatic pistol and headed to the Soldier Readiness Processing Center on the military base at Fort Hood. There, soldiers were being cleared for deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq. Hasan fired a spray of bullets killing 13 people and wounding over 30 others. It was the worst massacre on a military base in US history.

Hasan had purchased a gun that would be efficient in a high-target environment and attended weeks of target practice.

Two days prior to the blood bath, Hasan gave away his furniture, disseminated business cards that read Soldier of Allah, and emailed Al-Awlaki saying he looked forward to joining him in the afterlife.

Dressed in traditional Islamic garb, Hasan appeared at the Fort Hood military base prepared to fulfil his Islamic duty to defend his Muslim brothers.

Upon his arrival to the scene, he bowed his head in prayer, then jumped up and screamed “Allahu Akbar” (Allah is the greatest!) before unloading his ammunition at unarmed soldiers.

Reports indicate that army officials were cognizant of Hasan’s increasing radicalization since 2005. Hasan had given a seminar which revealed his Islamist ideology, during which he justified suicide bombings. He also expressed increasing ambivalence about serving in the military since the US was “killing Muslims”.

Additionally, an investigation discovered conclusive evidence that Hasan had significant email communications with Anwar Al-Awlaki, a prominent Al-Qaeda operative who was a target of Obama’s targeted killing drone program. Hasan’s emails asked whether it was acceptable to kill innocents during jihad and when suicide bombings were justifiable. He also regularly visited jihadi websites which condoned suicide bombings.

Hasan was charged in a Military Court under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with 13 counts of pre-meditated murder and 32 Counts of attempted murder.

He appeared before a board of mental health professionals to determine his fitness to stand trial. At his hearing, Hasan confessed to the murders and claimed he did it to “defend Taliban leadership.” He showed no remorse. Never-the-less, the board ruled he was sane.

Hasan is representing himself at trial. The trial commenced August 6, 2013. During Hasan’s opening statements, he confessed the murders and blatantly asserted his jihadi motives. He explained that he had “switched sides” and regards himself as mujahideen.

The prosecution has had almost 90 witnesses and Hasan has engaged in virtually no cross-exam. Some believe that he is purposely leading a strategy of defenselessness in order to achieve martyrdom. Though he denies it, Hasan’s past statements indicate that he wished he had been killed so he’d become a martyr and that government execution would still qualify him as such.

So the question remains, how should Hasan’s mass murder be characterized?

An independent commission conducted an investigation of the Fort Hood shootings. DoD released its report in January 2010. It found that the Pentagon was unprepared to defend itself against internal threats. DoD and other government agencies have characterized the massacre as “workplace violence” and omitted any mention of Islamist ideology or terrorist behavior.

The leaders of the investigation stated that their concern was “actions and effects, not necessarily motives”. And, Army Chief of Staff General George W. Casey proclaimed that “as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

The FBI determined that because Hasan had no co-conspirators, further investigation was unnecessary.

In his public address and at the eulogy, President Obama also refused to acknowledge the role of Islamic terrorism in the massacre.

Yet motive is what distinguishes one type of homicide from another. A homicide victim is equally dead regardless of motive. But our legal system and moral code mandate that intent be taken into account when determining what, if any punishment should be accorded.

The omission of the terrorist motives in the Fort Hood massacre is resulting in the denial of purple hearts for the fallen soldiers, and a denial of medical benefits and financial compensation for the survivors.

Though the UCMJ does not have terrorism in its code as a possible charge, the military court could have waived jurisdiction, allowing Hasan to be prosecuted in Federal Court where a charge of domestic terrorism would have been in order.

Even if Hasan was not criminally charged with terrorism, the government could make a political determination that this was a terrorist act, allowing the victims to be properly compensated. DoD officials claimed that Hasan could have argued he couldn’t get a fair trial due to accusations of criminal liability.

However, Hasan has already admitted criminal guilt. Therefore, it is more likely that the government’s characterization of the massacre as workplace violence was made in line with its pattern of denial regarding Islamist ideology.

This Administration has rewritten all national security training material to delete all reference to Islamic terrorism and has launched an aggressive campaign of interfaith dialogue and “peer pressure and shaming” to stifle all debate on the issue of Islamism.

The Administration has also formed close alliances with Islamist organizations in a quest to silence all speech critical of Islam, in a manner tantamount to blasphemy codes.

Free speech constitutes a human right and is critical to maintaining the cause of freedom. It is especially important to allow open debate on the nature of national security threats and their motivational ideology.

Denying the threat of Islamic radicalism has consequences. Resulting policies hamper America’s ability to defeat those that wish us harm. Whether the Benghazi attacks, the Fort Hood massacre or other Islamic terrorist attacks, most Americans realize that purging the language does not eradicate threats.

This awareness does not apply to the Administration, however, where the folly continues.

This article was commissioned by The Legal Project, an activity of the Middle East Forum.

---

Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine and the Washington Times. She is a contributing author of “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network” (Palgrave MacMillan, 2011). A partial listing of her work can be found at www.vigilancenow.org

Read more ...

U.S. Praises Sharia Censorship

By Deborah Weiss
FrontPage Magazine
May 24, 2013


The United States is silent as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) passes its most recent UN Resolution that unravels global consensus to support freedom of speech.

From 1999-2010, the OIC succeeded in passing its defamations of religions resolutions, which ostensibly would protect Islam from all criticism, including true statements of fact. Though the name of the resolutions indicated that it would pertain to all religions equally, in the OIC’s interpretation, it applied to Islam only.

Realizing the clash that this concept holds with that of free expression, the US State Department urged the OIC to produce an alternative resolution which would address the OIC’s concerns about Islamophobia and still protect free speech.

Accordingly, in March 2011, the OIC introduced the now infamous Resolution 16/18 to combat intolerance based on religion or belief, purportedly proposed as a replacement for the defamation of religions resolution. It garnered wide-spread support and Western states touted it as a victory for free speech. They believed that its focus marked a landmark shift from suppression of speech critical of religions to combating discrimination and violence against individuals based on their religious beliefs.

Over time it became clear that the OIC retained its long term goal to protect Islam from defamation and indeed to criminalize all speech that shed a negative light on Islam or Muslims. Resolution 16/18 turned out to be a tactical move by the OIC to bring the West one step closer toward realizing its goal of achieving global blasphemy laws, by using language more palatable to the West, and open to interpretation.

Against this backdrop the US held the first conference to implement Resolution 16/18, the process now known as the Istanbul Process.

Unfortunately, America’s concern for the protection of free speech seems to have gotten lost as its focus moved closer to the OIC’s positions, and an emphasis was placed on protecting Muslims in the West from Islamophobia.

Some circles including free speech advocates, national security experts, and those concerned about the Persecuted Church, have beaten the drum against Resolution 16/18 and the continuation of the Istanbul Process. Their efforts have been to no avail as the Istanbul Process continues.

However, while awareness of the perils of Resolution 16/18 is on the increase, news on Resolution A/HRC/22/L.40 has gone virtually unreported. It retains the same title as Resolution 16/18, but has glaringly dangerous amendments.

To focus on just one, it asserts that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group. This is obviously problematic. The lumping together of these categories implies a false equation of immutable characteristics such as nationality and ethnicity with those that are subject to choice such as religion or belief.



Religions and belief systems come in all stripes. To preclude the possibility that any of them might be ideologically associated with terrorism leads to a position based on an unexplored assumption rather than a conclusion based on fact. Indeed, the assertion condemns the mere exploration of the facts a priori, a notion which is not only illogical but dangerous.

After 9/11 and the multitude of terrorist attacks committed in the name of Islam, one ought to be able to raise legitimate questions about Jihadi ideology without being labeled a bigot. Government has an obligation to determine the motivational ideology of terrorism even if even if it turns out to be an interpretation of a religion.

The government should not get into the business of ascertaining what is or is not proper theological interpretations of any religion. But a distinction has to be made between those who are truly practicing a religion as the word is understood in the West, versus those who are implementing a subversive political ideology cloaked in the language of religion.

Anyone who has conducted a good faith investigation knows that there is such a phenomenon as Islamic terrorism. Only those in denial can claim otherwise. Truth should never constitute prohibited speech, no matter how ugly reality might be.

The condemnation of honest discussion on this important matter, along with other disturbing speech restrictive clauses in Resolution L.40, demonstrates the unraveling of the consensus by nation states to promote freedom of expression. Those who follow the OIC closely know that its allegiance to this concept was folly from the onset. One need only take a cursory glance at the OIC countries to determine the disingenuousness of this portention, as many OIC countries fine, jail and even execute the exercise of speech deemed blasphemous to Islam. For those less informed, nothing more than the language embodied in Resolution L.40 is needed to realize that the OIC’s commitment to free speech is a sham.

Subsequent to passage of Resolution L.40, the EU representative to the UN expressed unabashed concern over the erosion of international consensus to support free speech. He insisted that the EU will continue to uphold the ideas pertaining to the protection of minorities, but will oppose any efforts to undermine the right to free expression, including discussion of Islamic terrorism.

The US representative stated no such concern. She failed to make a principled statement on America’s position regarding freedom of speech. Instead, she lavished praise on the OIC for maintaining a consensus on Resolution 16/18 for three consecutive years.

The Obama Administration has erroneously characterized the Fort Hood attack as mere workplace violence; has cleansed from its national security and counterterrorism lexicon any reference to Islamic terrorism, has blamed the Benghazi attacks on the an anti-Islam video and has taken a lead role in the Istanbul Process, promising to use "peer pressure and shaming" against American citizens who speak out on these issues in a way that the Administration finds disagreeable.

Therefore, it should have come as no surprise when after the Boston bombings, during a time of trial, tribulation and grief, the President’s address emphasized that people should prioritize America’s value of diversity. No doubt that this diversity of ideas includes the motivational ideology of Islamic terrorism, even though acknowledgment of its existence is now verboten.

This article was commissioned by the Legal Project, an activity of the Middle East Forum.

---

Deborah Weiss is a lawyer and a freelance writer. She is a co-author of "Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamist Terrorist Network" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). A partial listing of her work can be found at www.vigilancenow.org

Read more ...

Islamist Org Working to Prohibit Criticism of Islam

Posted by Deboarh Weiss: An article written by Ryan Mauro of RadicalIslam.org

Expert: Islamist Org Working to Prohibit Criticism of Islam
January 15, 2013


Deborah Weiss, Esq. is an expert on the defamation of religions U.N. resolutions set forth by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. She writes for several online news sites and is co-author of the book, Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West's Fatal Embrace."

The following is RadicalIslam.org National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro’s interview with Deborah Weiss.

Ryan Mauro: What is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and what is its end goal?

Deborah Weiss: The OIC is the largest Islamic organization in the world, claiming to represent 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide. It’s comprised of 56 UN Member States plus the Palestinian Authority. They tend to vote together as a block in the UN and are arguably the most powerful voting block in the UN as a whole. They are certainly the most powerful voting bloc in the UN’s Human Rights Council.

Though the OIC holds itself out as a “moderate” organization, it is clear from its own documents and its concepts that it is anything but moderate. Its long term goal is the worldwide implementation of Sharia law and the supremacy of an Islamic State.

In its immediate activities, it is working to solidify the relationships among Muslim majority countries, to unify the Muslim voice, to support the so-called “Palestinian struggle” and to restrict all speech that is critical of anything related to Muslims or Islam including Islamic terrorism and Islamic persecution of religious minorities.

Mauro: Tell us about the OIC’s concept of “Combating Defamation of Religions” and its impact.

Deborah Weiss: “Combating Defamation of Religions” is a concept which gives an idea or religion, in this case Islam, protection from criticism, as opposed to what we have in the American legal system which only gives defamation protections to people.

Additionally, the OIC’s definition of defamation includes anything that sheds a negative light on Islam or Muslims, even if it’s true and even if it’s opinion. In fact, it goes even further and condemns any free expression that would violate Islamic blasphemy laws even when, and perhaps especially when, expressed by non-Muslims. So it’s the OIC’s attempt to pressure non-Muslims to comply with Islamic blasphemy codes. Its target is the West and failure to comply with its demands is deemed “Islamophobic” even when no actual bigotry or prejudice is present.

The impact of putting the concept of combating defamation of religions into effect has numerous consequences and implications.

First, though it’s called “combating defamation of religions,” the OIC interprets and applies it to Islam only without any reciprocity for other religions. In fact, the concept of protecting Islam from “defamation” is used in many OIC countries to persecute religious minorities. The concept gives credence to Islamic blasphemy laws, which not only operate to suppress freedom of religion, but also violate human rights. For example, in Pakistan, Ahmadiyya Muslims believe in a prophet after Mohammad. They generally have a peaceful, egalitarian interpretation of Islam. Yet, they are considered heretics, and it is not only illegal for them to practice their faith, but it is criminal. Merely sending out a wedding invitation with an accurate quote from the Koran can land an Ahmadiyya Muslim in jail.

Last, but not least, the implementation of the concept of combating defamation of religions has serious consequences for freedom of speech. This is the main concern from a Western, and specifically American perspective. The OIC as well as other Islamist organizations continue to work hard to stifle free speech. They are constantly placing pressure on Western governments and societies to refrain from saying or dong anything that violates Islamic blasphemy codes, even though they don’t word it this way.

For example, the OIC encourages “hate-speech” laws in Europe that make it illegal to speak negatively about Islam. And in America, though the government has thus far declined to make such speech illegal, it is enacting policies that discourage such speech even when it’s critical in protecting US national security.

Though not necessarily a direct result of the OIC’s UN resolutions, the implementation of the concept of combating defamation of religions has resulted in America’s recent cleansing of all national security training material for the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the National Counterterrorism Training Center. National security and intelligence professionals will still learn about terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, but will be deprived of teachings regarding the underlying[Islamist] ideology, disconnecting the motivation from the terrorist behavior. This ties one hand behind America’s back in fighting the War on Terror and is very dangerous.

Mauro: In March 2011, Secretary of State Clinton urged the OIC to “move beyond a decade-long debate over whether insults to religion should be banned or criminalized.” At the United Nations in September 2012, President Obama spoke against banning anti-Islam speech in the wake of the violence following the publicity surrounding the Innocence of Muslims YouTube video. What is your criticism of the U.S. government’s relationship to the OIC then?

Weiss: While President Obama might have spoken out against the legal ban of anti-Islam speech, his administration has worked to implement policy bans on such speech in a way that is both unprecedented and has grave national security implications. Whereas the National Security Strategy Memo, the guiding document for all American national security policies, previously proclaimed that radical Islam is the most dangerous ideological threat to American freedom in the 21st century, now all mention of it has been deleted.

Government agencies discourage use of the words “jihad”, “Islamist”, “caliphate” and others. Any connection of Islamism or radical Islam to terrorism is verboten, even when the terrorists identify themselves as Islamic. Terrorism is merely a symptom of a deeper problem, and the refusal to address the underlying ideology that motivates it makes it more difficult to identify terrorism in its early stages and more difficult to defeat it.

The OIC has a strong anti-freedom and anti-Israel agenda. Despite this, the Obama administration works with the OIC on numerous fronts, sometimes excluding Israel from participation.

You might be interested to know, Ryan, that although Obama said we shouldn’t ban anti-Islam speech after the “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video, he also asked Google, the parent company of YouTube to check its terms and conditions to determine if the video violated them, and to remove the video if it did. Fortunately, YouTube insisted on keeping the video posted.

As to Hillary Clinton’s comment urging the OIC to move beyond the banning or criminalization of religious insults, all I can say is that she has no authority to effectuate this in the Muslim world. The OIC must have been laughing all the way home as they exited the December 2011 State Department Istanbul Conference where Secretary Clinton promised to use the “peer pressure and shaming” to silence the speech of Americans critical of anything Islam-related. The result of that conference brought the OIC one step closer to making their goal of criminalizing such speech a reality.

---

Ryan Mauro is RadicalIslam.org's National Security Analyst and a fellow with the Clarion Fund. He is the founder of WorldThreats.com and is frequently interviewed on Fox News.

---

Deborah Weiss is a lawyer and a freelance writer. She is a co-author of “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamist Terrorist Network” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). A partial listing of her work can be found at

Read more ...

CAIR’s Thought Police: At It Again

By Deborah Weiss
FrontPage Magazine
January 11, 2013

The thought police over at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are urging journalists to delete the word “Islamist” from their lexicon. Though CAIR claims that the word stems out of bigotry, CAIR’s real agenda is to protect Islam — and Islamists — from so-called “defamation.”

The Associated Press Style Book is a guide for journalists which lays out rules for spelling, punctuation, and other guidelines. In its most recent edition, it added the word “Islamist,” which it defines as: “Islamist: supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.” Generally, the word “Islamist” is used to distinguish those who want to practice Islam as a spiritual faith, as opposed to those who interpret it and apply it as a political ideology. Those in the latter category desire the merging of mosque and state.

On January 3, 2012, Ibrahim Hooper, national spokesperson for CAIR, published a column suggesting that in the New Year journalists should refrain from using the word “Islamist.”

He complains that news reports unfairly focus on Islamists and notes that there are no news reports of “Christianist,” “Hinduist,” or “Judaist” political leaders. He further insists that the word “Islamist” is used almost always “pejoratively” by “Islamophobic groups and individuals” who link the word to terrorism, persecution of religious minorities, and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam. Hooper whines that such “bigoted attacks” unfairly target Islam because they are not equally hurled at other faiths.

Hooper goes on to claim that often the word “Islamist” is used by “Islam-bashers” who “disingenuously” claim to hate political Islam, though deep in their hearts they hate all Islam. As proof of his assertion, he accuses the alleged Islamophobes of failing to explain how a practicing Muslim can be politically active without attracting the label “Islamist.” After all, he writes, Muslims who wish to serve the “public good” and are merely “influenced” by their faith are slapped with the label “Islamist.” He professes that they just want to work for the “welfare of humanity and to be honest and just,” and if that same inspiration had eminated from the Bible instead of the Quran, they’d be deemed “good Samaritans.”

However, Hooper allows one exception for when use of the word “Islamist” is acceptable, and that is when it is used by Islamists themselves.

And therein lies the rub. It’s not really the word to which Hooper is objecting. It is the negative connotation which serves to “defame Islam.” In the eyes of CAIR and other Islamist organizations, anything that sheds a negative light on Islam or Muslims constitutes “defamation,” even if it’s true. This is a definition at odds with that in the American legal system which requires defamation to consist of a false statement of fact.

So the real agenda of CAIR and its ilk is not to stop “bigotry” against Islam or Muslims, but to whitewash and obfuscate the truth and propagate a disinformation campaign about, yes, Islamist terrorism, Islamist persecution of religious minorities and Islamist human rights violations, all of which are done in furtherance of the ultimate goal of Islamist Supremacy.

The word “Islamist” has negative connotations because the underlying idea that the word represents is negative in the minds of freedom loving people. Any cosmetic word change that carries the same meaning will eventually attach a negative connotation as well.

The real issue here is not to let the Islamist thought police like CAIR remove the arsenal of words from the English language in service of undermining the War on Terror. Words have meaning and it is critical that we accurately use them to identify our enemies. By placating CAIR’s demands, we tie one hand behind our backs in defending freedom.


Hooper conflates those whose values come from their religious faith and practice it within a constitutional framework, with those who use their faith to undermine constitutional freedoms. The reason news reports don’t contain allegations of Christianist, Hinduist and Judaist politicians is because there are no analogous political movements cloaked in the language of other faiths which seek to subvert the government and replace it with so-called “religious” institutions to be dominated by a monolith.

Though it isn’t incumbent on reporters to explain to the likes of CAIR how a Muslim can be influenced by his faith without being labeled “Islamist,” for Hooper’s benefit, it is laid out here:

1. Consider Islam a spiritual practice and not a political ideology to be imposed on others.

2. Do not work toward the merging of mosque and state.

3. Don’t demand that infidels comply with Islamic laws.

4. Support equality under the law between Muslims and non-Muslims, and between men and women.

5. Support freedom and refrain from advocating for anti-Constitutional measures such as restrictions on freedom of speech or special preferences in the workplace not afforded to those of other faiths.

6. Stop supporting terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah and start supporting national security measures that will protect American citizens from terrorist attacks including terrorist attacks by Muslims.

Muslims who can’t practice their version of Islam without violating these rules, accurately warrant the label “Islamist.”

It makes sense that Hooper would object to the negative connotations inherent in the word “Islamist” since the organization he represents qualifies for that label. CAIR has close connections to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. It was an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-financing trial in the history of the United States. Several of its former leaders sit in jail on terrorism-related convictions. And, its current leadership is well known to be empathetic to Hamas and Hezbollah, both State-designated terrorist organizations which seek the obliteration of the State of Israel.

CAIR serves as an apologist for what is commonly called “creeping Sharia.” It opposes every free speech stance that might be deemed anti-Islamic even if it’s true. CAIR has also opposed every national security measure that would protect American citizens from Islamist terrorism.

During the meetings from which CAIR sprung into existence, its founders proudly referred to themselves as Islamists. They fully believe in and support the ultimate vision of a worldwide Sharia State, where Islam reigns supreme over all other religions.

But, whether the term is spoken by those who favor or abhor its meaning, an Islamist by any other name is still an Islamist. Journalists have a duty to report the truth even when, and perhaps especially when, the subjects of the information find it offensive.

---

Deborah Weiss is a lawyer and a freelance writer. She is a co-author of “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamist Terrorist Network” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). A partial listing of her work can be found at www.vigilancenow.org

Read more ...

The War Against Free Speech Rages On

By Deborah Weiss
FrontPage Magazine
October 22, 2012


The Obama administration conveniently scapegoated a short, anti-Islam video for the murderous attacks on the US consulate on September 11, 2012. Now that the State Department has confessed its knowledge that Benghazi was the result of a pre-planned terrorist attack, many in both the mainstream and conservative media are asserting that it’s obvious nobody would really have responded to a silly 14-minute YouTube clip with mass protests. Not so fast. In fact, the administration’s relentless condemnation of the video’s content, even after the Benghazi facts have been established, may have given license for many Muslims in the West to do the same.

On Sunday, October 14, 2012, thousands of Muslims stormed the London Headquarters of Google, the parent company of YouTube. They were protesting the notorious anti-Islam video clip, titled “Innocence of Muslims,” a 14-minute, amateurish, low-budget trailer that portrays Mohammad in a negative light. The video had been falsely blamed by administration officials for the murders of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other US diplomats in Benghazi, Libya.

Barricades were erected around the building, and numerous streets in England’s capital were blocked off near the Queen’s palace. Those in protest were demanding that YouTube pull down the video.

The Muslim Action Forum organized the event and approximately 800 imams from mosques across the UK assisted. Muslims from Manchester, Blackburn, and Luton attended. Others came from as far away as Glasgow.

The Birmingham Mosque told its attendees that it was important to attend the event in honor of the Prophet, and warned participants to refrain from violence in order to prove to the world that Islam is a religion of peace. The mosque provided buses to transport crowds to the event.

Though police reported that only approximately 3000 people attended, the Muslim Action Forum insists that attendance was closer to 10,000. At a glance, the irate mob appeared to consist primarily of men, but in fact, a smaller gathering of women joined them, as is often the case, in the back of the crowd. They were fully covered from head to toe in hijabs and chadors.

The name of the campaign was “The Campaign for Global Civility.” Demonstrators carried signs that demanded civility from others, even as they intimidated those with whom they disagreed. Others signs proclaimed “Islam is a religion of peace,” even as an implied threat of violence filled the air. And some even had the audacity to wave signs that read, “Prophet Muhammad is the founder of freedom of speech” despite the fact that the entire purpose of the protest was to shut people up. Additional signs read that “Google is a worldwide terrorist” and “[H]ow dare you insult the blessed Prophet.”

Protest organizer, Masoud Alam, asserted that the goal of the demonstration was to have the anti-Islam YouTube clip banned worldwide. The video has been blocked by Google in a few countries where prohibited by law, such as Saudi Arabia, and a handful of governments in other countries removed the video when Google refused. However, it remains posted throughout the West and in numerous other regions. Alam made it clear that the protests would continue until demonstrators get their way. There would be a zero tolerance for dissent.

Indeed, the protest in London was the third held this month in the here-to-fore Free World. The Muslim Action Forum plans to hold protests at Google offices around the globe, including a “Million Muslim March” anticipated to be held in the next few weeks.

Masoud Alam proclaims that he’s merely seeking “civility” and Alam Ghulam Rabbini, a Sufi cleric, explains that Google should not have the right to “hurt the feelings of 1.5 billion Muslims.” But the real goal of the protests is to stifle all criticism of Islam in a way that parallels Islamic blasphemy laws. In fact, Alam states that he believes “YouTube and its parent company, Google, continue to share Islamophobic material and continue to incite racial hatred” and admits that “[T]his insult of the Prophet will not be allowed.”

Clearly, if the video is taken down, it will not end the demonstrations, but only serve to further embolden those who seek to stifle free speech in the name of Islam.

And, in accordance with the Muslim Brotherhood mandate to sabotage the West from within, using their own hands (emphasis added), the Muslim Action Forum hopes to create a coalition of dhimmis, including Christians, Jews and conservatives to join their ranks for the cause of civility. Never mind that the bridge of civility flows in only one direction, with complete disregard for the daily diet of anti-Semitism fed through Arab media, and the persecution of Christians spread pervasively throughout Muslim lands.

So far, Google has stood firm. First, it refused to remove the video clip in response to the administration’s “inquiry” to determine if the clip violated YouTube’s terms and conditions, and now it stands strong in its response to thousands of angry Muslims who want to protect Islam from so-called “defamation.”

And, while Team Obama continues to denounce the content of this film, “shaming” those who espouse a different viewpoint, the President’s actions amount to yet another policy of appeasement. Fighting negative stereotypes of Islam wherever he finds them, as he promised to do in his speech at Cairo, the President is giving a green light to those who want to do the same by other means.

The real job of the President of the United States it to stand on principle and fight for the rights enshrined in the Constitution…. including the right to freedom of speech. Google executives have it right. They have asserted that the company “has very clear views on this issue. We believe the answer to bad speech is more speech.”

In the context of other wars, the President has stated that he wants to “lead from behind.” However, in the War against Free Speech, he’s ahead of the pack.


Please drop a note of support to Google executives to stand on principle as the pressure mounts in the coming weeks:

Google UK, Ltd.	Larry Page, CEO
Belgrave House	Google Headquarters
76 Buckingham Palace Road	1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
London, UK , SW1W9TQ	Mountain View , CA 94043

---

Deborah Weiss is a freelance writer and co-author of “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamist Terrorist Network” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).

Read more ...

Rescuing Rimsha

By Deborah Weiss
FrontPage Magazine
October 15, 2012

The penalties for committing the crime of blasphemy in Pakistan are cruel, if not unusual. But even if little Rimsha is acquitted of the charges, she still faces the possibility of death.

Rimsha Masih is a 14-year-old Christian girl believed to have Down’s Syndrome. She resides in the town of Mehrabad, a poverty-stricken slum on the outskirts of Islamabad.

This summer, one of Rimsha’s neighbors claimed he saw her burn the pages of a holy book that contained Koranic verses. Such conduct constitutes “blasphemy” in violation of Pakistan’s penal code. The rumor spread like wildfire and local clerics whipped up religious sentiment, riling up the masses.

Subsequently, on August 16, 2012, Rimsha was playing in an area close to her home when she was attacked by a vicious mob of religious fanatics, intent on killing her. She and her mother were severely beaten.

A call to the local police station prompted Rimsha’s arrest. She and her mother were carted off to jail, where Rimsha sat traumatized in a high security prison for three weeks, waiting for her bail hearing.

During that time, the Ramna Police Department conducted an investigation of Rimsha’s case. It discovered that Imam Khalid Jadoon Chishti had framed Rimsha as part of a larger scheme to force Christians in the area to flee their homes permanently. Several witnesses stated that the Imam held extreme animosity toward “infidel Christians” and knew that blasphemy charges against Rimsha would force a mass exodus of local Christians from their homes.

Indeed it did. Outraged Muslims sought to collectively punish Rimsha’s entire village, which consisted of approximately 800 Christians, by threatening their lives and property. Hundreds fled due to fear and intimidation.

At Rimsha’s bail hearing, the police contended that there was no factual evidence to support the claim that Rimsha had committed blasphemy, but instead she had been framed by the Imam. Rimsha was a street sweeper, a job often performed by poor Christians for meager pay. It seems that she had swept up some pages from the Noorani Qaida — a primer used to teach children the Islamic Holy Scriptures — and then placed them in her plastic bag to throw out. At least three witnesses testified that Imam Chishti said he was unsure if this was sufficient to uphold a blasphemy charge, so he personally ripped out pages from the Koran, burned them himself and then planted them in Rimsha’s bag.

Based on the information provided by the police report, in addition to witness testimony, the judge granted Rimsha bail on September 8, 2012. She and her mother were airlifted from the jailhouse to an undisclosed location where they were placed in hiding for their own protection. They will remain there until the next hearing date, which is scheduled for October 17, 2012. At that time, the court will consider the defense attorney’s petition to dismiss Rimsha’s case due to lack of evidence.

Subsequently, the Imam was arrested for framing Rimsha. It is unprecedented that anyone in Pakistan has ever been held to account for making false blasphemy charges. Rimsha’s case has drawn international attention due to her age and mental incapacity. It is likely that the arrest was prompted by outrage abroad, pressuring the Pakistani government to let Rimsha go free. It remains to be seen whether the Imam will be charged with his crimes (witness tampering and possibly additional charges of blasphemy), or whether his arrest was a show, staged for the benefit of the international audience and the human rights watch dogs who have been monitoring Rimsha’s case.

After the Imam’s arrest, three of the witnesses who had testified against the Imam recanted their statements. They claimed that they had been coerced by the police to accuse the Imam of framing Rimsha. Police and investigators insist this is false and that any claims to the contrary constitute blatant lies.

Initially, Rimsha was hailed into Islamabad’s High Court to be tried as an adult. She was charged for blasphemy under Section 295(B) of the Pakistan Penal Code for defiling the Koran. A conviction in this court would require a mandatory sentence of life in prison. Other sections of the blasphemy law prohibit a range of behavior from insulting Islam, derogatory remarks about the Prophet, etc. The penalties range from fines to mandatory execution. After a dispute regarding Rimsha’s age, the court accepted a medical report declaring her chronological age to be 14 (albeit with a younger mental age due to her condition).

Accordingly, on September 24, 2012 the court declared that Rimsha’s case will be transferred to juvenile court where her case will proceed if it’s not dismissed. This is good news for Rimsha, as juvenile courts are generally more lenient than adult courts.

However, even if she is acquitted, Rimsha is not safe. Literally hundreds of religious clerics throughout Pakistan are demanding a guilty verdict and calling for Rimsha’s death. They have made it clear that if their demands aren’t met, they will take matters into their own hands.

Though aid groups in Italy, Canada and the United States have offered refuge for Rimsha and her family, Rimsha wants to remain in her motherland. Unfortunately, the mere taint of the blasphemy allegations will no doubt outlive the actual court case, and her chances of returning home alive are slim. In other words, even if Rimsha escapes a judicial mandate of execution, in reality, she will still face the threat of death.

Rimsha’s is only one story. But there are many more like hers that go unreported. According to Ali Dayan Hasan, Pakistan Director of Human Rights Watch, 1400 people in Pakistan have been charged with the crime of blasphemy since 1986; currently, there are 15 people sitting on Pakistan’s death row for blasphemy convictions and thus far, 52 people have been murdered by mobs while awaiting their day in court.

The blasphemy laws in Pakistan have existed for scores of years. They originated in India in 1860 under British colonial rule where they were intended to quiet hate speech considered offensive to Muslim minorities. The law was imported to Pakistan as a way to keep the peace and reduce strife amongst different religions. Later, in 1986, under an Islamist government, the laws were amended to include the penalties of life imprisonment and mandatory execution.

Though the initial intent of the law had a feel-good sense about it, as is always the case with speech restrictive laws, in practice it had an effect opposite of its stated purpose. The wording of the law is vague and subjective. It is used to carry out personal grievances and settle economic scores. It is disproportionately applied against those most vulnerable – religious minorities, women, children and the poor. And, scores of Pakistanis are implicated in false charges entirely.

The human rights violations and extrajudicial death threats such as those faced by Rimsha, are the inevitable result in a country that for decades has fostered an environment which values “defamation” protections for Islam over basic human dignity.

It is no coincidence that Pakistan, which originally sought to prioritize peace at the expense of free expression and individual liberty, wound up with neither. Poor Rimsha.

---

Deborah Weiss is a freelance writer and co-author of “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamist Terrorist Network” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).

Read more ...

Arrested for Blasphemy in America?

By Deborah Weiss
FrontPage Magazine
October 5, 2012

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, aka Sam Bacile, was recently arrested for violations of his probation terms from a 2010 conviction for bank fraud. But many in both the legal and political world believe that the real crime for which he was jailed was blaspheming Islam.

Nakoula is an Egyptian-born US citizen with a history of drug and financial crimes. In 2010 he was sentenced to 21 months in jail and 5 years probation for bank fraud. The terms of his probation were that he was not allowed to use any alias names or use the Internet without prior approval from his probation officers.

Merely weeks after his release from jail in June 2011, Nakoula posted a film trailer on YouTube. It was a 14-minute video clip promoting the film “Innocence of Muslims.” The video was totally un-noteworthy and of unprofessional quality. Left in English, it might have gone unnoticed.

Yet, a few months later, the film was translated into Arabic and went viral over the Internet. It inflamed Muslims worldwide, and sparked protests and riots for its content depicting the Muslim Prophet Mohammad as a child molester, womanizer, and religious fraud.

At first, Nakoula acknowledged that he wrote the script for “Innocence of Muslims,” but denied his role in creating the film. After all, the credits listed a “Sam Bacile” as the producer.

But upon investigation, federal authorities identified Nakoula as the culprit. Nakoula confessed to producing the film and admitted that “Sam Bacile” was merely an alias. Originally, “Sam Bacile” had called reporters claiming that he was an Israeli Jew who had raised 5 million dollars from wealthy Jewish donors to produce the film. However, in the end it became clear the mere $50,000 to $60,000 film budget was a gift from his wife’s family, who is based in Egypt, where the riots began.

The riots spread to at least 20 countries worldwide and fanned the flames of pre-existing anti-American sentiment, causing numerous deaths.

Ever bowing down to Islam, President Obama chose to blame the video clip for “spontaneous uprisings” in Libya, which resulted in the murder of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other US diplomatic officials.

The administration held this story line for days. However, it became evident that the attack on the US consulate which occurred on the symbolic date of September 11, was a pre-planned terrorist attack executed by Al-Qaeda or its affiliates.

Nevertheless, Obama can’t seem to let the film go, even referring to it in his address to the United Nations, castigating it as “disgusting.” And, while he gave lip service to the virtues of free speech, he simultaneously raised Islam up as untouchable, asserting that “the future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.” It seems like a bizarre statement coming from a United States president, until one remembers Obama’s Cairo speech in which he claimed that it’s his job as president of the United States to “fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

To make matters worse, this President requested that Google (YouTube’s parent company) remove the video from YouTube. To its credit, Google refused, explaining that free speech is legal in America and that Nakoula had not violated YouTube’s terms and conditions.

Subsequent to all the attention paid to Nakoula and his video, Nakoula received death threats from enraged Muslims who called for his arrest and execution. Pakistani Federal Railways Minister, Ghulan Ahmad Bilour, put a 100,000 dollar bounty on Nakoula’s head, offering this reward to anyone who would find and murder the notorious blasphemer. The Minister invited both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to join him on his “blessed mission.”

Thereafter, Nakoula and his family were forced into hiding and Nakoula placed his California home up for sale.

On September 27, a mere two days after Obama’s speech to the United Nations, Nakoula was arrested for violating his probation terms.

Flanked by at least five law enforcement officials on all sides, Nakoula was pushed into a car and carted off to court.

Assistant US Attorney, Robert Dugdale, charged Nakoula with 8 counts of violating the terms of his probation. The charges all related to using an alias name and lying to officials about his role in making the anti-Islam film. The US Attorney’s office refrained from charging Nakoula with unauthorized use of the Internet.

Nakoula was escorted into court with handcuffs and shackled at the waist. His attorney denied the charges and pleaded for his client to be released on 10,000 dollars bond.

The court, however, was unsympathetic. The judge ruled that Nakoula would be held in jail without bond, reasoning that Nakoula was both a flight risk and a danger to the community. The latter is a little perplexing for someone who has never committed a violent crime. Nevertheless, Nakoula now sits in jail awaiting the scheduling of his probation revocation hearing, where he faces the possibility of 24 additional months in prison.

It is relatively easy to find technical violations of probation. In this case, it’s obvious that had so much attention not been shed on Nakoula’s video clip, any infractions of the terms of his probation would likely have gone unnoticed.

Legal professionals and First Amendment advocates of all political stripes are questioning the legitimacy of the charges. Due to the highly political nature of the case, there is significant speculation that high level US officials may have weighed in on the decision to arrest Nakoula.

It is common knowledge that authoritarian regimes around the globe arrest those who are politically inconvenient or at odds with those in power. In Muslim majority countries, even those considered secular, blaspheming the Muslim Prophet Mohammad is quite problematic. The consequences can range from community threats and out-casting to jail, flogging and even execution.

There is no doubt that in recent years, there has been momentum building in the West for the silencing of speech which is critical of Islam. Whether it takes the form of UN Resolutions to combat “defamation of religions” (i.e. Islam), hate speech legislation, or politically correct policy enactments, speech critical of Islam or its Messenger has become increasingly verboten in Europe and Canada.

The question now is, in the last bastion of freedom known as this great United States of America, will man continue to be free to express his ideas, even if unpopular, or will the government join the rank and file by retaliating against those whose speech it dislikes, under the pretext of probation violation technicalities?

---

Deborah Weiss is a freelance writer and co-author of “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamist Terrorist Network” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).

Read more ...

Obama's Resolution to Stifle Free Speech on Islam

Obama’s Resolution to Stifle Free Speech on Islam – by Deborah Weiss
Published by FrontPage Magazine, Oct 16th, 2009

On October 1, 2009, the Obama administration in conjunction with the Egyptian government, introduced an anti-free speech measure to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council (HRC). It was adopted the next day without a vote.


Earlier this year, when the United States sought a seat on the HRC, it was a controversial decision. Many who found the HRC neither credible nor useful, opposed the move. Yet, others were more optimistic that America could change the HRC from within. Perhaps the U.S. could spur debate stemming from its opposition to China, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia on critical human rights votes.

Little evidence suggests that Americans on either side of the aisle contemplated the US entering the ring and supporting the opposition’s anti-freedom measures. Yet now, the current administration has done worse: it’s leading the charge.

The draft resolution, misleadingly titled “Freedom of Opinion and Expression” includes two troubling components. First, it calls on nation states to take “effective measures” to address and combat “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”. It expresses concern and condemnation of “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups”. It further attempts to construe this as an international human rights law and obligation. Second, it recognizes the media’s “moral and social responsibilities” and the “importance” that its potential voluntary code of conduct could play in combating intolerance.

This resolution appears to stem from, and constitute a step toward, the Organization of Islamic Conference’s resolution to “combat defamation of religions”. The OIC’s resolution would ban outright the “defaming” of religions, speech critical of religion (even if accurate), and open discussion about any negative consequences resulting from the implementation of religious beliefs (such as Sharia law).

Though both resolutions mention “religions” generally, the context and references of the resolutions make them almost certain to apply only or disproportionately to Islam. Indeed, the defamation of religions resolution singles out treatment of Islam. Yet not surprisingly, the OIC has blatantly refused to curtail hate speech against Jews or Israel.

Further, it is the nature of religion to include a component of exclusivity, thus making it impossible to express one’s theology accurately without making “defamatory” remarks against another theology. For example, merely preaching that Jesus is the son of God can be viewed as an inflammatory remark and an affront to Islam. Additionally, the wording of this resolution makes its violation subjectively determined and comes dangerously close to outlawing certain emotions, such as hostility toward Islam or Muslims.

Critically important is the resolution’s attempt to internationalize norms on speech, potentially usurping fundamental constitutional rights. Strict constructionists of the US constitution view the constitution as “the supreme law of the land” (as the constitution expressly states), whereas those who view the constitution as “a living, breathing document” might not. But even under a strict construction, when the US signs a treaty, the treaty becomes binding on the US. Though this UN resolution does not constitute a treaty, it is fair to presume that because it is a US-led initiative, the US should be bound by it.

Also problematic is the resolution’s attempt to make the restriction of free speech a human right. In fact, it is free speech that constitutes a human right and not its restriction. Ideologies, ideas and religions do not, and should not be afforded “human rights”. They should be fair game for criticism, analysis, open debate and discussion. Religions and ideologies cannot be “defamed”. Once ideologies are afforded protection from criticism, it is in direct contradiction to individual human rights. Moreover, some of the language in the resolution is vague and open to interpretation. Given the parties on the HRC who adopted it, a broad construction of speech restrictions is likely.

It is no accident that countries which have no freedom of expression show support for this resolution. For example, Ambassador Hisham Badr from Egypt, in discussing his satisfaction with the resolution, stated that “freedom of expression…..has sometimes been misused.” He went on to imply that media which fails to comply with limitations on free speech are unethical.

Pakistan Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the OIC, confirmed that the resolution allows free speech to be trumped by the suppression of that which “defames” religion or expresses a negative stereotype of religion. He asserted that freedom of expression is important but this right carries “duties and responsibilities”, including the need to fight hate speech. He articulated the view that defamation of religion and negative stereotyping are forms of religious hatred. He made clear that in the OIC’s interpretation, such negativity applies not just to individuals, but to religions and belief systems, proclaiming that this constitutes a human rights violation.

Jean-Baptiste Mettei from France, speaking on behalf of the European Union, appears to be in denial about the meaning and impact of this resolution. While prefacing his remarks with praise for the resolution, the French Ambassador then declared that human rights laws protect individuals in free speech and freedom of religion and does not protect belief systems. The EU summarily rejected the concept of defamation of religion, and expressly denounced the notion that the media has a moral and social responsibility to curtail speech. He argued that states should not interfere with the work of journalists, and acknowledged their right to editorial independence. As such, the EU could not support the restrictions on journalistic speech embodied in the resolution.

In the past, when the US addressed international speech norms, it went out of its way to ensure that treaties by which it was bound would not restrict free speech or undermine America’s first amendment protections. But now, change has come.

Arguably relinquishing one of America’s most fundamental freedoms, Obama is once again bowing down to the Muslim world. The interim ranking US diplomat, Douglas Griffiths explained, “[T]his initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration’s commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” However, to the OIC, “respect” means the silencing of offensive speech against Islam.

With all due respect Mr. President: the attainment of freedom and human rights is not tantamount to winning a popularity contest. And capitulation is not leadership. It is a sad state of affairs when France refutes major portions of a United States initiative because the initiative undermines fundamental freedoms.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Deborah Weiss is an attorney and freelance writer. She gives speeches on Political Islam's Assault on Free Speech on behalf of www.Vigilancenow.org

Read more ...

Jihad Against Free Speech

Jihad Against Free Speech
By Deborah Weiss
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, November 06, 2008

The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) is an Islamist supremacist organization. Composed of 57 member states with Muslim majority populations, the OIC is the largest Islamic body in the world. It is also the largest international organization of any kind, second only to the United Nations. It represents an estimated 1.5 billion Muslims across the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

The purpose of the OIC is to promote Islamic values, to revitalize Islam’s pioneering role in the world, to strengthen and enhance the bond of solidarity and unity among Muslim states, to support “the Palestinian struggle” and to defend Islam. Its charter claims that OIC works to promote peace, tolerance, and fight terrorism. However, its actions are dissonant with these claims, as it strives to define these words through the extraordinarily skewed views of radical Islam.


Since 1999, the OIC has been pushing incrementally and strategically toward its goal of internationally outlawing all criticism of Islam, Muslims, Muslim theocracies, and Islamic extremism. Subsequent to September 11, 2001, it professed concern about alleged backlash against Muslims.

In 2005, the OIC urged the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (“UNCHR”) to pass a resolution called “combating defamation of religions.” Although the title of the resolution referred to religions generally, the text cited concerns only Islam specifically. It lamented negativity towards Islam in the media and the use of broadcast, print and the internet to incite violence, discrimination or intolerance towards Islam and other religions. It revealed alarm over the backlash against Muslims since 9/11, and law enforcement measures that “target Muslims.” It expressed deep concern over statements which “attack” religions generally, and Islam and Muslims in particular, and concern over the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities. It alleged that Islam was frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism. Additionally, it proclaimed that defamation of religions plays a role in the denial of fundamental rights of the target groups.

The Commission urged resolute action to prohibit “racist, and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers… and to protect against acts of discrimination, intimidation, hatred, and defamation of religion.” It called on the international community to begin a “global dialogue” on religious diversity and to combat defamation of religions. It further required the Special Rapporteur to report on the discrimination faced by Muslims and Arabs. Not surprisingly, the countries that voted in favor of the resolution included many Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Qatar, Kuwait, and Sudan, among others. Freer nations such as the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, and Japan, all voted in opposition to the resolution.

The OIC’s insistence on prohibiting defamatory speech against Islamic countries was without reciprocity. No effort to silence anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli speech has been made. At an OIC Special Session in 2006, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad freely expressed his goal to eliminate the “Zionist regime.” Indeed, the OIC backs Iran’s nuclear program, supports Hamas, and rationalizes 9/11. Moreover, the OIC insists that the definition of terrorism should exclude the killing of innocent civilians where there is a “legitimate resistance to foreign occupation,” i.e. Israel. It is for this reason that the UN has been unable to pass a comprehensive convention against international terrorism.

At the OIC’s 2006 summit in Mecca, it adopted a zero tolerance policy regarding insults to Islam, going so far as to include “hostile glances” in its definition of Islamophic behavior. The immediate goal of the summit was to obtain “protection” for Islam in European parliaments and the UN including the Human Rights Council (which replaced the Human Rights Commission with the failed hope of becoming an effective advocate for human rights). It also proposed the creation of an “Islamic Council of Human Rights” and a “Charter of Human Rights in Islam.” Both would be based on Sharia law and run contrary to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In 2007, the Secretary General of the OIC, Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, a “moderate” Muslim from Turkey, used the “International Day of Tolerance” to assert that freedom of speech is defiling Islam. He stated, “[M]uslims around the world are the first victims of intolerance. They are facing a campaign of hatred and prejudice, what is otherwise known as Islamophobia. This growing trend of Islamophobia has subjected them to discrimination including religious profiling and stereotyping. The right to freedom of speech is being used to defile the sacred symbols of Islam.”

He continued, “[I]t is high time that the international community considers enacting legal measures against defamation of religions and religious beliefs. I would urge the Alliance of Civilizations and the Human Rights Council to take pro-active action in this regard.”

The International Humanist and Ethical Union (“IHEU”) warned that UN approval of a law combating defamation of religions would have grave implications for the freedom to criticize a religion or its practices. It explained that countries will have broad latitude in how they penalize the disrespect of religion because OIC’s resolution did not define what constitutes “defamation.” Further, the resolution failed to distinguish between defamation of religion and incitement to racial and religious violence.

In March 2008, the OIC held a two-day summit in Senegal, where it produced a battle plan to combat Islamophobia. It would defend itself against all forms of free expression that could be interpreted as criticism of Islam, including that of cartoonists, film producers, reporters, politicians or governments. Countries that already regularly deny religious freedom and freedom of speech to their own citizens, demanded legal measures to have their oppressive rules be imposed internationally. “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy” explained Abdoulaye Wade, Senegal’s President, and Chairman of the OIC. “There can be no freedom without limits.” To support his argument, some OIC delegates pointed to European laws that criminalize holocaust denial and anti-Semitic rhetoric, as well as to UN charters that condemn discrimination based on religion. As a result of this summit, the UNHRC passed the resolution.

Instead of fighting terrorism to make obvious that Islam and terrorism need not be affiliated, the OIC unveiled at its summit, the first report on Islamophobia. It consisted of 58 pages of real, perceived, and alleged claims of Islamophobia. Under “negative incidents,” it cited numerous occurrences of Muslims threatening or committing violence against non-Muslims in response to factual reports on Muslim behavior. Negative reports about Muslims, even if true, resulted in claims of Islamaphobia.

Some of the incidents reported as Islamophobic included: Wikipedia’s refusal to cave into Muslims’ demand to remove all depictions of the Prophet from its English language website; a report accurately stating Muslims were outraged by the opening of the first church in Qatar and insisting that Qatar is a Muslim country where others have no right to build a place of worship; the fact that Florida Attorney General (and former Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Crime in Congress) showed the movie “Obsession” to his staff; and the fact that the European Union requested Iran to drop the death penalty in its penal code for the crimes of apostasy, heresy, and witchcraft. Reports of threats made to Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, producer of the documentary “Fitna,” were also deemed Islamophobic.

Finally, the bulletin suggested that Islamophobia poses a threat to global peace and security. It proposed the use of legal instruments to prohibit Islamophobic speech, urged monitoring and compiling lists of Islamophobic incidents, and encouraged the persuading of others to believe that Islam is a moderate, peaceful and tolerant religion.

In June of 2008, the OIC reported on the 2007 opening of its Washington, DC office which works to engage OIC politically. Karen Hughes, then-undersecretary of public diplomacy at the State Department, spoke at the opening ceremony. She lauded OIC’s effort to pass the resolution on combating defamation of religions. She also advocated a program called “citizen dialogue” which she started in order to address Muslims’ sense of isolation. However, Muslims abroad indicated that they were not interested in meeting with U.S. government officials or non-Muslim Americans, so she sent Muslim-Americans as envoys to foreign countries for the so-called dialogue.

The OIC also boasted about the inroads it has made at the UN. It pledged to place Islamophobia at the forefront of its next summit in April 2009.

Additionally, a rule has been implemented at the UNHRC, requiring that all speaker presentations and discussions omit any “judgment or evaluation about religion.” The word “sharia” does not have to be expressly stated to violate this rule. All discussions must avoid making any mention of controversial fatwas (religious rulings) or human rights abuses that are implemented as part of Sharia or in Islamic countries. This includes, for example, protests against the forced marriages of young girls.

The OIC construes the word Islamophobia very broadly, using it to include news reports, observations, and accurate accounts of violence or intolerance on the part of Muslims or Islamic theocracies. In effect, the OIC is requesting a legal exemption from free speech rights of any criticism of the effects of an extremist interpretation of Islam. Any individual, group, or government acting in the name of Islam would be entirely off limits for open debate or discussion.

The obvious result of OIC’s push to internationally outlaw defamation of Islam, would be not only to stifle free speech and freedom of religion, but to devastate efforts to fight human rights abuses and to counter terrorism. Fighting for human rights in Islamic countries might be deemed Islamophobic even if it pertains to the human rights of Muslims.

Therefore, OIC’s comment that Islamophobia jeopardizes global peace and security was not an expression of fear of Islamophobia. Rather, it was a warning that anyone who claims Islam is not a religion of peace might have violence perpetrated against him. Its simultaneous propaganda campaign to convince people that Islam is a “moderate, peaceful, and tolerant religion” demonstrates that its words and actions are at odds with each other.

It’s ironic that countries which follow an interpretation of Islam that disallows religious freedom or freedom of speech at home, are utilizing these very freedoms abroad to achieve their Islamist goals. By turning the definition of freedom on its head, free speech and religious freedom for non-Muslims can now be condemned as anti-Islamic.

Claiming victimhood can score big political points in a free and compassionate society. If the OIC can convince people that those who stone women, behead apostates, sexually abuse minors, fly planes into buildings, and blow up subway systems are really the victims of evil, rather than the perpetrators, then the OIC’s proposed restrictions on free speech will accomplish more damage throughout the west than 9/11 ever could.

It is important to understand that only individuals should be afforded rights. Ideas, thoughts and religions should not be protected from criticism. There is no such thing as defamation of religion. To the degree that it is concocted, the rights of ideas and religions will stand in direct opposition to the rights and freedoms of humans. The right of free speech is, in part, designed to offend others. The Founding Fathers of the United States Constitution erected the First Amendment for the purpose of fostering cantankerous political speech. They believed that the way to counter offensive speech and bad ideas is to engage in more speech, espousing good ideas. In this case, however, it is the OIC that clearly has the bad ideas, and not the alleged defamers. Perhaps the reason the OIC seeks to prohibit free speech rather than to rebut it, is because it too knows that free speech works.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Weiss is an attorney and regular contributor to FrontpageMag.com

Read more ...