web analytics
November 27, 2014 / 5 Kislev, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘OIC’

Syrian Rebels Ready for ‘Temporary Truce’ for Humanitarian Aid

Saturday, October 12th, 2013

The Free Syrian Army (FSA)  is prepared to honor a “temporary truce” in two provinces,  Homs and Rif Dimashq, to allow humanitarian aid to enter but as rejected a long-term ceasefire, the Arabic-language Asharq Al-Awsat reported.

A nine-month ceasefire has been suggested to allowed the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to oversee he destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile.

FSA media and political coordinator Louay Miqdad told the newspaper, “We are fighting to overthrow the regime, and protect civilians. There are no chemical weapons stores in the areas that are under our control, which is something that the Assad regime itself acknowledges, while these storehouses are also not located on the front, so why should we stop fighting? On what basis has this ceasefire request been made?”

The FSA said it is “possible” to arrange a halt in fighting during the upcoming Eid Al-Adha holiday, as suggested by the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

US Envoy to Top Islamic Group Taking Muslims to Holocaust Sites

Wednesday, May 22nd, 2013

Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Rashad Hussain will join newly appointed Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Antisemitism Ira Forman, Ambassador Mike Kozak, and imams from around the world for a trip to Poland May 20-22 to visit Jewish communities, the site of the former Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, and other Holocaust historical sites.

The trip follows up on Special Envoy Hussain’s visit to Holocaust historical sites with previous Special Envoy Hannah Rosenthal and American imams in 2010, and is a part of Special Envoy Hussain’s efforts to combat Holocaust denial and to address discrimination against religious minorities around the world.

For the record, Rashad Hussain is a nice guy. He comes from a family of Muslim-Indian academics (dad a mining engineer, mom and sister MDs, brother medical student). Rashad is an over achiever (got his BA in two years, was editor of the Yale Law Journal). I wish and pray all Muslims were like him (he was born in Wyoming and was raised in Texas, by the way—can you get any more red-blooded American than that?).

The problem isn’t with Rashad Hussain, but with the OIC, which has a permanent delegation to the United Nations, and represents the world views of bastions of liberalism like Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran.

The OIC is credited with the violence that erupted around the planet in 2005, in reaction to some Danish newspaper that published cartoons making fun of Mohammed. The extraordinary session convened the Islamic Summit Conference condemned the publication of the cartoons, which was followed by the violent demonstrations throughout the Islamic world, and a few recorded deaths. Until the OIC pointed out the cartoons, no one had heard about them.

It’s that kind of a restrained, citizen of the world kind of concern that led major Human Rights NGOs to send the OIC’s Ambassador Masood Khan a letter protesting remarks the delivered before the UN Human Rights Council, attacking Holocaust survivors for their role in “Defamation of Religions.”

Turn on your crazyscopes, this is what Amb. Khan said: “In many instances Holocaust survivors, instead of promoting [religious] harmony, are campaigning against Muslim symbols in the Western world. They should be the most ardent advocates against discrimination. Islamophobia is also a cruel form of Anti-Semitism.”

The NGOs told Khan:

We are unaware of any such “campaigning” by Holocaust survivors. Moreover, even if it were true that individuals were engaged in such an alleged effort, it would constitute unjustifiable stereotyping to label an entire group — particularly survivors of a genocide — on the basis of the alleged actions of a few.

We believe that Holocaust survivors, elderly men and women who are often frail and suffering from illness, are deserving of our sympathy and respect, not denigration in a speech at the United Nations.

So, if the very talented Rashad Hussain is able to drag at least some of these insane folks to the site of Auschwitz-Birkenau and if just a couple of them realize the magnitude of the industrial annihilation of Jews—it would possibly endow them with a new perspective on their relationship with Jews and the Jewish State.

Or—God help me—give them new ideas…

Incidentally, Amb. Khan is one of those public Muslim figures claiming he can’t possibly be an antisemite, since he is himself a Semite. This tired excuse, created more than a hundred years ago by Jew hating Arabs, is the true mark of a scoundrel.

Good luck on your version of the March of the Living, Rashad Hussain, go easy on the pierogi.

U.S. Leading Effort to Criminalize Free Speech?

Wednesday, May 16th, 2012

The Human Rights Council concluded its nineteenth session on March 23, 2012 and adopted, without a vote, yet another resolution aimed at restricting freedom of speech throughout the world. While its title[1], as usual, suggests it is about combating intolerance based on religion, its plain language shows that, once again, speech is the real target.

One of its sponsors, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly the Organization of the Islamic Conference or “OIC” ), has, for over a decade, introduced speech-restrictive resolutions at the United Nations. In the past, these resolutions contained explicit language about “defamation of religions.” Last year, however, when the OIC introduced Resolution 16/18 without the term “defamation of religions,” the West’s resistance to the OIC’s efforts faltered (discussed here). The “defamation of religions” concept had been easy for Western countries to rally against, in part, because it seemed to attach rights to a concept (here, religion) rather than to individuals. But, dropping that term was little more than a cosmetic change leaving speech-targeting language behind and the OIC’s speech-restrictive agenda intact.

Resolution 19/25, like 16/18, specifically “condemns” certain types of speech and “urges States to take effective measures as set forth in the present resolution, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents” (emphasis added). In short, it is an explicit call to action for states to curtail certain types of speech.

The “advocacy” (read: speech) that the resolution “condemns” and calls on states to limit is “any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” using “print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means.” This language almost directly parallels International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights Article 20(2), which reads: “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”

At the time Article 20 was being debated, there was little doubt that it was about limiting speech; and indeed, concerns were raised about the potential for abuse of the provision to limit an essential right. Further, when the United States finally ratified the ICCPR in 1992, it did so with an explicit reservation to Article 20, reading: “That Article 20 does not authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

The language of ICCPR Article 20 and Resolutions 16/18 and 19/25 bears a striking resemblance to the “hate speech” provisions that have proliferated throughout Europe and that are already being used to silence speech (as the trials of Geert WildersLars Hedegaard, and others demonstrate).

Further, conceptually, “defamation of religions” and “hate speech” were already linked in prior resolutions. It is puzzling, therefore, that the West was so easily duped into believing that dropping the “defamation of religions” language was any kind of substantive victory. Although the most recent resolutions stop short of Article 20′s language, leaving out “shall be prohibited by law,” it hardly matters. The OIC’s agenda can simply be pushed instead through “hate speech” laws that already exist. (By its own statements, the OIC has not changed its goals, nor has it abandoned the concept.) The shift in wording has simply lost us allies in resisiting it.

That a resolution without an explicit reference to “defamation of religions” but that retained “hate speech” language would be more appealing to European allies is not surprising. Most European countries have already adopted some form of “hate speech” laws — but to terrible effect — on freedom of speech. With regard to this issue, the United States had stood alone—”hate speech” is currently not proscribed here, although we appear headed in that direction: since the United States supported the resolution, how could we expect our Western allies to resist?

Our Secretary of State applauded the OIC and described efforts leading to Resolution 16/18 as beginning “to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression.” Far from demanding a “reservations clause” of any kind, the United States, instead, sponsored a three-day, closed-door meeting in Washington, DC last December on implementing 16/18 —a meeting in a series called the “Istanbul Process.” Taking its lead from the US, the European Union then offered to host the next session, an initiative the OIC hailedas a “a qualitative shift in action against the phenomenon of Islamophobia.”

‘Caliphate Conference’ Seeks to Islamize Europe, US

Tuesday, February 21st, 2012

A Muslim fundamentalist group is organizing a conference focused on turning Austria and other European countries into Islamic states.

The “Caliphate Conference 2012” will be held on March 10 in the Austrian town of Vösendorf, situated just south of Vienna. The main theme of the event will be “The Caliphate: The State Model of the Future.”

The conference is being organized by Hizb ut-Tahrir [Party of Liberation], a pan-Islamic extremist group that seeks to establish a global Islamic state – or caliphate – ruled by Islamic Sharia law.

Hizb ut-Tahrir — which is banned in many countries, including Germany, but is free to operate in Austria — is virulently opposed to Western capitalism and democracy and seeks to extend the future caliphate to Europe and the United States.

According to a promotional video (in German) for the conference, “the Islamic Caliphate is the only social and political system that has the right solutions to the political, social and economic problems of humanity.”

Hizb ut-Tahrir has been banned from holding a similar conference in Belgium that had been scheduled for March 4. The group also organized a Caliphate Conference in Amsterdam last July, 2011, and well as a year earlier in Chicago in June, 2010.

Analysts say the open nature of the conference in Vienna indicates that Hizb ut-Tahrir is enhancing its recruiting efforts among European Muslims.

According to Steven Emerson, a leading authority on Islamic extremist networks, Hizb ut-Tahrir is emulating the three-stage process by which Muslims established the first Islamic caliphate after the death of the Islamic Prophet, Mohammed, in the year 632.

During the first stage, Hizb ut-Tahrir builds a party by cultivating a small number of supporters to engage in recruitment and propaganda. In the second stage (which Hizb ut-Tahrir is now entering in Europe and the United States), the group educates Muslims in order to recruit a larger group of people to join Hizb ut-Tahrir and support its revolution. Finally, having won the support of Muslims, Hizb ut-Tahrir moves to establish a Sharia-ruled Islamic government.

While Muslims are busy working to Islamize the West from within, they simultaneously insist that Westerners should not be allowed to criticize these efforts.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a group of 57 Muslim countries that purports to be the collective voice of the Muslim world, sponsored an anti-Islamophobia symposium in Brussels on February 15 and 16, 2012.

The first-of-its-kind event was entitled “Smearing Islam and Muslims in the Media,” and was “aimed at establishing information mechanisms to face up to the slanderous campaigns against Islam in the media.”

The workshop was part of the so-called Istanbul Process, an aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam.

The explicit aim of the Istanbul Process is to enshrine in international law a global ban on all critical scrutiny of Islam and Islamic Sharia law.

Based in Saudi Arabia, the OIC has long pressed the European Union and the United States to impose limits on free speech and expression about Islam.

But the OIC has now redoubled its efforts and is engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.” (Analysis of the OIC’s war on free speech can be found here and here.)

Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011, is widely viewed as a significant step forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.

However, the HRC resolution — as well as the OIC-sponsored Resolution 66/167, which was quietly approved by the 193-member UN General Assembly on December 19, 2011 — remains ineffectual as long as it lacks strong support in the West.

The OIC therefore scored a diplomatic coup when the Obama Administration agreed to host a three-day Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC on December 12-14, 2011. In doing so, the United States gave the OIC the political legitimacy it has been seeking to globalize its initiative to ban criticism of Islam.

Following the Obama Administration’s lead, the European Union now wants to get in on the action by hosting the next Istanbul Process summit.

Up until now, the European Union has kept the OIC initiative at arms-length. But Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary-General of the OIC, says the EU’s recent offer to host the meeting represents a “qualitative shift in action against the phenomenon of Islamophobia,” according to the International Islamic News Agency (IINA), the OIC’s official news and propaganda organ.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/global/caliphate-conference-seeks-to-islamize-europe-us/2012/02/21/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: