Wednesday, June 25, 2008

A reminder of who is leading the fight against freedom of expression

What follows is an excerpt from the Speech of Secretary General at the thirty-fifth session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, given on June 18th:
Honourable Ministers,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

In face of the adverse and mounting phenomenon of Islamophobia in the West, we placed this issue at the top of our priorities and preoccupations, while conducting a large-scale world-wide effort to confront it at four levels:

First: The official level of countries and governments of the West, where this phenomenon is rampant and wide-spread. We have exhorted the officials in these countries to assume their inherent legal responsibilities in order to stem this illegal trend in conformity with international and domestic laws which prohibit discrimination based on incitement to hatred towards individuals or groups because of their religion, race, or other grounds.

Second: The level of major international organizations, such as the United Nations General Assembly in New York or the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, as well as organisations concerned with Dialogue among Civilizations, or inter-religious and interfaith dialogue.

Third: Renowned academic institutions, intellectual and research centers, and think-tank circles.

Fourth: The level of the OIC Islamophobia Observatory, which we have established in order to monitor and document all manifestation of this scourge, and to deal with them in an interactive manner.

Taken together, this plan has proven its merit and we have been able to achieve convincing progress at all these levels mainly the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and the UN General Assembly.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted similar resolutions against the defamation of Islam

In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film Fitna? we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.
Robert Spencer has his analysis of the speech here:
It is telling that when Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and the OIC think of “defending the image of Islam,” they don’t mean working in Muslim communities to combat the influence of the jihad ideology or Islamic supremacism among Muslims worldwide. They don’t have in mind developing any large scale initiatives to combat Osama bin Laden’s version of Islam, and to teach Muslims how to resist the jihadist appeal. The organization hasn’t ever acknowledged the obvious fact that it could end “Islamophobia” right away by rejecting Islam’s doctrines of violence, supremacism and conquest and moving strongly against those Muslims who are acting upon those doctrines.

Instead, they have made themselves the enemies of honest men like Mark Steyn who have called attention to this supremacist agenda. They will be working with American policymakers to restrict free speech -- that is, honest discussion of the elements of Islam that the jihadists use to justify their actions and gain recruits.

Can honest discussion really be outlawed? You bet it can. As long as free people do nothing to stop it from happening. As the OIC presses American politicians to use anti-discrimination and hate speech laws to “stem this illegal trend,” we need to stand up now with Mark Steyn and all the others who are on the front lines of this battle, and tell them that what they’re doing to Steyn in Canada must never happen here. We must tell our elected officials to stop this outrage, resist OIC lobbying, and reaffirm in no uncertain terms our commitment to free speech -- particularly now, when so much depends on our being able to speak with honesty about the nature of the jihadist threat, and so many powerful entities want to make sure we do not do so.

So much depends on this -- possibly even including our survival as a free people.
See also Spencer on the UN's moves agains freedom of expression.

So, let us in Canada not forget that Mohammed Elmasry is a sockpuppet too.

Meanwhile, Dutch companies are caving in to blackmail and "condemning" Geert Wilders' film Fitna (brief analysis by Fjordman).

3 comments:

Eowyn said...

Truepeers, here's the truth. I thought you guys did this post as a parody (I always read the post first, then follow the links). Knowing you all have a great sense of humor, I was laughing my head off.

Only to find out it's true!!!!!

I mean, really -- "OIC Islamophobia Observatory" ....

Hahahahahahaha!

Oh, my gosh.

sean orr said...

Yeah, total waste of our time. They should just strap a bomb to their chests instead. Then we can invade some countries that look like they might come from (Iran).

Dag said...

The ever lovely and always incoherent Sean Orr has that unique ability to convey exactly what he means even though he doesn't make any literal sense. It's some kind of gift, I do suppose. If things continue as they seem to be moving these days it won't surprise me if we will all be forced to learn to pretend to write like Sean. Ah, but worse, we won't even be able to express ourselves publicly in garbled cliches. Nope, even our grunts and grimaces will be outlawed by the Thought Police if they suspect we're "islamophobic."

Sean Orr, Shakespeare of the age. I tremble in anticipation.