Not that this should surprise anyone, but Islamic officials are fighting to ban free speech at the United Nations, except where they are concerned.
Islamic proposals to ban criticism of religion, (specifically their own), which they’ve been pushing since the publication of the Muhammad cartoons two years ago that sparked widespread violence, threaten to derail an already troubled U.N. “anti-racism” conference planned for next year, the Associated Press reports.
The European Union rejects suggestions by many Muslim countries that limits on free speech are needed to stop the publication of offensive articles and images.
Supporters of the proposal want it discussed in April at a planned so-called “anti-racism” meeting in Geneva. That would be the second installment of what degenerated to no one’s surprise last time, into an anti-Israel, anti-Semitic hate fest.
But European diplomats say discussing eliminating free speech to mollify sensitive Islamic sensibilities is out of the question.
The U.N. expert on freedom of expression has criticized the so-called “anti-blasphemy laws” in force in some countries. These are some of the same countries in which the removal of body parts is considered a legitimate law enforcement technique.
Some more enlightened, more highly evolved nations, like our own, have outgrown laws like this. This is not to suggest that the West has no problems. Such a suggestion would be hilarious. But most Americans know of such repressive statutes mostly through mandatory reading in grade school of books like “The Scarlet Letter,” and “Inherit the Wind.”
The enormous leap backwards that a return to such archaic laws would represent is nearly incomprehensible to the modern, Western mind.
Stating the obvious, the free speech expert noted that “Such laws are often used to prevent legitimate criticism of powerful religious leaders and to suppress the views of religious minorities, dissenting believers and nonbelievers, and are applied in a discriminatory fashion.”
An amazingly gentle understatement.
Israel and Canada have already said they won’t attend the planned conference because of concerns it will be a repeat of the anti-Semitic free-for-all that was the first “anti-racism conference” in Durban, South Africa, in 2001.
The United States has also indicated it may stay away from the meeting, dubbed “Durban II,” and the Dutch Foreign Minister said his country would boycott if anti-Israel statements are not scrapped from draft texts being drawn up for the meeting, according to the story.
So, it seems we can conclude from this that the Arabs want to outlaw anything they find offensive, while at the same time remaining free to make all the anti-Semitic and anti-Christian remarks they want, in whatever forum suits their fancy.
And somehow, these suggestions are made with straight faces and, I guess, those suggesting them expect to be taken seriously. There will likely, in fact, be threats made if these “suggestions” aren’t acted upon. But then, radical Islam never pretended to believe in equal treatment under the law. So, if the West allows itself to be browbeaten or terrorized into submission on this or any other issue, we stand to lose the whole enchilada, as it were.
And I, for one, really, really like the whole enchilada.
Have PoliticalMavens.com delivered to your inbox in a daily digest by clicking here
