In this mailing:
- Soeren Kern: Muslim Lobbyist Represents U.S. at European Human Rights Conference
- Douglas Murray: Who Would You Fight For?
Muslim Lobbyist Represents U.S. at European Human Rights Conference
by Soeren Kern
October 18, 2012 at 5:00 am
October 18, 2012 at 5:00 am
|
Share:
 |
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
In the
non-Muslim world, "human rights" refers to the United Nations'
Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which affirms that all people –
men and women -- are guaranteed individual rights. By contrast, the Muslim
world defines "human rights" according to the Cairo Declaration on
Human Rights in Islam, which holds that men and women are not equal and that it
is the duty of men and women to follow the will of Allah, "in accordance
with Sharia law."
Freedom of speech in Europe and North America is increasingly under threat
because of a growing confusion among Western leaders over how to define
"human rights." The problem is being compounded by politically
correct Western governments, which seek to enforce multicultural compliance
with Islamic Sharia law as a way to appease Muslim lobby groups.These and other political and societal "drifts" were catapulted to center stage by a well-organized and highly articulate group of free-speech activists who attended the Human Dimension Implementation Meetings (HDIM), a major international conference on human rights -- this year held in Warsaw, Poland from September 24 to October 5 -- and sponsored annually by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).
In August 1990, Muslim member states of the OIC officially adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, an alternative document to the 1948 United Nations' document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Cairo Declaration states that people have "freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with Islamic Sharia law."
The Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa, in a written submission to the HDIM's Working Session on Fundamental Freedoms, pointed out that today the term "human rights" has two incompatible meanings. In the non-Muslim world, "human rights" refers to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms that all people -- men and women -- are guaranteed individual rights.
By contrast, in the Muslim world, "human rights" are defined according to the CDHRI, which holds that men and women are not equal and that it is the duty of men and women to follow the will of Allah. Dignity is granted only to those who submit to Allah's will. The CDHRI divides all human beings into two separate legal persons within its defined categories, namely men and women, believers and non-believers. Any rights or freedoms are binding commandments from Allah as delivered through Mohammed, the Muslim prophet.
The BPE asked the OSCE to clarify which definition of human rights is being referred to during discussions at the Conference. The statement says: "When BPE discusses the plight of young girls and women with respect to forced marriages, violence, and/or FGM [female genital mutilation], BPE always refers to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whereas the member states of the OIC refer exclusively to the CDHRI, which has ramifications on the status of the girl or woman. OSCE participating states that are also member states of the OIC thus refer to a different set of human rights at the HDIM. It follows that within the Human Dimension of the OSCE there are two diametrically opposed sets of human rights."
The International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA), in a written statement to the HDIM's Working Session on Freedom of Thought, Conscience, Religion or Belief, said: "Since the Organization of Islamic Cooperation created the Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, commonly known as the Cairo Declaration, we have witnessed a distortion of the concepts of human rights and religious freedom. This declaration has created a new and secondary standard in human rights based on Sharia Law, which is entirely incompatible with OSCE's human rights standards, inspired as they were by the declaration of 1948."
The ICLA statement continues: "Sharia law is a system of religious and political regulations destructive of all the principles promoted through the OSCE, i.e. democracy, human rights, freedom of religion and belief, etc. Sharia Law has been defined by the European Court of Human Rights on February 2003, as 'incompatible with democratic principles…'"
ICLA concludes: "Therefore, OSCE's commitments and works done by its various departments are devoid of sense if all the partners, state-members, NGOs or other contributors are not using the same definition of Human Rights. A definition is required that clearly rejects any interpretation originating in the Cairo Declaration."
In a report entitled, "The Battle Has Begun," Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese advocate for free speech, summarized her impressions of the HDIM 2012 conference: "This is one of the important observations we made: The tide has shifted. The freedom lovers are no longer on the defensive; the opposite is true. The OIC side was isolated; the Counterjihad received many supportive thumbs-up gestures. We made new allies."
She also wrote, however: "Lastly, I was more than surprised to see a member of MPAC take the floor on behalf of the US delegation. Since when has MPAC represented the U.S. government? And with diplomatic status! This is wrong and an outrage. We ask our friends in the U.S. House of Representatives to weigh in."
She was referring to Salam al-Marayati, a radical Muslim whom the Obama Administration named as its official representative to the OSCE's premier conference on human rights. Al-Marayati is the controversial founder of a Los Angeles-based lobbying group called the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).
According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, MPAC is closely allied with the Muslim Brotherhood and has been a staunch defender of Islamic terrorist groups. Among other initiatives, MPAC has asked the US government to remove Hamas and Hezbollah from the list of United States-designated terrorist groups. Al-Marayati, a vociferous critic of Israel, has also blamed Israel for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. (See here for the full 81-page analysis of MPAC.)
The State Department defended its selection of al-Marayati, praising him as "valued and highly credible." It added: "He was invited to participate in this year's HDIM as a reflection of the wide diversity of backgrounds of the American people."
In another conference submission, the Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa also drew attention to the plight of Muslim immigrants in Europe who want to leave Islam and convert to another faith. Islamic Sharia law calls for the death penalty for those who voluntarily "apostatize" from Islam.
The text states: "One case in point is a Bangladeshi man and his wife who is currently imprisoned in the United Kingdom after claiming asylum and being detained after officially renouncing Islam. Their asylum application was denied and they are now awaiting deportation to Bangladesh, where they will be killed according to Islamic Law for apostatizing."
OSCE member states were also urged to join the Brussels Process, an initiative launched by ICLA in July 2012 in the European Parliament. The Brussels Process aims to "assist governments and civil society in protecting civil liberties and freedoms, and more specifically to defend the freedom of belief against attempts to implement Sharia regulations."
In a separate statement, ICLA also expressed "concern over the repetitive use of imprecise, confusing and ambiguous concepts and words in OSCE forums and working materials," namely the term "Islamophobia," even though this expression has no precise meaning nor internationally accepted definition. The OSCE was asked to provide a precise definition of the term.
The BPE called on the OSCE to "protect apostates, supporting their right to change their belief without the threat of death."
A more complete collection of posts about the OSCE meeting can be found here and here.
The OSCE, the world's largest security-oriented inter-governmental organization, is based in Vienna; its 56 member states are located in Europe, the former Soviet Union and North America, and cover most of the northern hemisphere. The OSCE, created during the Cold War era as an East-West forum, has, among its as its mandates, issues such as arms control and the promotion of human rights, freedom of the prsess and fair elections.
The HDIM, Europe's largest annual human rights and democracy conference, is a platform for OSCE member countries, civil society groups and international organizations. The HDIM is significant because of the high status the OSCE extends to civil society groups, which are on equal footing with participating nation states. In practice, this means they have the right to speak in the plenary, a status not granted by other international organizations.
Among the hundreds of conference participants this year's HDIM was a group of seven freedom-of-speech activists from Austria, Belgium, Britain, Denmark, France, Germany and the United States. They represented civil society groups Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa (BPE), the International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA), the Stresemann Foundation and ACT! for America. Their primary objective was to draw attention to (and confront) the growing Islamization of the West.
In recent years, the HDIM and the OSCE have been the focus of an intense lobbying campaign by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a bloc of 57 Muslim countries which are aggressively pressuring Western countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam.
Many OSCE member countries that lack First Amendment protections like those in the United States have already enacted hate-speech laws which effectively serve as proxies for the all-encompassing blasphemy legislation the OIC is seeking to impose on the West as a whole.
Consider Austria, where an appellate court recently upheld the politically correct conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, for "denigrating religious beliefs" after she gave a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam. The ruling showed that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity in postmodern multicultural Austria, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties.
Sabaditsch-Wolff represented the civil liberties group Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa (BPE) at this year's HDIM. On the second day of the conference, the BPE provided conference participants with a history lesson about the greatest achievement of the OSCE (previously known as the CSCE); occurred at the height of the Cold War during the Helsinki Process, when the Soviet Union was cajoled into accepting the term "human rights" for the first time.
The inclusion of the humanitarian dimension (respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief) in the East-West dialogue was a major victory for the West and paved the way for the demise of the Communist bloc.
The BPE reminded the OSCE that during the Cold War there was never any doubt to what the term "human rights" referred, namely the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), signed and ratified by almost all member countries of the United Nations.
Saudi Arabia, however, refused to sign the UDHR, arguing that it violated Islamic Sharia law. In 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations said the UDHR represented "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition," which could not be implemented by Muslims without violating Sharia law.
Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.
Related Topics: Soeren Kern
Who Would You Fight For?
by Douglas Murray
October 18, 2012 at 4:00 am
October 18, 2012 at 4:00 am
|
Share:
|
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
We are
informed on a regular basis that people who are citizens of countries such as
Britain or the US are citizens – whatever their religion or ethnic origin – and
that being a good British or American citizen does not require either any
giving up of other identities, nor any contradiction among these various
values. But perhaps there should be concern about this. And not for the reason
some people have given.
Those few broadcasters and papers which still bother to report news (as
opposed to indoctrination or gossip) seem unperturbed by this consideration:
"Who would you fight for?" But it is a question worth lingering over
for a moment: beneath it lies some of the great problems of our time.In recent months it has become clear that certain people are travelling from abroad to Syria in order to fight with – and on behalf of – the various "rebel" forces in that country. A number of people who have done so are British citizens. This summer, and before, a number of media outlets ran rather breathless, admiring pieces about this phenomenon. The impression seemed to have been even encouraged that these young men should be admired for going to Syria to fight against the Assad regime. Their reason for doing so was the reason we are expected to admire them – that the Assads are killing people with impunity, that this situation cannot go on and that an understandable response is to head out to Syria and fight on behalf of the suffering people.
It has a perfectly legitimate logic about it. And it is helped by a number of factors. The Assad regime is undoubtedly disgusting and behaving to type. It is also killing citizens of Syria even more prolifically than it has managed to do at any point before. But why should that involve people from abroad going to fight with those Syrians who are hoping to overthrow Assad? The almost unquestioned logic is that the people going out to do the fighting are Muslims: they cannot bear to see their "brothers" dying and have chosen to do something to stop it.
There is something admirable about this. One's sympathy always rather naturally leans towards the underdog. And few people can feel any sadness as they watch the Assad regime heading towards its inevitable endgame.
But why should this be the business of people who are, for instance, American or British? We are informed on a regular basis that people who are citizens of countries such as Britain and the US are citizens -- whatever their religion or ethnic origin -- and that being a good British or American citizen does not require either any giving up of other identities nor any contradiction among these various values.
But perhaps there should be concern about this -- and not for the reason some people have given. Already we learn that the UK's Security Services are worried about the potential of people who have been fighting in Syria returning to countries in the West with a store of knowledge and experience with which we may not be entirely happy when brought back to our societies. As events in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the Balkans in the 1990s, among others, have shown, a battleground that people may be sympathetic to at one time can act as a training camp for their worst nightmares in the near future.
But let that go for a moment. What seems most interesting is why there should be a group of people – any group of people – who it has become normal to expect to hold loyalties which are, at the very least, supplementary to those expected of everyone else as a citizen.
As some of the feeling about this quite probably goes back to the 1990s, one might draw a comparison from that time: in the former Yugoslavia, Bosnian Muslims were the victims of the worst murderous rampages to have taken place on European soil since the Second World War. For years Europe – and the world – did nothing, or next to nothing to stop this. From those days, a large number of Muslims began to feel that the world did not care, or turned a blind eye to such massacres. The problems and suspicions this stored up are only now perhaps beginning to be felt.
There can be no doubt that just as a lot of Muslims around the world felt shocked by what went on then, there are many who wish to help put a stop to any such thing now. But the question is, why should Muslims feel sympathy "as Muslims" rather than as human beings? What other group is not only expected, but – in a spirit of admiration – positively encouraged, to think in such a way?
Running through any possible counter-analogies shows how troubling, indeed viciously wrong-headed, our assumptions on these matters have become.
During the civil war in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, every side committed some variety of atrocities on the others. The worst, in brutality as well as numbers, were committed by Serbs, but, as in any civil war, nobody came away clean. To say that everybody did bad things is not to claim that everybody was equally guilty. But run the following thought around: It is early in the Balkan conflict. You are a British citizen. You happen to be a Christian and you are also – though this may not necessarily play a part – pale-skinned. Let us imagine that you have heard clear word of violence against Christian Serbs in parts of the former Yugoslavia. Or fast-forward two decades and say that this same person becomes aware of the suffering of Christians in Syria amid the recent violence. None of these parallels is exact, but then none ever is exact.
But what would we think of a person who in the 1990s had seen violence against Serbs in the nascent civil war and decided to go off and fight with – and for – them? What would we think if they then explained their reason for doing so as being that their "white, Christian, brothers were suffering, that being a bystander while such suffering went on was intolerable and that they and their kind needed to come to their aid"?
My own response would be that the person in question was clearly some very nasty variety of sectarian. Presumably a religious sectarian, though if the person referred clearly to some common heritage, let alone skin-pigmentation, then I might easily presume that they were also a nasty racist. My expectation then, as now, would be that the press would not regard them as being people of any honor. Certainly people would not write of their efforts with any kind of admiration – either sublimated or overt.
Which brings us back to the point we started with. Why should it be the case that some people while being citizens in free and democratic countries in the West are not merely expected to have, but are admired for having, loyalties that run deeper than those we share as humans or citizens -- loyalties so deep, indeed, that they are willing to travel, fight, kill and perhaps even die for them?
"Am I my brother's keeper?" asks Cain of God, after the man has murdered his own brother. It is the accepted belief of most Christian and post-religious societies that we are indeed our brother's (and sister's) keeper, and that the brotherhood is born of being human. The Western powers intervened in the Balkans to save the Bosnian Muslims and the Kosovar Albanians not because of shared religion or shared anything else other than shared humanity. This is, it seems, as it should be.
But what are we to make of the assumption that some people in our countries may not only feel this way (or not feel at all), but have, in addition, another family, another belonging and another bond – one that often appears to carry an impetus deeper than all others? And what are we to make of the idea that while some people who would feel such a loyalty would be classified in the most justifiably negative terms imaginable -- such as: guilty of "dual loyalty" -- there are others who are thought rather admirable for holding such impulses?
At the heart of that question, and the dilemmas that come from it, lie a whole pack of half-truths and untruths. They are ones we keep telling ourselves. Yet when they are even glancingly picked at, they raise more questions than even Cain would have had the gall to submit.
Related Topics: Douglas Murray
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment