By Anne Bayefsky Pres. Barack Obama has announced that the United States will seek a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council for the first time. The formal election of new members is in May, but the result is a foregone conclusion. The human-rights abusers who dominate the Council and use it to protect themselves, to eliminate universal standards, and to demonize their democratic foes are already celebrating. This is a surrender of American values unlike any other. The spectacle of this particular president legitimizing a lethal weapon for the defeat of human rights will haunt him until the end of his term. The Council was created in March 2006 after the U.N. Human Rights Commission became too much of an embarrassment even for the U.N. The General Assembly rejected a U.S. proposal requiring that states actually protect human rights as a condition of Council membership. As a result, the United States voted against the Assembly resolution that gave it birth. The Bush administration also refused to use taxpayer dollars to pay for the Council. Obama's move will reverse this policy. It is, therefore, important to appreciate exactly what American tax dollars will now be purchasing. Here is a sample of what the Council has "accomplished" over its short history. The Council has adopted a formal agenda of ten items that governs all its meetings. One agenda item is reserved for condemning Israel. This item is called the "human-rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories"; the human rights of Israelis are deliberately omitted. And one agenda item is assigned to the human rights of the remaining 99.9 percent of the world's population. By taking a seat on the Council, the United States will be agreeing to this agenda and to the resulting apportionment of the Council's time. Every morning throughout the Council sessions, all U.N. member states meet to strategize and share information in one of the U.N.'s five regional groups. All that is, except Israel. At the Council, Israel is denied membership in any regional group, including the amalgam of Western states to which the United States belongs. The United States is, therefore, about to attend a continuous stream of meetings through doors effectively marked "no representatives of the Jewish people allowed." The Council has had ten regular sessions concerning human rights worldwide and five special sessions to condemn Israel. The Council has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all the other 191 U.N. member states combined. The Council has terminated human-rights investigations of such paragons as Belarus, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Liberia. The last time the Council took action on Sudan was seven months ago. The resolution on that country "acknowledges ... the steps taken by the Government of the Sudan to strengthen the human-rights legal and institutional framework, principally in law reform." (The Sudanese criminal code prohibits homosexuality, makes adultery a capital offense, and provides for flogging, amputation, stoning, and crucifixion.) The Council has just terminated every investigation of "consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all human rights and all fundamental freedoms." Under this heading, it has discontinued investigations of the likes of Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Even the discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission had investigations under way every year since this process began in 1974. The Council president has made a procedural ruling that any commentary connecting the practice of Islam to human-rights violations is out of order. The Council has sabotaged the key resolution in the U.N. system on freedom of expression. The resolution now requires investigation of "abuses of the right of freedom of expression" . Most Council members do not permit freedom of expression, much less suffer from the abuse of it. The Council regularly adopts resolutions on the "defamation of religions," an overt attempt by Islamic states to stymie free speech of individuals in the name of protecting "religion." The Council has made repeated efforts to circumvent universal principles. It has spawned numerous entities charged with searching for "normative gaps" - with the intention of filling them with sharia exemption clauses. The Council has created an investigator charged with reporting on respect for "cultural diversity" (read: the refusal to hold Islamic states to universal standards of human rights). Not surprisingly, this plan was spearheaded by some of the worst human-rights abusers on the planet: Iran, Syria, Cuba, China, North Korea, Venezuela, and Belarus. The Council's one new device - the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) - was heralded as introducing a careful examination of all U.N. states without discrimination. What actually happens is that a series of human-rights abusers congratulate one another, avoid any serious scrutiny, and then denigrate the democracies that agreed to the travesty in the first place. It is true that some human-rights groups are willing to admit there is a problem with the Human Rights Council. But they still insist that Obama's decision to participate in this sham raises the prospect of change from the inside. They are mistaken. Serious reform of the U.N. Human Rights Council is impossible. The United States failed to win over a majority of U.N. members to the idea of minimal preconditions for Council membership because the majority of U.N. members are not fully free democracies and have no interest in introducing democratic hurdles for anything they do. On the Council itself, the majority of seats are held by the African and Asian regional groups, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has a majority in both of these groups. That means the OIC holds the balance of power. The more time the Council spends demonizing Israel, the less likely it becomes that it will ever get around to condemning genocide in Sudan, female slavery in Saudi Arabia, or torture in Egypt. President Obama's decision to bring the United States into the Council is a gift for his political adversaries. The Council and its many subsidiary bodies meet almost year round, and many of their proceedings are webcast. Every time the president makes a speech about human dignity, the welfare of minorities, the equality of women, or an end to torture, his critics can circulate another picture of the hapless American representative to the Council glued to his chair during the adoption of yet another decision trashing human rights - with the United States paying the bill. Human-rights victims will rue the day that the United States legitimized this morally bankrupt institution. President Obama will, too. - Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College. She is also editor of www.EyeontheUN.org. Source: Naomi Ragen
 Michelle Obama holds the Queen and
Barack Obama bows to Saudi King King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al SaudConservative American commentators have accused Barack Obama of "grovelling" to an Arab monarch at the G20 summit in London. A photo and video footage of the US President bowing to Saudi Arabian King Abdullah at yesterday's G20 meet-and-greet has been doing the rounds on the internet today. Mr Obama appears to shake the King's hand and then bow from the waist while French President Nicholas Sarkozy looks on. Leading conservative blogger Michelle Malkin and Dakota Voice both wrote of their outrage at the President's deference to a foreign monarch. "The whole thing is embarrassing. Its like the `American Hillbillies go to Europe'," Malkin wrote. "He is throwing American power and prestige out with both hands as fast as he can." Dakota Voice contributor Bob Ellis said the bow was a gesture of submission. "The leader of the most free nation in the world should not be slobbering on the ring of some king," Ellis wrote. But American etiquette expert Gloria Starr, who has met the King's wife and hosted two of their daughters in her finishing schools, told smh.com.au there was nothing wrong with Mr Obama's display of deference. "I think it was a sign of respect and in no way diminishes the ranking of the President or indicates the greater strength of the one being bowed to," Ms Starr said. "I bowed, wore the attire, ate the figs as a sign of respect when I was in Saudi. "I applaud the President for showing this courtesy." Former president George Bush was criticised for holding the hand of then-crown prince Abdullah during the monarch's visit to America four years ago. But Obama's gaffe did not rate a mention in the mainstream US media, despite Michelle Obama's tactile approach to the Queen at the same function. The Times noted: "Protocol dictates that no one should touch the Queen - as the Australian Paul Keating learnt to his cost - but she seemed comfortable with Michelle Obama's embrace at Buckingham Palace." Keating was blasted by the British media and branded the "Lizard of Oz" when pictures emerged of him putting a friendly arm around the Queen to guide her through a function at Parliament House in Canberra in 1992. Source: Sydney Morning Herald
 Jasim, pictured here with Gen. David Petraeus, is an Iraqi translator
who served heroically with the U.S. Army but whose life is
at risk after being denied a U.S. entrance visa.By Joel Mowbray An Iraqi translator who has earned commendations for risking his life repeatedly to save the lives of many American soldiers in combat has been denied a visa to live in the United States because of nonviolent actions he took to overthrow Saddam Hussein - at the same time the U.S. government was calling for regime change in Iraq.Jasim, whose name is being withheld for his safety, has received strong support from the U.S. military, and the Department of Homeland Security approved his application for a visa. But the State Department has denied Jasim a visa because he was arrested in 1996 for actions against the Saddam dictatorship. Some of Jasim's supporters, however, believe the real reason he's been denied a visa is that he has become a "nuisance" to State Department personnel at the Baghdad Embassy. The State Department, citing privacy concerns, declined to discuss Jasim's case. Because Iraqi translators are seen by jihadists and former Baathists as "traitors," Jasim's life is at greater risk the longer he stays in Iraq, according to multiple State Department and U.S. military officials. A number of translators and their families have already been tortured and/or murdered. Read more ...Source: Fox NewsH/T: A.P. Jasim the Translator
Latest recipient of The MASH Award
 Afghan woman attends a gathering to mark
the International Women's Day in Kabul,
Afghanistan 08 March 2009By Lisa Schlein The U.N. Human Rights Commissioner, Navi Pillay says a new Afghan law restricting women's rights violates Afghanistan's constitution as well as universal standards. She urges the Afghan government to rescind the new law. U.N. Human Rights Chief, Navi Pillay, calls the new Afghan law a huge step in the wrong direction. She says the law is another clear indication that the human rights situation in Afghanistan is getting worse not better. Her spokesman, Rupert Colville, tells VOA, the new law is extremely damaging to women. He says it violates international laws such as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. He says it also breeches Afghanistan's constitution, which calls for equal rights for men and women. "It is really very reminiscent of the Taliban type decrees in the 1990's. It forbids women to leave their homes except for very exceptional purposes," Colville said. "It forbids them to work or receive education without their husband's express permission. It even permits marital rape, essentially women cannot refuse sexual relations unless they are sick." Read more ...Source: VOA
 The S.S.N.P. poster (its swastika is in red at the
top right) prior to its defacement by the author.In newly liberated Lebanon, the signposts on “the Arab street” point in opposite directions. The author’s experiences - he was buoyed by a huge rally for democracy in downtown Beirut, then beaten up by Fascist bullies - show how much this diverse society offers hope but is still threatened by the Syrian dictatorship next door. By Christopher Hitchens As Arab thoroughfares go, Hamra Street in the center of Beirut is probably the most chic of them all. International in flavor, cosmopolitan in character, it boasts the sort of smart little café where a Lebanese sophisticate can pause between water-skiing in the Mediterranean in the morning and snow-skiing in the mountains just above the city in the afternoon. “The Paris of the Middle East” used to be the cliché about Beirut: by that exacting standard, I suppose, Hamra Street would be the Boulevard Saint-Germain. Not at all the sort of place you would expect to find a spinning red swastika on prominent display. Yet, as I strolled in company along Hamra on a sunny Valentine’s Day last February, in search of a trinket for the beloved and perhaps some stout shoes for myself, a swastika was just what I ran into. I recognized it as the logo of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, a Fascist organization (it would be more honest if it called itself “National Socialist”) that yells for a “Greater Syria” comprising all of Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, Cyprus, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, and swaths of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt. It’s one of the suicide - bomber front organizations - the other one being Hezbollah, or “the party of god” - through which Syria’s Ba’thist dictatorship exerts overt and covert influence on Lebanese affairs. Read more ...Source: Vanity FairH/T: FrontPage Magazine
By P. David Hornik Reuters reported this week that the European Union is saying a summit with Israel, planned for the coming months, is probably called off. With the Czech Republic currently holding the EU presidency, its foreign minister Karel Schwarzenberg told a Czech newspaper that the EU is “not happy with some of the steps of the Israeli government, namely construction works close to Jerusalem but also access to Gaza, which is today very limited.” He added that “The new Israeli government has not raised much excitement either.” In other words, in complaining about “construction works close to Jerusalem” and limited access to Gaza, Schwarzenberg was referring to alleged misdeeds of the previous Olmert government. Olmert, who formally handed the reins of power to Binyamin Netanyahu on Tuesday, has boasted - accurately - that his government made the most generous offers of Palestinian statehood of any Israeli government to date. Read more ...Source: FrontPage MagazineEU
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
 By Robert Spencer In a crushing blow to the freedom of speech worldwide, the United Nations Human Rights Council last Thursday approved a resolution calling upon member states to provide legal “protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.” While the resolution speaks of religion in general, the proposal came from Pakistan and had the backing of the powerful 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the UN’s largest voting bloc – so it was clear that Islam was the only religion the drafters of the resolution had in mind. This is underscored by the fact that Muslim states have worked energetically to make “Islamophobia” the focus of Durban II -- the UN’s upcoming second World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. A draft declaration declares that “defamation of Islam” should be a criminal offense, even when it takes place under the “pretext” of “freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security.” Read more ...Source: FrontPage Magazine
 GAZA CITY - The Hamas regime acquired U.S.-origin air defense systems but was unable to use them in combat.
Hamas sources said the Islamic military has acquired the Stinger man-portable air defense system. The sources said the Stingers were acquired from smugglers in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula in 2008 and deployed in the 22-day war against Israel in January 2009.
"We were disappointed by them, and they were found to have been useless," a Hamas source said.
The source said Hamas smuggled four Stinger systems in 2008. The source said the Hamas military deployed the Stingers against Israel Air Force AH-64 Apache attack helicopters during strike missions in the northern Gaza Strip.
"Our gunners couldn't fire the weapon," the source recalled. "A notice came up on the display saying 'friendly aircraft.'"
Industry sources said Raytheon, producer of Stinger, installed identification friend/foe capabilities more than a decade ago. The sources said this would prevent Stinger from being fired against any aircraft used by the U.S. military.
Another Hamas source said gunners deployed Stinger along with heavy machine guns in attacks on Israeli helicopters during the war in the Gaza Strip. The source said one Stinger surface-to-air missile was launched, but the projectile veered off course and struck a Hamas gunner squad.
"The Stinger was drawn by the heat of our guns rather than the engines of the Israeli helicopters," the source said. "At that point, we stopped using this weapon."
The sources said Hamas has abandoned plans to acquire additional Stingers. Instead, the Islamic army has been ordering the Russian-origin SA-16, or Igla-1, surface-to-air missile system, with a range of five kilometers. Source: World TribuneH/T: Redneck Texan- Purchasing Stinger in Cairo flee market - $5,000
- Digging a tunnel under Egyptian/Gaza border by hand - $3
- Smuggling Stinger through the tunnel into Gaza using Khaled Meshal's rectal cavity - $15 (for industrial strength lubricants)
- Hamas motherf@#$%rs blowing up other Hamas motherf@#$%rs - PRICELESS!Hamas
Latest recipient of the Evil Dumbass Award
 Harold KohBy Robert Spencer President Obama has tabbed the former dean of Yale Law School, Harold Koh, to become the legal adviser for the State Department. Among numerous questionable and controversial statements, Koh has said that the “war on terror” -- a term which the Obama Administration has already quietly abandoned, was “obsessive.” And in a 2007 speech, according to a lawyer who was in the audience, Koh opined that “in an appropriate case, he didn’t see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States.” Asked for comment, a spokeswoman for Koh waved the incident away: “I had heard that some guy...had asked a question about sharia law, and that Dean Koh had said something about that while there are obvious differences among the many different legal systems, they also share some common legal concepts.” Probably Koh has something in mind akin to what the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, was thinking when he made his notorious statement that Islamic law was “unavoidable” in Britain. Williams didn’t mean that Britain would become a Sharia state, but only that Muslims could have recourse to private Sharia arbitration for marital disputes, inheritance matters, and the like. Stonings and amputations? Of course not. “Nobody in their right mind,” said Williams, “would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that’s sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well.” But, he concluded, the idea that “there’s one law for everybody...I think that's a bit of a danger.” Read more ...Source: Human Events
If you haven't heard by now the Taliban, after being kicked out of Afghanistan, have set up shop in Pakistan. At last count they controlled a few provinces on the Afghan border where they have implemented Sharia law to keep their women in line. It's no use butter coating it or dressing it up to make it more palatable folks, they use Sharia law so that they can keep their thumb on women and oppress them in any way possible. This is done solely for the purpose of bolstering their false sense of male supremacy and power over females. I don't know what you would call it in psychological terms, but I can imagine that it's done with about the same motivation that makes a bully pick on and torment someone who is smaller and weaker than themselves. It's a cowardly and disgusting way to puff up their own self image and esteem at the expense of someone else and invariably perpetrated by those that proclaim their "manhood" and Machismo" the loudest. This vile way of treating women is human nature at it's absolute worst, while all the while proclaiming it to be Divinely inspired and sanctioned by God. A recent example of this sick cultural and religious abomination was the beating of a teenage girl by three adult men for not wearing a Hijab, or headscarf/veil while out in public. (Oh yea, I almost forgot.... a group of about a hundred other males were on the sidelines... cheering!) Some of the religious fanatics amongst the Taliban even put the Mutaween, or Religious Police of Saudi Arabia to shame in their zeal to oppress and humiliate women, and this brings me to the purpose of this article. A few hundred years ago, say in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Islam was a lot more tolerant than it is today, even amongst the ultra conservative. It is almost as if a dark force has descended on the land and brought out the worst in the followers of Islam. Now I know that Christianity has had it's periods of shame as well with the last great example being "The Spanish Inquisition" during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain back about five hundred years ago. But, although removed in time and geography from what is happening in the Middle East today, they do seem to have one chilling commonality that needs to be brought into the light of day! And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the DEVIL! Now before you go off on a tangent about the forces of evil and start looking for an exorcist, let me tell you that I do not personally believe in any form of a so called personal Devil as described in the Bible. But, throughout history we have been inundated with examples of human beings seemingly giving in to forces of darkness and despair and committing horrendous deeds while proclaiming them to be God's Will. These periods of conflict between good and evil seem to come quite regularly and could almost be described as that never ending battle between the light of our destiny and the darkness of the perversions that want to drag us back into the mud. Now I am donce again, not in any way claiming there is a literal Devil. But do believe there are dark forces in this Universe and that they are at constant war with the inherent good that is within us. It is a battle that cannot, and will not be lost, as long as we remain true to ourselves and not give in to these undercurrents that flow through all of us. Our duty is to be ever vigilant against this vile serpent and recognize it for what it is! A threat to our ultimate destiny. Your humble scribe; Allan W Janssen Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know......!) and is available as an E-Book and as a paperback. Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://allans-perspective.blogspot.com
 By Ryan Mauro If two coalitions of Muslim organizations have their way, the FBI may soon face a more difficult time monitoring mosques with suspected ties to Islamic radicalism and terrorism. The American Muslim Taskforce (AMT) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) are calling for an end to the FBI’s use of informants in mosques, closing the only window that law enforcement has into what goes on behind closed doors. The condemnation of the FBI is coupled with a threat to end all outreach programs with the agency. “If the FBI does not accord fair and equitable treatment to every American Muslim…then Muslim organizations, mosques and individuals will have no choice but consider suspending all outreach activities with FBI offices, agents and other personnel,” reads a March 17 statement from the AMT. Although the AMT assures that this does not mean that its member groups will decline to report criminal and terrorist activity to the agency, allegations of anti-Muslim bias at the FBI will likely deter some Muslims from doing so. This is all the more troubling because these allegations, stemming from a recent case involving an FBI informant, are ill-founded. Read more ...Source: FrontPage MagazineAMT
MPAC
Latest recipients of the Distinguished Islamofascist Award
  The dramatic change to Israeli policy less than a day into the new Government came during what was expected to be a routine meet-and-greet session by Mr Lieberman with his new Foreign Ministry staff in Jerusalem. Before drinking a toast with outgoing foreign minister Tzipi Livni, Mr Lieberman surprised the audience by announcing that Israel was not bound by the Annapolis agreement that then Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert signed with former US president George W. Bush and President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas at Mr Bush's country residence in Annapolis, Maryland, in 2007. "It has no validity," Mr Lieberman told the staff. The centrepiece of the agreement was that the US would help Israeli and Palestinian negotiators to move towards a two-state solution: Israel alongside a newly formed independent Palestine. "The Israeli government never ratified Annapolis, nor did the Knesset," Mr Lieberman said, referring to Israel's parliament. Key leaders from the Middle East attended the conference in Annapolis, which ended in an agreement between US, Israeli and Palestinian leaders that they would seek a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mr Lieberman said yesterday Israel would abide by the agreements made in 2003 on the road map for peace, but added: "And I voted against it." "There is one document (the road map) that obligates us, and it is not the Annapolis document - it has no validity," he said. While the road map set out a list of requirements by both the Israeli and Palestinian sides before there was any move towards "final status talks", that is, what would be the boundaries of a future Palestine and what would be the status of Jerusalem, the most sensitive issue of all, the Annapolis agreement fast-forwarded through many of these requirements and instead called on all parties to move straight to the final status talks. "We will never agree to jump over all the clauses and go to the last one, which is negotiation over a final status agreement," he told the Foreign Ministry officials. Mr Lieberman's concern about the Annapolis agreement appeared to be that it did not require the renunciation of violence against Israel. After his comments, which were delivered as Ms Livni watched, she remarked: "You've convinced me I was right not to join the Government." The US was caught by surprise by Mr Lieberman's comments. State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid said Washington stood by what was achieved at Annapolis and would continue to work for a two-state solution. Asked specifically about Mr Lieberman's comments, Mr Duguid said: "We haven't heard their proposals yet. We haven't sat down with them." A spokesman for the US National Security Council, Mike Hammer, said: "The President has said many times that we are committed to the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state living side by side with Israel in peace and security. "We look forward to working with the new Israeli Government and understand we will have frank discussions, and that these discussions will be based on an underlying shared commitment to Israel and its security." The night before Mr Lieberman made his comments, Mr Netanyahu said in a speech to the Knesset before presenting his new Government that he would work towards a "permanent settlement" with the Palestinians. "I say to the Palestinian leadership that if you really want peace we can achieve peace," the Prime Minister said. Palestinian leader Mr Abbas reacted badly to Mr Lieberman's comments, saying he was "an obstacle to peace". And former British prime minister Tony Blair said he believed the peace process was in "grave jeopardy". Source: The Australian
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Posts
