UN poised to launch global ban on all criticism of Islam

The world’s largest Islamic supremacist world body, the  Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has relentlessly pursued resolutions on restrictions on free speech for decades. Back in 2012, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, then secretary general of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), said they wouldn’t try again for a ban  at the UN on criticism of Islam. Going back on their word is sanctioned under Islamic law. The West still doesn’t get that. So here we are again. Clearly the OIC thinks it has the muscle to make it happen now.

Ironically, the United Nations was established to support and spread democracy and freedom not impose barbaric anti-human measures on the world.

The OIC is one of the largest intergovernmental organizations in the world. It encompasses 56 Muslim states plus the Palestinian Authority. Spread over four continents, it claims to speak in the name of the ummah (the universal Muslim community), which numbers about 1.3 billion. The OIC’s mission is to unite all Muslims worldwide by rooting them in the Koran and the Sunnah — the core of traditional Islamic civilization and values. It aims at strengthening solidarity and cooperation among all its members, in order to protect the interests of Muslims everywhere and to galvanize the ummah into a unified body. The OIC is a unique organization — one that has no equivalent in the world. It unites the religious, economic, military, and political strength of 56 states.

This new attack on freedom of speech tactic must have been formulated  at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) forum in London to counter Islamophobia.

The 56 Muslim countries (plus the “Palestinian” terror group) mean to impose the Islamic blasphemy laws which include the death penalty for those who blaspheme or mock Muhammad. Surely you jest? Surely you die.

To paraphrase Islamic scholar Bat Ye’or, the OIC is a “would-be, universal caliphate.” It might look different from the caliphates of the Ottomans, Fatimids, and Abbasids. It might resemble, instead, a thoroughly modern trans-national bureaucracy. But, already, the OIC exercises significant power through the United Nations, and through the European Union, which has been eager to accommodate the OIC while simultaneously endowing the U.N. with increasing authority for global governance. Among the other organizations that Bat Ye’or says are doing the OIC’s bidding are the U.N. Alliance of Civilizations, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, and the European Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation (PAEAC).

In the eyes of OIC officials, no problem in the contemporary world is more urgent than “Islamophobia,” which it calls “a crime against humanity” that the U.N. and the EU must officially outlaw. Even discussing why so much terrorism is carried out in the name of Islam is to be forbidden. The OIC insists, too, that international bodies ban “defamation of religion,” by which it means criticism of anything Islamic. Defamation of Judaism, Christianity, Bahai, Hinduism, and even heterodox Muslim sects such as the Ahmadiyya is common within the borders of many OIC countries, a fact the OIC refuses to acknowledge.

Bat Yeor explains:

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is a religious and political organization. Close to the Muslim World League of the Muslim Brotherhood, it shares the Brotherhood’s strategic and cultural vision: that of a universal religious community, the Ummah, based upon the Koran, the Sunna, and the canonical orthodoxy of shari’a. The OIC represents 56 countries and the Palestinian Authority (considered a state), the whole constituting the universal Ummah with a community of more than one billion three to six hundred million Muslims.

The OIC has a unique structure among nations and human societies. The Vatican and the various churches are de facto devoid of political power, even if they take part in politics, because in Christianity, as in Judaism, the religious and political functions have to be separated. Asian religions, too, do not represent systems that bring together religion, strategy, politics, and law within a single organizational structure.

Not only does the OIC enjoy unlimited power through the union and cohesion of all its bodies, but also to this it adds the infallibility conferred by religion. Bringing together 56 countries, including some of the richest in the world, it controls the lion’s share of global energy resources. The European Union (EU), far from anticipating the problems caused by such a concentration of power and investing in the diversification and autonomy of energy sources since 1973, acted to weaken America internationally in order to substitute for it the U.N., the OIC’s docile agent. In the hope of garnering a few crumbs of influence, the EU privileged a massive Muslim immigration into Europe, paid billions to the Mediterranean Union and Palestinian Authority, weakened the European states, undermined their unity, and wrapped itself in the flag of Palestinian justice, as though this would supply some protective system against the global jihad, which it endeavored to focus on Israel.

Religion as the main aspect of the OIC emerges from its language and its targets. It seems that the OIC is restoring in the 21^st century the Caliphate, the supreme controlling body for all Muslims. In their Charter (2008), Member States confirm that their union and solidarity are inspired by Islamic values. They affirm their aim to reinforce within the international arena their shared interests and the promotion of Islamic values. They commit themselves to revitalizing the pioneering role of Islam in the world, increasing the prosperity of the member states, and — in contrast to to the European states — to ensure the defense of their national sovereignty and territorial integrity. They proclaim their support for Palestine with al-Quds Al Sharif, the Arabized name for Jerusalem, as its capital, and exhort each other to promote human rights, basic freedoms, the state of law (shari’a), and democracy according to their constitutional and legal system — in other words, compliance with shari’a.

Islamists demand U.N. launch censorship campaign

Want world group to ban speech that may offend Muhammad

By WND, June 22, 2019 (thanks to ONN)

Islamist nations, especially those in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, long have sought a determination from the United Nations that any criticism of Islam or Muslims is “Islamophobia” and banned globally.

But each time it has come up for a vote more realistic arguments prevailed and the campaign never was legitimized.

However, the idea is back.

According to a report from MSN, it now is Pakistan that has endorsed a plan to combat “hate speech.”

Envoy Maleeha Lodhi endorsed a plan from U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, saying that without censorship, “An inevitable consequence is to fan the flames of bigotry, intolerance, anti-Muslim hatred and xenophobia.”

“My Prime Minister Imran Khan has recently again called for urgent action to counter Islamophobia, which is today the most prevalent expression of racism and hatred against ‘the other’,” the Pakistani told a meeting of diplomats and high ranking U.N. officials.

“The U.N. Strategy and Plan of Action provides a system-wide program with the overriding objective of identifying, preventing and confronting hate speech,” the report said.
ADVERTISING

Guterres said, “It targets the root causes of hate speech, pointing out that these include tackling violence, marginalization, discrimination, and poverty, as well as bolstering weak state institutions.”

In past attempts, the censorship program proposed at the U.N. have been described as “anti-defamation” efforts that would protect “religion.”

Almost invariably, those plans have protected Islam but not even mentioned other faiths.

It was in a report at the Investigative Project on Terrorism where it was explained that Khan already has been calling for the death penalty against “those who offend the Prophet Muhammad.”

He also urged the OIC to work to safeguard “the religious sentiments of Muslims,” the report said.

“It was up to us to explain to the Western people the amount of pain they cause us when they ridicule or mock our Holy Prophet,” Khan told the OIC’s recent Islamic summit in Mecca. “I would like to say from this platform that in the forums like the United Nations and the forums like the European Union, we must explain to them that they cannot hurt the sentiments of 1.3 billion people under the garb of freedom of expression.”

The OIC’s 57 members are the largest voting bloc in the U.N.

Guterres had been promoting a conference on the role of education in fighting “hate speech,” and Lodhi said he would be fully committed to that effort.

“We are fully committed to support the UN’s strategy on hate speech. This is a moment for all of us to come together to reverse the tide of hate and bigotry that threatens to undermine social solidarity and peaceful co-existence,” he said.

The U.S. has rejected speech censorship plans as a resolution to worries about “hate speech,” citing the U.S. Constitution’s protections for free speech.

The U.N., however, has in its plan the idea of engaging “private sector actors, including social media companies,” to do its bidding on censorship.

The IPT reported, “Thus far, Twitter has shown a willingness to voluntarily enforce Pakistan’s Islamic blasphemy rules even if the U.S. government doesn’t abide by any potential hate speech treaty that could stem from the planned conference. This raises the possibility that it and other social media companies might voluntarily follow suggestions from U.N. bureaucrats to the detriment of free speech.”