Human Rights Denied in the Name of Human Rights


HRC on Free Speech Punishment

 

Apparently Canada is growing closer and closer to the EU rule of law paradigm of punishing Free Speech that is truthful in its criticism of Islam due to the Left thinking of multicultural diversity. Elsa Schieder continues her report on the issue which follows her report on Canadian Free Speech persecution of Ezra Levant.

 

(To my fellow Americans: In case you are unaware I’m letting you know that Canada is officially a bi-lingual nation. Both English and French are the official languages of Canada. This largely due to Britain conquering French Canada in the 1700s from France. French Canadians have proudly retained their culture primarily in the Province of Quebec. This explains the French references used by Elsa that Canada is currently dealing with.)

 

JRH 12/8/14

Please Support NCCR

************************

Human Rights Denied in the Name of Human Rights

 

By Elsa Schieder

Sent: 12/7/2014 8:42 PM

World Truth Summit Update

 

Last week I wrote about a judgment, in Canada, against Ezra Levant.

 

This week, there’s the threat of another attack on freedom of speech in Canada. It’s from the “commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse” – the commission of human rights and youth rights. A nice name. But the head of the commission is proposing legislation to further curb freedom of speech. There’s already lots of legislation in place. The additional legislation would go further: one could make a complaint even if one isn’t any particular victim and can’t show that any particular person has been hurt. (In French, “on n’a pas besoin d’être une victime particularisée et de le démontrer.”)

 

For those of you who speak French, here’s a link, including to an interview with the head of the commission:

 

http://www.postedeveille.ca/2014/12/commission-des-droits-liberte-dexpression.html

***[Blog Editor: I posting the Google Translation to the French in the above link. There is a video which I am not including largely because I do not speak French. If you speak French and wish to listen, you’ll have to use the above link.]

 

I listened to the interview and once more felt: the world has gone upside down. “Anything you say may be used against you.” Watch out!

 

As usual, there’s no indication that, if the legislation goes through, those making the charges will need to pay anything, even if charges are shown to be frivolous, ungrounded, or even malicious. On the other hand, those defending themselves against charges will need to pay.

 

“Oh Canada, glorious and free.” Those words are part of the Canadian national anthem. Not appropriate with the legislation which is already in place, and even less appropriate with the proposed further legislation against freedom of speech.

 

 

Then, in case any of you should feel like wishing someone else Merry Christmas, here is Islamic cleric Abu Musaab Akkar:

 

“Saying ‘Merry Christmas’ is worse than fornication, drinking alcohol, and killing someone.”

 

His comments are available in many places, including:

 

http://shoebat.com/2014/12/04/according-muslim-saying-merry-christmas-worse-committing-murder/ 

 

Of course, according to the politically correct, all cultures are equal (including the one of the above cleric) and who are we to judge? It seems we are to ignore that the cleric is judging that saying Merry Christmas is worse than killing someone. But perhaps, in the weird world of the politically correct, the cleric is somehow entitled to judge, while for some inexplicable reason, we are not.

 

What do we do? How to show the absurdity of such opinions? Lots of us are trying to figure out the answers.

 

Here’s a politically correct guide to opinions about kittens. It starts:

 

All kittens are equal.

All kittens are not equal.

All opinions about

kittens are equal.

One must not judge

opinions about kittens.

Who are we to judge

if all kittens are equal?

Except Israeli kittens …

http://elsasblog.com/logical-fallacy-in-politically-correct-thinking.html

 

I will end with Professor Emeritus Joan Wiggins on politically correct people vs. human rights people.

 

But first, now or later, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and whatever else you may enjoy celebrating.

 

All the best,

 

Elsa

 

Promo Photo Joan Wiggins

Joan Wiggins - PC vs Pro-Human Rights promo

 

___________________

***[Blog Editor: Here is the Google Translation to English of the link http://www.postedeveille.ca/2014/12/commission-des-droits-liberte-dexpression.html.]

 

Towards a ban on criticizing Islam in Quebec?

12/04/2014

Poste de veille [Post standby]

 

After two terrorist attacks, the Quebec Human Rights Commission proposes to limit the freedom of expression. One comes to believe that terrorism is an effective weapon: freedom back, and Sharia advance.

 

However, the Islamists should avoid too excited because censorship can be a double-edged weapon.

 

The Premier of Quebec Philippe Couillard announced recently the formation of a group of representatives of the Muslim community to “fight against youth radicalization and the rise of Islamophobia.”

 

As part of the fight against Islamophobia, President of the Commission on Human Rights of Quebec, Jacques Frémont, recommends * to add to the Charter of Rights a new provision that would prohibit “public incitement to hatred “to groups protected against discrimination. However, criticism of Islam is equated with “hate speech” by Islamists.

 

In an interview with Radio-Canada, Jacques Frémont   justified the relevance of limiting freedom of expression, relying in particular on the teachings of the Supreme Court of Canada on a case to be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States, and on the UN Recommendations:

 

This new provision “would allow victims including about hate crimes and making complaints, and possibly receive compensation, if any.

 

“With Article 10.1 of the Charter, which recognizes the right to equality without discrimination or harassment, “it is necessary that the injury is personal and individual, that is to say, it needs to be a victim who comes and who demonstrates the victim, she was assigned, and is entitled to damages, and then section 10.1 is used for this purpose.

 

“Now it is clear that with the new provision we offer, such as when there is a web site that raves, which has about the hatred of incentives in relation to particular groups, think of Muslim groups we saw some of the sites currently no sufficient interest to be present with us and make the request. With the new provision, then, there is a way for us to investigate (ourselves, even if there is no person who shows up) and for a person who, for example, if the site web is Muslim, and it was a francophone Quebec person francophone Quebec person could come forward and make a complaint. “

 

The new provision “is much more general public incitement to hatred on a prohibited ground of discrimination. So you do not need to be a victim and particularized to demonstrate. “

 

“What we propose is a remedy that does not currently exist. If we had been complaints over anti-Muslim websites, for example (as we had in), we must reject the current situation – whereas now, if we had this provision there could accept them and move forward. “

 

“It is clear that what is being proposed, it has to be attached to discrimination, harassment and exploitation. These are the three criteria. “

 

“We, it was inspired by a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, because ultimately, it is the freedom of expression that is in question. And as human rights commission, freedom of expression is very important, so it should not restrict unduly. But the Supreme Court tells us that in cases of discrimination, harassment or exploitation, we can move forward. It is legitimate and what is legitimate for the provinces to act in that field. “

 

“There is a recommendation of the United Nations General Assembly, the High Commissioner of the United Nations Human Rights, which is exactly in the same direction. And from what I understand in dispatches in the newspapers, even the Supreme Court of the United States, now when we speak, is ready to challenge for First Amendment when it comes to hate speech.

 

“In other words, there is a movement across the world is to respond to that hate speech of this kind are not acceptable in any society whatsoever.

 

“It’s when you have about generals, hateful general, incitement to hatred, etc. where there no casualties particularized, the group in general who is a victim – – that’s what we aim by this provision.”

 

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

 

Mr. Frémont refers to the case of William Whatcott (judgment of 27 February 2013), a Christian from Saskatchewan who had distributed pamphlets disparaging homosexuality, and was convicted of incitement to hatred of homosexuals.

 

Mario Roy had spoken in an editorial in La Presse in 2011, before the Supreme Court rendered its judgment. Roy placed the lawsuit against Whatcott in the context of the arrival in Montreal at the invitation of a Muslim student association at Concordia University, Muslim preachers known for advocating the criminalization of homosexuality.

 

If the Charter of Rights is changed according to the terms described by Mr. Fremont, homosexuals will be available to the new provisions against this type of preachers and those who invite them (student associations, mosques, etc.). The favorable Islamist censorship could see that this is a double edged sword.

 

Case to be heard by the US Supreme Court

 

The cause to which referred Mr. Frémont is Anthony Elonis case, which at first sight seems somewhat related to proposed amendments to the Charter of Rights. CBC summarizes well the cause:

 

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States has heard the arguments of both parties in the case of Anthony Elonis, a resident of Pennsylvania, which was found to have threatened to kill his ex-wife.

 

The man had displayed particular, on Facebook, a “poem” particularly violent in the place of his former wife. (… )

 

The Supreme Court must now determine whether these publications Mr. Elonis are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression.

 

UN Recommendation

 

When Mr. Frémont speaks of a recommendation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights along the lines of a limit on freedom of expression, it refers to the Istanbul Process, which is nothing but a result of the continuous efforts of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) for over ten years in order to prohibit “defamation of religions” in international law. This is a modern version of blasphemy.

 

In analyzing the “Istanbul Process”, a perverse process, Nina Shea reports on the conference held in Washington with the OIC in order to implement UN resolutions on the pretext to fight “religious intolerance” threaten to lead to the suppression of any criticism of Islam and Sharia. The Washington meeting was planned in Istanbul, hence the name “Istanbul Process”.

 

Sectarian rivalries within Islam

 

The proposed amendment to the Charter of Rights could also be used by sectarian Muslims against peaceful Muslims. For example, the United Kingdom, Fadak TV satellite channel founded by a Shiite anti-Khomeini shiraziste, which promotes the freedom to criticize religions, is the subject of an investigation of the British regulatory authorities to “hate propaganda “following complaints from Sunnis and Khomeinists.

 

Federally, Ottawa is considering criminalizing the glorification of terrorism

 

According to the Press:

 

The federal Justice Minister, Peter MacKay, considering to pass a law that would make crime to applaud a terrorist act.

 

The law in the UK is tackling the “encouragement of terrorism”. This “encouragement” direct or indirect, is illegal. A person guilty of this crime may be assessed up to seven years imprisonment.

 

Civil liberties groups, the United Kingdom, are worried.

 

Initiatives to limit freedom of expression are worrying. Islamists seek to roll back the freedoms in the West, and particular freedom of expression, the foundation of democracy. A government that advocates censorship makes them a dangerous concession. In fact, one could almost say that it encourages terrorism, because after two attacks, Quebec wants to limit criticism of Islam. Or if you cannot criticize Islam is that already lives under Sharia law. What is the message? The message is that terrorism is an effective weapon: it pushed back the freedom of expression and advance the Sharia.

 

If Ottawa gives up his plan to punish advocating terrorism, we risk ending up in an absurd situation: the glorification of terrorism would be legal, but criticism of Islam which terrorists claim may be illegal.

 

The federal government had a provision similar to the one proposed by the Human Rights Commission, namely Article 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the person who gave the Canadian Human Rights Commission, investigative powers over “speech hate “online. Ottawa repealed this article, which was misused. These abuses are explained in an editorial in the National Post and a section of Lorne Gunter’s Edmonton Sun.

 

* I have commented out the Human Rights Commission, the relevant extract of memory on the proposal to amend the Charter of Rights.

 

See also:

 

Dossier: Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)

 

 

The “Istanbul Process”, a perverse process

 

 

USA: the “Istanbul Process” is a bad idea

 

 

USA: State Department against Freedom of Expression

 

 

The OIC recovery efforts for the criminalization of defamation of religions

 

 

The International Humanist and Ethical Union laws against the “defamation of religions”

 

 

GB: A Shiite Sheikh shiraziste advocates for the right to criticize Islam

 

 

Canada: The Rights Commission loses his powers of censure

 

 

Canada: A bill abolishing censorship powers of the human rights commission

 

[Blog Editor: running a spell check on the Google Translation]

________________________________

Human Rights Denied in the Name of Human Rights

 

From Elsa Schieder of World Truth Summit

_________________________

Towards a ban on criticizing Islam in Quebec?

In French: Vers une interdiction de critiquer l’islam au Québec?

 

Poste de veille [Post standby] Homepage

 

Leave Islam – Convert to Christianity – Die


Hossein Soodmand (Left) - Mashad Soodman

 

John R. Houk

© August 29, 2011

 

Iran executes their citizens for leaving Islam and converting to Christianity. And yet Iran has joined the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Conference – OIC) agenda of criminalizing people who have insulted Islam. Trust me; it is not difficult to insult Islam. The mere criticism of the darker side of Islam, such as the Quranic suras that originated in Medina rather than the pre-Hegira Meccan suras is an insult worthy of death. Criticizing Sharia Law is worthy of death. Criticizing the decisions of Mohammed is worthy of death. Critically analyzing Islam’s deity known as Allah is worthy of death. AND SO, leaving Islam to convert to Christianity is worthy of death.

 

The OIC influenced United Nations Assembly Resolution originally known as Defamation of Religions makes it illegal to criticize Islam in nations that signed off on UN resolution. Where is the outrage when Christians are persecuted for their faith? Make no mistake a person or people who convert to Christianity are Christians. To not recognize this is an act of persecution in Muslim nations against Christians. The recent consensus of the UNHRC to switch the focus of Defamation of Religions from religions to individuals is all a matter of semantics. The focus is still on individuals that might insult Islam rather than on individuals (especially Muslim individuals) going beyond the insult right on to the realm of acts of violence that too often lead to death of a non-Muslim adherent especially of Christian individuals. The glaring sadness of Christians being persecuted is that the Muslim State legalizes said persecution by codifying the persecution in the rule of law. Hence when a Muslim converts to Christianity in a Muslim nation the rule of law often stipulates that this insult to Islam can ONLY find justice in the execution of the Christian. NOW that is real Defamation of Religions.

 

JRH 8/29/11

Islamic Apologetics Still Desire to Limit Free Speech


Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu - Hilary Clinton

 

John R. Houk

© August 18, 2011

 

The Organization of the Islamic Conference – NOW Cooperation (OIC) has been pushing Western nations to make any perceived insult of Islam as hate speech and a hate crime that should be prosecuted. This OIC agenda is nothing more than a push to prevent any criticism of the dark side of Islam by criminalizing Free Speech. This OIC agenda in affect also hampers Religious Freedom because it places all other religions (and atheism) in a position under Islamic Supremacism. The OIC agenda of criminalizing criticism of Islam is focused only on Islam. Islamic proponents on the other hand can write and speak any malicious opinion about any other religion. Islamic proponents habitually insult Judaism and Christianity. Judaism is on the top of that Islamic-hate list by calling Jews the descendants of pigs and apes or by writing about killing Jews wherever you can find them. These concepts come from Islamic holy writing such as the Quran and Hadith.

 

Many Nations with the USA leading the way condemned the original UNGA Resolution termed Defamation of Religions as focusing too little on Free Speech and Religious Freedom. The U.N. Human Right Commission then watered down the original Defamation of Religions Resolution to switch the focus from religions to individuals. This is to say the same measuring stick is used of what is considered hate speech or a hate crime; however if a person is incited to violence because he feels his religion was insulted then the defined inciters are responsible for any acts of violence. Thus the OIC is wagging it’s holier than all religions finger at the West because Anders Breivik massacred youths and adults to the tune of 76 because he hates Muslim immigrants. Someone should remind the OIC no Muslims were targeted by Breivik. Breivik targeted his own ethnic Norwegians as a part of his delusion to cause European chaos as a precursor to ushering in his New European Order.

 

The OIC has successfully lobbied at the U.N. General Assembly to pass a non-binding resolution to criminalize criticism of Islam. For a nation to make it illegal to criticize Islam all that is needed is to sign on to the UNGA Resolution. In America signing on to such a resolution would contradict the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that guarantees Free Speech and Religious Freedom to all.

 

The Gates of Vienna reporting on the new Resolution quotes public statements roughly given by OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and Secretary of State of the USA Hilary Clinton at a human rights meeting in Istanbul, Turkey:

 

He [SlantRight Editor: i.e. Ihsanoglu] said challenges remain.

“However, the test would lie in the implementation. Having been successful at consensus building, we must now act in concert to build on the consensus. The adoption of the resolution does not mark the end of the road. It rather signifies a beginning based on a new approach to deal with the whole set of interrelated issues,” said Ihsanoglu. “Resolution 16/18 provides a good basis for concerted action by states, at both national and international levels and must be utilized accordingly. Otherwise, we would be faced with the unaffordable risk of the agenda being hijacked and set by radicals and non-state actors.”

Ihsanoglu said there was a delicate balance between freedom of expression and incendiary speech.

“We continue to be particularly disturbed by attitudes of certain individuals or groups exploiting the freedom of expression to incite hatred by demonizing purposefully the religions and their followers. Though we respect their freedom of opinion and expression, we find these attitudes politically and ethically incorrect and insensitive.”

At the meeting, Clinton discussed how to build on a UN Human Rights Council resolution passed on March 24 that calls for promoting tolerance and respect for diversity of beliefs, without restricting legitimate free speech.

Clinton agreed to pursue a new religious tolerance agreement, which respects free expression of religious beliefs in order to resolve debates over religion between the West and the Islamic world.

“Together we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of religion,” Clinton said. “We are pursuing a new approach based on concrete steps to fight intolerance wherever it occurs. “

Speaking of the United States, Clinton said: “We have seen in the United States how the incendiary actions of just a very few people can create wide ripples of intolerance, so we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing anti-discrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”

[…]

She commended the Organization of Islamic Cooperation for its work securing the passage of Resolution 16/18 at the Human Rights Council.

“Resolution 16/18 calls upon states to protect freedom of religion, to counter offensive expression through education, interfaith dialogue, and public debate, and to prohibit discrimination, profiling, and hate crimes, but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence. We will be looking to all countries to hold themselves accountable and to join us in reporting to the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights on their progress in taking these steps.” (Emphasis added by Gates of Vienna)

 

Note that Ihsanoglu’s used the term “freedom of expression”. Ihsanoglu is really meaning Free Speech. Ihsanoglu still wants the West to dilute Free Speech when it offends religion. By “religion” we all know he means Islam. The verbiage to include all religions is a mere bone to toss to the West to paint the mirage of fairness to all religions. As I stated above we know that Ihsanoglu is referring to Islam because he knows that not one nation in the Islamic dominated parts of the world will NOT limit Islamic Supremacism in its intolerance of other religions, especially the existence of Christianity and Judaism.

 

When Secretary Clinton claims there is a very few people causing “incendiary actions” “can create wide ripples of intolerance”. Do you think the incendiary actions are perhaps the work of violence advocating perhaps by the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis such as Skin Heads or Arian Nation types, extremist hate the government right wing militias, perhaps by violent pro-Jewish organization and violence advocating radical Muslims and so on?

 

Without being specific Secretary Clinton is speaking of anti-Jihad/expose the dark side of Islam writers and speakers. This is the category of people that drives Muslims from moderate to radical crazy because casts portions of Islam in a bad light. Those Muslims that have the closest affinity to Sharia Law are indeed potential people that read exposés and react violently. Clinton’s words smack of the language of Marxist/Leninism in which the politburo controls the minds and words of the people to force compliance to the will of the State.

 

As Americans are we to throw out the First Amendment because a large chunk of Muslims can’t handle the truth about their history or the verses of peace abrogated by the verses of violence in their Quran and affirmed in their Hadith and Sira?

 

Well I for one am not going to roll over without some contribution to legally support the Constitution of the United States of America in the face of a supremacist religion that attempts to control Free Speech. 

 

JRH 8/18/11

****************************

US State Dept joins effort to criminalize free speech

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton working with UN, OIC to criminalize free speech!

 

Sent by ACT for America  

Sent: 8/17/2011 1:48 PM

 

The assault on our Constitution continues.

As we have reported extensively, Captain Paul Fields was disciplined for refusing to obey an order that violated his constitutional rights. We are certain a Muslim police officer would not have been ordered by the Tulsa police chief to attend Christian church services and Sunday school classes.

Now read the latest attack on our freedoms below, posted recently in Jihad Watch (highlights added). The OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) continues its assault on free speech at the UN through the advance of resolution 16/18 [SlantRight Editor: Here is the text]. This resolution, cloaked in terms such as “defamation of religion,” is a thinly veiled attempt to criminalize speech that criticizes Islam.

But now, in an ominous development, according to a story published by the International Islamic News Agency, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has joined the effort to implement this effort to criminalize free speech.

 

[SlantRight Editor: The below quote from ACT is something I included in a larger quote above.]

______________________

 

Secretary of State Clinton says State Department will coordinate with OIC on legal ways to implement UN’s resolution criminalizing “defamation of religion”

 

Jihad Watch

 

Moving rapidly to criminalize telling the truth about how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to encourage violence and supremacism. Free Speech Death Watch Alert, and an update on this story: “OIC/Islamophobia: OIC Observatory warned since 2009 against the growth of the extreme right in Europe, Washington plans to host a meeting on resolution opposing defamation of religions,” from the International Islamic News Agency, August 1 (thanks to all who sent this in):

 

JEDDAH, Ramadan 1/Aug 1 (IINA)-During the next few months, Washington plans to host a coordination meeting to discuss with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) how to implement resolution no. 16/18 on combating defamation of religions, and how to prevent stereotypes depicting religions and their followers; as well as disseminating religious tolerance, which has been endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council last March, in agreement with Western countries. The resolution was adopted after lengthy discussions held between the OIC and countries in which the phenomenon of Islamophobia is in the rise.

The U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had announced the intention of the U.S. State Department to organize a coordination meeting during her participation in the meeting which she co-chaired with the OIC Secretary General, Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Istanbul on 15 July 2011. The meeting issued a joint statement emphasizing the dire need for the implementation of resolution 16/18.

According to informed sources in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the two sides, in addition to other European parties, will hold a number of specialized meetings of experts in law and religion in order to finalize the legal aspect on how to better implement the UN resolution.

The sources said that the upcoming meetings aim at developing a legal basis for the UN Human Rights Council’s resolution which help in enacting domestic laws for the countries involved in the issue, as well as formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions.

On the other hand, the OIC Secretary General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, stressed that the crime committed recently in Norway was a result of the rise of the extreme right in Europe and its easy mobility in political circles. He said that the OIC had warned several times against of what might be called institutionalization of the phenomenon of Islamophobia through the involvement of the European extreme right in government institutions and political action….

____________________________

Islamic Apologetics Still Desire to Limit Free Speech

John R. Houk

© August 18, 2011

_____________________________________

US State Dept joins effort to criminalize free speech

 

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.