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

 

Obama Rendering Constitution to Dhimmitude to the OIC


Islamic Republic of America flag

 

John R. Houk

© December 6, 2012

 

Have you ever heard of the Bilderbergers? A group powerful politicians and wealthy people primarily from Europe and the USA have a semi-secret and an absolutely closed meeting on an annual basis. This group that meets annually has derived its name because the first known meeting place was the Bilderberg Hotel in the Netherlands.

 

A webpage that bills itself as the official website and is labeled Bilderberg Meetings can be read HERE. There is a huge amount of Conspiracy Theory websites that describe the Bilderbergers as a New World Order agenda group. I am using the Jeremiah Project merely because that is first the website I looked when I Googled “Bilderberger.” The Jeremiah Project writes about the nefarious nature of the Bilderbergers and can be read HERE.

 

Well check this out! Are you aware the Obama Administration has dispatched Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to a series of semi-secret meetings with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to participate in “classified” (i.e. Closed Meetings) to negotiate about criminalizing criticism of Islam? The meetings are called the Istanbul Process. I found a good summary about the Istanbul Process on the Gates of Vienna. Read the entire article but I think you can get the idea of the Istanbul Process and its agenda.  Hillary Clinton is negotiating compliance (translate as dhimmitude) to this process which is a threat to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

 

The objective of my presentation is to explain the role plaid by the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation, OIC, and its several attempts to try to ban freedom of expression on Islam across the world.

1.

 

First, I will explain what is the OIC and what are its goals

 

2.

 

 

Secondly I will develop the freedom- killing Islamic concept of “defamation of religions” supported by OIC and partly by the UN;

 

3.

 

 

Third I will finish with the “Istanbul process” and the western reaction against OIC anti-freedom and theocratic agenda.

 

Below is an email from ACT for America that is just as much a fund raiser as it is informative. The part I want you to really take notice of is the “informative.” ACT for America is sending an article by Nina Shea that I noticed was actually picked up by a number media websites. After reading the informative it would not hurt to add a bit of support for ACT for America.

 

JRH 12/6/12

Please Support NCCR

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

State Dept., OIC assault on free speech

 

Sent by ACT for America

Sent: 12/5/2012 2:22 PM

 

Obama Administration cooperates with the OIC’s assault on free speech!

 

Hillary Clinton - 12-2011 Istanbul Process

 

If you cherish our First Amendment right of free speech, we urge you, as strongly as we can, to read the article below by Nina Shea about the Istanbul Process (highlights added), which was recently posted on National Review Online.

 

For over 18 months now, the Obama administration has been working with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on what is known as the Istanbul Process.

The Istanbul Process has evolved into an assault on our free speech so serious that next year ACT! for America will launch a national campaign to expose what is happening and fight back against it.

It’s simply not possible to overstate how serious a threat this is to our First Amendment.

You can help us prepare now for next year’s national campaign, by making a year-end contribution to ACT! for America’s 5th anniversary appeal, which we announced in September.

 

Simply go online here, make a $5 or more monthly commitment to ACT! for America’s Patriot Partner program, or a $30 or more single gift. When you do, you’ll be entered in a drawing to win one of two chances to have Brigitte Gabriel visit your community and meet with you and up to 25 of your friends.

You can also make a single gift by printing out a reply form here and mailing your contribution.

We urge you, please, read the article below and help us prepare for next year’s campaign to protect free speech with your most generous contribution.

Because even if America succeeds in preventing every future terrorist attack, if we lose our freedom to speak out against radical Islam, a central tenet of sharia law will prevail in America and put a dagger in the heart of the First Amendment.

Here’s just one quote from the column below:

 

Judging from the 2011 session I was partially able to observe as a commissioner on the official U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the point of the Istanbul Process is for the governments of the developed West [to] give an accounting to the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, and other key Muslim states on measures taken to stop American and other Western citizens from disparaging Islam.


America Again Submits to the Istanbul Process

By Nina Shea.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/334647/america-again-submits-istanbul-process-nina-shea

 

Round three of the “Istanbul Process” opens today, December 3, and runs through Wednesday, at Canada House, in London, hosted by the U.K. and Canada. The Istanbul Process is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s major transnational law initiative, undertaken in partnership with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). It was established last year to “implement” measures against speech and expression that negatively “stereotype[s]” Islam and Muslims, with a particular emphasis on enacting them in the West.

This initiative was started as an inexplicable, gratuitous gift to the Muslim world following the March 2011 adoption of a non-binding U.N. Human Rights Council resolution (16/18) on the same theme. While the Obama administration claims that it doesn’t intend for the process to adopt regulations beyond the American free-speech standard, our partner, the OIC, is only too eager to do just that.

For over a decade within the U.N., the OIC has relentlessly pushed for a universal law to punish blasphemy, or “defamation,” of Islam. This 56-member-state organization, an essentially religious body, is in fact chartered to “combat defamation of Islam.” It issues fatwas and other directives to punish public expression of apostasy from Islam. Its current action plan calls for “deterrent punishments” in all states for “Islamophobia,” a term that encompasses a broad range of constitutionally protected speech, judging from the OIC website’s black list of Americans and other perpetrators of “Islamophobia.” The OIC’s stated understanding of the Istanbul Process is that it will “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.”

Corner readers will remember that the Istanbul Process’s first conference was co-chaired by Clinton and the OIC secretary general in July 2011, in Istanbul, with the foreign ministers of the Muslim countries in attendance. The second was held over three days of closed-door meetings last December, at the offices of the U.S. Department of State in Washington. That meeting drew enough controversy within free-speech circles to raise questions about whether the process would continue. But thanks to a leak last week by OIC head Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, we now know the event will go ahead, even if its agenda is still being treated like it’s “classified.”

Judging from the 2011 session I was partially able to observe as a commissioner on the official U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the point of the Istanbul Process is for the governments of the developed West give an accounting to the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, and other key Muslim states on measures taken to stop American and other Western citizens from disparaging Islam. This puts our diplomats in a tight spot: Unlike virtually every other country represented in the conference hall, America does not protect any religion or any other body of ideas from criticism and ridicule. However, when we’re in the dock this time around, the U.S., represented by Dr. Suzan Johnson Cook, the administration’s severely marginalized ambassador-at-large for religious freedom, will have some measure of “progress” to report.

For example, the U.S.’s top intelligence official and its top commander in Afghanistan were again deployed to suppress blasphemy against Islam in Florida and, this time around, they succeeded. Last year, the efforts of our top authorities to stop Florida micro-church pastor Terry Jones from desecrating a Koran ended in failure. But this year, their resort to the “good offices” of Tampa socialite Jill Kelley proved an effective strategy. Her persuasive emails resulted in Florida talk-show host Bubba the Love Sponge’s standing down from deep frying a Koran, something he had threatened to do on-air. The OIC’s Ihsanoglu would likely rule Bubba was about to “abuse” freedom of expression by not being able (incontrovertibly, I should note) to pass a “responsible use” test.

That leads to our next plea: The administration has also adopted the OIC’s own standard of condemning the “abuse of free expression.” Or at least that is what it appeared to do on the website of the pivotal U.S. embassy to Egypt on September 11 this year. Our embassy declared on its homepage: “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

But perhaps, the best evidence of America’s “implementation” in response to the Istanbul Process is the Justice Department’s dispatching the FBI a couple months ago to investigate Mark Basseley Youssef (a.k.a. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, or Sam Bacile), the California Coptic filmmaker of “Innocence of Muslims,” the YouTube trailer that blasphemed the Muslim prophet. As Ambassador Cook can point out, this investigation has resulted in a creative criminal conviction of Youssef, and his being sentenced by a federal court to a year in prison. All the better for the U.S.’s reputation as implementers is that it will be lost on the conferees that Youssef has been imprisoned on a probation offense, à la Al Capone — though, unlike Capone, his underlying offense, without which he would not have been investigated, was making a crude, insulting video, which is hardly equivalent in American law to gangland massacres or racketeering. It, in fact, is not a crime at all. Thus, most important, the OIC’s take-away will be that in defense of Islam the U.S. government can and will regulate speech.

Nevertheless, none of this is likely to impress the Istanbul Process gathering. On its opening day last December, Saudi Arabia — headquarters to and godfather of the OIC — beheaded a Sudanese woman for “sorcery.” Last week, Egypt sentenced to death Youssef, Terry Jones, and six other Americans implicated in the blasphemous YouTube trailer. For the Istanbul Process that’s “best practices” for “implementation.” Thus, again, America will be judged to have fallen short, indignation will rise, and the Istanbul Process will need to ramp up its pressure.

— Nina Shea is director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom and co-author with Paul Marshall of Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes Are Choking Freedom Worldwide.

______________________________________

Obama Rendering Constitution to Dhimmitude to the OIC

John R. Houk

© December 6, 2012

_____________________________________

State Dept., OIC assault on 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.