GLOBALNEWS… GENEVA – The UN Human Rights Council on Thursday narrowly passed a resolution condemning Islamophobic behaviour, including Switzerland’s minaret building ban, despite some states’ major reservations.
The resolution, which was criticized by the United States as “an instrument of division”, “strongly condemns . . . the ban on the construction of minarets of mosques and other recent discriminatory measures.”
In a November referendum Swiss citizens voted to ban the construction of new minarets, a move that drew criticisms worldwide.
Such measures “are manifestations of Islamophobia that stand in sharp contradiction to international human rights obligations concerning freedoms of religions,” said the resolution.
Such acts would “fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequences,” it charged.
Some 20 countries voted in favour of the resolution entitled “combating defamation of religions”, 17 voted against and eight abstained.
The resolution also “expresses deep concern . . . that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.”
It “regrets the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatising them and legitimising the discrimination they experience.”
Putting forward the resolution on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Pakistan’s ambassador Zamir Akram said that the specific references to Islam, the only religion mentioned in the text, “reflect the existing regrettable situation in some parts of the world where Muslims are being targeted.”
Babacar Ba, who represents the OIC in Geneva, also told reporters that the resolution was a “way to reaffirm once again our condemnation of the decision to ban construction of minarets in Switzerland.”
“This initiative breaches religious freedom and rights of Muslims to build their places of worship as they wish to,” he added.
But while all countries agreed on the need to combat religious discrimination, debate on the resolution was intense as some were against the resolution on fears that it could be used to curb freedom of expression.
Mexico for instance said it was against the resolution as “part of its orientation touches upon political and social principles” which were against principles of the freedom of expression and the question of secularism.
The European Union also pointed out that the concept of defamation should not fall under the remit of human rights because it conflicted with the right to freedom of expression, while the United States said free speech could be hindered by the resolution.
“The European Union believes that reconciling the notion of defamation with discrimination is a problematic endeavour,” French ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattei said on behalf of the bloc.
Eileen Donahoe, U.S. ambassador to the UN, also slammed the resolution as an “ineffective way to address” concerns about discrimination.
“We cannot agree that prohibiting speech is the way to promote tolerance, because we continue to see the ‘defamation of religions’ concept used to justify censorship, criminalisation, and in some cases violent assaults and deaths of political, racial, and religious minorities around the world,” she said.
“Contrary to the intentions of most member states, governments are likely to abuse the rights of individuals in the name of this resolution, and in the name of the Human Rights Council,” added the U.S. envoy.
we are fucked…….
Eloquently put Gene. Unless the governments of the west can bring themselves to walk away from the U.N. you are completely correct in your analysis of the situation.
It’s worth noting that Switzerland has the SVP, the main force behind the ban on minarets, as its largest party in Parliament (could Geert Wilders’s PVV find itself in the same situation in the Netherlands come June? Hopefully)… I once even e-mailed Eeyore about one of their future initiatives, whose purpose will be to make the Swiss people the ultimate decision-maker regarding what happens in their country, so that no popular initiative would be invalidated or ditched for its non-compliance with quaint and absurd international treaties and resolutions, such as this fascist, racist, mahoundian supremacist nonsense vomited by the UN (in)Human Rights council.
Whatever the impact of that nonsense, I doubt that the Swiss electorate or the SVP will swallow a quaint fascist resolution coming from a pawn of mahoundian tyrants and dictatorships without putting up a hell of a fight. Denmark would probably act the same way. On the other hand, I’m sure that the UK’s political elite, especially David Dhimmiliband (that sorry excuse for a human being which, not who, has supported EU membership not only for Turkey, but also for all North Africa’s mahoundian countries, plus Syria, Lebanon and Jordan), will welcome such a move as an important step in their fight against free speech and criticism of mahoundianism, hypocritically and falsely being sold as a fight against “racism” (despite the fact that mahoundianism is not a race, but a 14-century old form of nazism from Arabia.)
“Such acts would “fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequences,” it charged.”
lol, you couldn’t make it up could you.
Its funny that arselifters are the only ones calling for this? Why is pislam so precious it needs to be protected from criticism?
Hmm .. will it backfire on arselifters when they hurl abuse at Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, etc?
Most Swiss are of European descent and thus are white or variations on that theme such as tanned or redddish in colour. Most Muslims are brown. These brown muslims also have a primitive tribal cutting mark on their penis to identify them. They are circumsised. Brown people indentified by thier cutting as of the tribe of Islam. The Swiss are completely different. The Swiss have no tribal mark and are white. So the difference is twofold and they constitute very different kinds of humans. By rejecting the minarets they are rejecting the people behind them them as a foreign group of people, who wish to incorporate them into their tribe through the tribal mark of circumsision. This is natural and healthy self-defence from an imperilalistic tribal entity.
The UN building in NY city would serve mankind better if is converted into a self storage warehouse. this would serve two functions, no.1 it would make a profit and stop shaking down the developed nations for billions of dollars, no.2 The ‘New World Order crowd would have to find a new headquarters , from which to spread their Orwellian agenda.