Year: 2010
Lorne Gunter: If Islam were truly equal, wouldn’t Muhammad be fair game, too?
From The National Post:
During the controversy over cartoons of Mohammed that appeared in a Danish newspaper in 2005, I received an email from a reader insisting, “This is about treating Islam equally! I am a Muslim and all we want is for our religion to be treated with the same respect as other religions.”
The problem with his demand is that the cartoonists in question did treat Islam in the same way Western culture treats Christianity, Judaism and other faiths. The media typically reserves no special reverence or respect for the major Western religions (including their Prophets). And so if Islam were treated “equally,” then Mohammad would be fair game, too.
For instance, how many times in the past decades can you remember lib-left media commentators disparaging the way Christian fundamentalists propped up George Bush — typically in language and tone that implied Christian voters were less intelligent and sophisticated than most?
Read the Toronto Star on any given day and there will be two or three references to Christians and the Harper government that drip with sneering disdain for the views and brains of both.
Of course there are also Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ photograph and Chris Ofili’s Holy Virgin Mary, made in part out of dung, among other artworks that have challenged Western notions of faith and perception.
Few Western media outlets would censor cartoon or artistic depictions of Christ. Danish publishers merely wanted the same lack of courtesy extended to Islam and its prophet. Continue Reading →
The Korandle.
Bernie Farber and Len Rudner: Selling anti-Semitism in the book stores
This is in the ‘Hitler wore pants, Israeli’s wear pants, Jews must therefore be Hitler’ category of absurd leftist logical fallacies.
From The National Post:
Bernie Farber and Len Rudner: Selling anti-Semitism in the book stores
National Post October 22, 2010 – 7:09 pm
By Bernie M. Farber and Len Rudner
Adbusters Media Foundation, which publishes the slick, anti-consumerist Vancouver-based Adbusters magazine, describes itself as “a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age.” Judging from the latest edition of the magazine, the Adbusters “activist movement” has become infected with plain, old-fashioned bigotry.
In the current edition, Adbusters offers its readers a one page “photo essay” — Truthbombs on Israeli TV — that makes comparisons between the situation that Palestinians are experiencing in Gaza and what the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto experienced under the Nazis. There are pictures of people fighting fires in Gaza … and people fighting fires in the Warsaw Ghetto. There are pictures of people injured in the Warsaw Ghetto … and of people injured in Gaza. There are pictures of people smuggling food into the Warsaw Ghetto … and of people smuggling goods into Gaza. It’s truly a tour de force of investigative journalism.
The argument is obscene, and continues the disgusting tradition of some supporters of the Palestinian cause to turn Jews into Nazis and Palestinians into Jews. In so doing, these propagandists not only demonize Israelis (i.e., Jews), but minimize the murderous extent and intent of Nazism’s genocidal project. In other words, such vile analogies become a form of Holocaust minimilization.
Adbusters postures as chic and eco-friendly. It describes itself as a magazine concerned with the “erosion of our physical and cultural environments by commercial forces.” In the present case, they should have been more concerned with the erosion of their own moral and ethical standards.
When we contacted the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM), from whom Adbusters got the Warsaw Ghetto images, they were shocked — and they gave us this statement: “Any comparison between the Warsaw Ghetto (or the Holocaust as a whole) and the situation in Gaza is wildly inaccurate, a gross misrepresentation of the facts and offensive to victims of the Holocaust.” Interestingly, the USHMM told us that they granted permission to Adbusters to use the pictures because they were told that the magazine was doing a story on “war crimes” that would address what happened in the Warsaw Ghetto. The USHMM has sent Adbusters a cease and desist letter demanding that the photos be immediately removed from their website. Continue Reading →
Elisabeth’s Voice: An Appeal
A Call to Mobilize the American Blogosphere in Support of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
We, the undersigned — consisting of four European blogs, one Canadian blog, and one American blog — have written this post jointly as a public call for our American colleagues to take up the cause of the Austrian feminist and anti-jihad activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.
Geert Wilders is well-known to most American conservative and libertarian bloggers, but Elisabeth’s case is not so prominent. Like Mr. Wilders, she faces trial for reporting factual information about Islam. Her “crime” was to conduct public seminars in which she described Islamic doctrine, quoted from the Koran, and explained to her listeners what she considers the dangers of Islam.
Like Mr. Wilders, Elisabeth has been charged with “hate speech” for her words. Unlike Mr. Wilders, however, Elisabeth is a private citizen, a wife, and the mother of a small child. She lacks the major resources necessary to defend herself against the well-funded organs of the state which seek to persecute her.
Elisabeth will go on trial in Vienna on November 23rd, in what is clearly a political action intended to silence anyone who dissents against the prevailing multicultural orthodoxy.
We, her European and North American supporters, have formed Elisabeth’s Voice to ensure that she is not silenced. By appealing for financial aid, we hope to ensure that her defense is well-funded. By appealing for publicity, we hope to ensure that her case is well-known, not just in Austria and the rest of Europe, but across the entire Western world.
Americans may think that Elisabeth’s is a uniquely European plight, and has nothing to do with them. But make no mistake about it: the same repression is on its way to the United States of America. As the recent cases of Molly Norris, Juan Williams, and Derek Fenton demonstrate, free speech may already be taken away by non-juridical means. Dissent is even now being silenced in schools and on college campuses, and politically incorrect expression is cause for dismissal from both public and private employment.
The same types of “hate speech” laws that were used against Elisabeth in Austria are being prepared for the United States through the work of the United Nations. At the initiative of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the UN is on the verge of requiring all member states to pass laws criminalizing “the defamation of religions, including Islam.”
Your president, Barack Hussein Obama, has indicated his support for the UN’s proposed resolution. Time is running out for all of us. If we don’t stand up now for people like Geert Wilders, Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, there will be no one to stand up for us later, when our turn comes.
Links to detailed information about Elisabeth’s case may be found at the bottom of this post, along with a link to her legal defense website where you may donate to her cause.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Elisabeth’s Voice calls on the American blogosphere to support Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in her fight for the right to speak freely.
Of the hundreds of American blogs who have not yet spoken out on behalf of Elisabeth, we appeal to a dozen of the most prominent and influential American voices:
First and foremost is Jihad Watch, which is the single most authoritative source on the web for accurate and scholarly information about the dangers posed by Islam. Its founder, Robert Spencer, has helped Elisabeth in the past through his Freedom Defense Initiative last February. We appeal to Mr. Spencer to step forward and renew his support for Elisabeth.
Atlas Shrugs has been in the forefront of publicizing and raising citizens’ awareness of the ongoing Islamization of America. Pamela Geller’s work in opposing the Ground Zero mosque is unsurpassed. With Robert Spencer, she was also a partner in the Freedom Defense Initiative last winter. We appeal to Ms. Geller to renew her efforts on behalf of Elisabeth.
National Review’s The Corner is one of the most popular political blogs in the American blogosphere. Its contributors include Jonah Goldberg, John Derbyshire, Andrew McCarthy, Jay Nordlinger, and other prominent conservative writers. We appeal to The Corner to come to the aid of Elisabeth and her right to speak freely.
Gateway Pundit is the best single non-MSM source of news and commentary in the United States. Jim Hoft is tireless and committed in his service to conservative principles and traditional values. We appeal to Mr. Hoft to add his voice to ours in support of Elisabeth.
Hot Air specializes in video reporting and political commentary, and follows the most controversial American issues with close attention. We appeal to Hot Air to extend its coverage to include the videos, images, and articles about Elisabeth’s case.
Ace of Spades HQ offers unfettered and no-holds-barred commentary on major American political issues. Ace concentrates on election politics, but also focuses on civil-liberties issues. We appeal to Ace to decry the suppression of Elisabeth’s civil liberties.
Hugh Hewitt is better known as a radio host than a blogger, but his blog was prominent during the 2004 election season. His book Blog inspired the formation of many small political American blogs. We appeal to Mr. Hewitt to inspire us again by taking up Elisabeth’s cause in the name of liberty.
Daily Pundit is one of the longest-established American blogs. Its founder, Bill Quick, has the distinction of being the man who coined the term “blogosphere”. We appeal to Mr. Quick to help bring Elisabeth’s case to prominence in the blogosphere which he so aptly named.
Instapundit is the the oldest and most famous politically-incorrect blog in America. Glenn Reynolds has enriched the new media with his wide-ranging coverage of social, technological, and political issues. We appeal to Mr. Reynolds to enrich us with his support for Elisabeth’s freedom.
Michelle Malkin concentrates on political and social issues, with a particular focus on the damage done to the United States by President Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic Party. We appeal to Ms. Malkin to publicize the damage being done to all our freedoms by the case against Elisabeth.
Power Line, like Instapundit and Michelle Malkin, was one of the major blogs that helped expose the forged “Killian memo” during the 2004 election campaign. Two of its contributors are lawyers, and the blog often focuses on legal issues. We appeal to Power Line to focus its valuable energies on the legal travesty that is the case against Elisabeth.
TigerHawk is a New Jersey blogger who covers political issues and national security. He stands in occasionally for Wretchard at the Belmont Club, and is an expert on the intricacies of behind-the-scenes machinations in American political affairs. We appeal to TigerHawk to expose the machinations of the corrupt political elites who are bringing Elisabeth to trial.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The European Union, which includes Austria, is a corrupt and undemocratic superstate with totalitarian aspirations. The oligarchy running it has determined that the millions of Muslim immigrants now living in Europe — and the millions more the EU plans to bring in — are necessary to secure the power base for the unaccountable bureaucrats who now oversee what passes for European governance.
Hence their need to silence people like Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff who speak out against mass immigration and the dangers of Islamization. To help maintain the population in a state of sheep-like passivity, Elisabeth must be silenced.
But Elisabeth will not be silenced.
The Austrian court may take away Elisabeth’s voice, but while we yet have our own, we will speak for her.
We are Elisabeth’s Voice.
We are:
Tundra Tabloids
Europe News
Politically Incorrect
The International Civil Liberties Alliance
Vlad Tepes
Gates of Vienna
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Those who wish to contribute to Elisabeth’s defense fund — which is not under her control, and may only be used to pay her lawyers — should visit the Save Free Speech legal defense website.
Previous posts about the hate speech case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff:
CAIR’s Role in Juan Williams Firing May Be Violation of Foreign Agents Registration Act
Posted by Adam Savit Oct 22nd 2010 at 8:15 am at Big Peace
By now most of the world knows about NPR’s shameful firing of Juan Williams for candidly stating his thoughts about Muslims. But what about CAIR’s role in the matter? As the most high-profile Muslim Brotherhood front organization in the United States, CAIR was quick to suggest “professional consequences” for Juan Williams’ exercise of free speech. Late last night the Center for Security Policy distributed the following press release to place the Juan Williams episode in the context of CAIR’s greater goal: to enforce “deterrent punishments” against anyone who dares discuss Islam, Jihad and Shariah Law publicly.
WASHINGTON, DC: On October 21, 2010, the Center for Security Policy sent urgent alert notices to Juan Williams, news analyst for Fox News and recently fired news analyst for National Public Radio (NPR); Vivian Schiller, President and CEO, NPR; Roger Ailes, President, Fox News Channel; Bill O’Reilly, Fox News Channel; and the Inspector General of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), regarding a possible violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), warning that they may have been the target of an influence operation by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) which resulted in the firing of Williams.
On October 18 on the Fox News program “The O’Reilly Factor,” Williams stated “I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.” Two days later on October 20, CAIR issued a press release calling on NPR to take action against Williams. CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad called Williams’ comments “irresponsible and inflammatory” and complained that “media commentators who launch rhetorical attacks on Islam and Muslims normally do not suffer the professional consequences.”
CAIR’s Awad called on NPR to “address” Williams’ statements. NPR publicly announced the termination of Williams’ contract the following day, October 21.
Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney Jr. said, “CAIR’s position that journalists like Williams should normally ‘suffer the professional consequences’ apparently created a hostile climate which may have led to Williams’ firing. Since CAIR’s beginnings in 1994, they have conducted targeted influence operations in the U.S. attempting to censor any criticism of Islam, jihad, and Islamic Shariah law. Their targets have included dozens of reporters, elected officials and ordinary citizens, but they have never registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.”
The Center’s CAIR Observatory project tracks CAIR’s apparent violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The FARA states that organizations paid by a foreign principal to engage in activities to “influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States” must register as a foreign agent and report such activity to the Department of Justice. CAIR has never registered.
CAIR received $325,000 from the Saudi Arabia-based Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to demand opposition to speech that they consider “Islamophobic.” The OIC’s “Ten Year Plan” calls on the U.S. government and other nations to enact laws “including deterrent punishments” to counter this so-called “Islamophobic” speech. The U.S. government funds NPR, which fired Williams, through Corporation for Public Broadcasting grants.
According to Gaffney, “The foreign payment of $325,000 to CAIR, and the OIC ‘Ten Year Plan’ guidance to CAIR to demand ‘deterrent punishments’ – or as CAIR’s Nihad Awad put it, ‘professional consequences’ – appear to have directed CAIR’s influence operation targeting NPR, which may have led to NPR firing Williams.”
The CAIR Observatory project documents CAIR’s receipt of $6.6 million in contributions and $54.5 million in pledges from foreign principals in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iran, over 40 cases of meetings and coordination with those principals, and nearly 100 influence operations against government agencies, military and law enforcement, elected officials, candidates, media outlets and private corporations.
Alert notices were sent to Juan Williams, Vivian Schiller, Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly, and the CPB Inspector General on October 21st, and formal notifications will be sent on October 22nd. Copies of this correspondence will be provided to the Department of Justice’s Counterespionage Section in the National Security Division, which is responsible for enforcing FARA and prosecuting violations of that act.
Dutch MP Wilders to face retrial
(UKPA) – 18 minutes ago
A court in the Netherlands has ordered a retrial before a new panel of judges in anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders’ hate speech trial.
Wilders called for the judges to be dismissed after a defence witness alleged improper conduct by a member of an appeals panel directly involved in the case.
A hastily convened panel at the Amsterdam District Court ruled that Wilders’ objections were valid. That means the trial which began in January must be repeated from the beginning with new judges.
Wilders faces charges of inciting hatred against Muslims for many remarks, including some equating Islam with fascism and violence, and others calling for a ban on the Koran and a tax on Muslim headscarves.
Copyright © 2010 The Press Association. All rights reserved.
UPDATE: From http://www.chron.com
Dutch retrial ordered for Wilders hate speech case
By TOBY STERLING Associated Press Writer © 2010 The Associated Press
Oct. 22, 2010, 10:39AM
AMSTERDAM — A Dutch court ordered a retrial Friday for anti-Islam lawmaker Geert Wilders, sending the closely-watched hate speech case back to square one before a whole new panel of judges.
The far-right politician faces charges of inciting hatred against Muslims for many remarks, including some equating Islam with fascism and violence and others calling for a ban on the Quran and a tax on Muslim headscarves.
Wilders accused judges at the Amsterdam District Court of bias and called for their dismissal after they refused to recall a defense witness who wrote on a weblog that a member of an appeals panel directly involved in the case had improperly contacted him.
A hastily convened substitute panel ruled Friday that Wilders’ objections were valid, which means the trial that began in January must restart from the beginning with new judges.
Wilders welcomed the decision.
“This gives me a new chance on a new fair trial,” he said in an e-mail to The Associated Press. “I am confident that I can only be acquitted because I have broken no law but spoke the truth and nothing but the truth and exercised my freedom of speech in an important public debate about the dangerous totalitarian ideology called Islam.”
Judge G. Marcus said the panel understood Wilders’ “fear that the court’s decision displays a degree of bias … and under those circumstances accepts the appeal.”
Since the charges were filed, Wilders’ party has become part of the Netherland’s ruling conservative government, making him one of the most powerful politicians in the nation.
Wilders’ case pits his right to freedom of speech against the right of Muslims to worship freely. Dozens of complaints had been filed against Wilders by Muslims who said they felt insulted or threatened by remarks such as “let not one more Muslim immigrate” and “I’ve had enough of the Quran in the Netherlands: Forbid that fascist book.”
Prosecutors initially refused to take the case, saying Wilders’ remarks are part of legitimate political debate. But they were ordered to do so by appeals judges, who said there was sufficient evidence for a hate speech trial.
Defense witness Hans Jansen, called as an expert on Islamic culture, wrote on his personal website that he had been approached at a dinner party by one of the appeals judges, Tom Schalken.
“He kept steering the conversation back to the Wilders case,” Jansen wrote. “He tried to convince me that his decision to drag Wilders in front of the Amsterdam District Court was correct.”
Wilders earlier had asked the court to dismiss the judges because one said that Wilders appeared to be dodging debate by remaining silent in court. That motion was rejected.
The politician asked again Friday that the judges be dismissed, calling Schalken’s contact with Jansen “scandalous.”
“A judge that’s part of my process in the sense that he decided I should be prosecuted … without blinking an eye goes to dinner and tries to convince a witness that he’s right,” Wilders told a new panel of judges convened to rule on the dismissal. “I wonder which circus I’ve landed in here.”
A conservative government that depends on Wilders’ Freedom Party to reach a one-vote majority in parliament took office this month. In return for his support, the government has vowed to turn away more asylum seekers, halve the number of new immigrants from non-Western countries, ban face-concealing Muslim garb for women in public and force immigrants to pay for their own mandatory citizenship classes.
TALIBAN WEAPONS CARRYING SHIP CAUGHT OFF S.KOREAN COAST
The Taliban and Hamas and Fattah are all terrorists
The destination for these weapons was the Palestinian Authority. Let’s see here, Taliban = al-Qaida, Taliban running weapons to the Arabs in the “Disputed Territories” = the Arab terrorists there in cahoots with al-Qaida. So an al-Qaida- Fakestinian Arabs nexus does exist. So why are the Europeans and the Obama administration so interested in doing business with Hamas & Fattah terrorist thugs who are aligned with the jihad? KGS
Trend: “Taliban elements have illegally entered South Korea, local media reported Friday citing an unidentified intelligence source, Xinhua reported. South Korea’s intelligence authorities, in collaboration with Interpol, seized a vessel carrying strategic weapons material heading to the Palestinian territories, and are now running after Taliban insurgents in the country, Seoul Newspaper said. The Taliban members targeted South Korea due to its lack of systematic control of strategic weapons, the newspaper said.”
Virgins or raisins? Answering ABC’s taqyyia
Washington Times on the firing of NPR personality
EDITORIAL: Cut off NPR
Public radio fires distinguished journalist for recognizing Muslim threat
4:19 p.m., Thursday, October 21, 2010
This undated photo released by SeniorNet shows NPR news analyst Juan Williams. NPR News say it has terminated the contract of Mr. Williams after remarks he made about Muslims on the O’Reilly Factor on Fox News Channel. (AP Photo/SeniorNet, File)
Respected National Public Radio analyst Juan Williams lost his job this week for offending liberal orthodoxy. On the bright side, no one can ever again defend NPR as being fair and balanced. This experiment in taxpayer-supported broadcasting must be put out to pasture.
“I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country,” Mr. Williams told Bill O’Reilly on Monday. “But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.” On Wednesday, NPR terminated its contract with Mr. Williams, saying his remarks “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”
A post on the NPR website said Mr. O’Reilly “has been looking for support for his own remarks on a recent episode of ABC’s ‘The View’ in which he directly blamed Muslims for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.” News flash to NPR: Muslims are to blame for the Sept. 11 attacks. The terrorists who killed 3,000 people were Islamic extremists, not “extremists who happened to be Muslim.” Their violent actions were motivated by and intended to further their hateful religious views. Denying the Islamic motivation of the attacks – a view actively promoted by the Obama administration and its surrogates – is willful and dangerous blindness to reality.
Mr. Williams has a reputation as a thoughtful liberal whose views go beyond the usual Democratic Party-approved talking points, and he’s earned deserved respect beyond those who were predisposed to agree with him. But it was no secret that NPR management was uncomfortable with Mr. Williams’ appearances on Fox News. In 2009, the taxpayer-subsidized operation demanded that Mr. Williams stop being identified as a “senior correspondent for NPR” when appearing on “The O’Reilly Factor.” This incident was a useful pretext for management to engage in some ideological cleansing. The firing looks even more suspicious coming as it does hard on the heels of a $1.8 million grant from ultraliberal sock puppeteer George Soros.
Riots in France may not be entirely about old age pension reform
Originally from the blog, Le Figaro translated by Bear
What the intefata revealed to the French by Ivan Rioufol Oct 20th 2010
Not all high-schoolers are trouble makers. But the trouble makers in the last few days, and still, this Wednesday morning in the centre of Lyon are indeed highschoolers. These come from, in the majority, city ghettos. They are hooded, do not parade to defend the retirement at 60, and not even the system for social protection that could have attracted their parents or grandparents.
They are there to un-stitch the republic, it’s culture and symbols. The most visible being the police and schools. This is how a college was set on fire. The scenes of urban guerrillas that are being reproduced much resemble the images of intefatas of young Palestinians fighting Israeli forces.
In comparison there is no reason, but in these ethnic insurrections from a youth culture, and often Muslim, the state is being rejected and being viewed as an oppressor and colonizer. The savages, each time more intrepid and organized, remind us of the failure of their integration.
This destruction counteracts the nursery rhymes that assures that France masters the immigration of its population. “Integration functions” we are assured. For example, the ancient writings of Jean Pierre Raffarin in Matignon, and Hakim Al-Karoui (Le Monde Oct 10 and 11.) There are of course, many successes that should be more celebrated. But France is, even if it displeases the ‘happy thinkers’, the only country in Europe to know such a fracture of identity, that from now on splits the youth and drives more and more in civil confrontations. Germany, which has recently acknowledged its failure in it’s multicultural approach, is not faced with these explosions of hate, and in fact, to anti-French racism. It is urgent to open our eyes to this reality, that many want to deny the more it becomes visible. What is observed in these truants, is a refusal to integrate within a society that they reject culturally. It is this challenge that the republic must deal with.
CAIR gets a media guy fired
I think this is the related fellow
UN picks well known haters of Israel to judge it in the HRC for Goldstone II
From UN Watch:
GOLDSTONE II
Questions on the Impartiality of the U.N. Tomuschat Committee
A Report by UN Watch
Submitted to U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights
Geneva, 21 October 2010
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U.N. Human Rights Council’s newly-renewed committee to enforce the Goldstone Report, headed by German law professor Christian Tomuschat, has declared Israel to be in breach of a duty to investigate “those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw ‘Operation Cast Lead’,” and the “serious allegations” that “officials at the highest levels were complicit in violations.” Specifically, the committee cited the name of Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni, who served as foreign minister during the 2009 war with Hamas.
As soon as the Tomuschat Committee released its first report in September 2010, Palestinian organizations, echoed by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, called for the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and prosecutors worldwide, to intervene. This latest U.N.-inspired “lawfare” campaign recalls last year’s successful effort by pro-Palestinian activists in Britain to obtain a court-ordered arrest warrant, on charges of war crimes, against Ms. Livni, who has since avoided traveling to Britain.
While the Tomuschat Report emphasized the principles of independence and impartiality as applicable to investigations, there are serious questions as to whether Professor Tomuschat’s membership on the panel conforms with those same principles, as required by the standards applicable to U.N. experts. To determine these fundamental procedural aspects of the Tomuschat Committee, the present report examined Professor Tomuschat’s legal advocacy work, academic publications, and other public statements concerning the Middle East conflict.
Regarding a U.N. expert’s obligation to be independent, the report found credible evidence that Professor Tomuschat performed legal advocacy work for PLO leader Yasser Arafat. It was reported that he and four other international jurists advised Mr. Arafat in 1996 on how the PLO should make its case before the U.N. and the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
Brief for Arafat
Professor Tomuschat’s claim that he “could not recall” whether his legal brief was done for Yasser Arafat was found to be not credible. Moreover, despite later opportunities to recollect the facts, and to contest the evidence during a U.N. Human Rights Council debate, and again at a U.N. press conference, Professor Tomuschat declined to do so. Accordingly, the evidence gives rise to serious questions concerning the independence of Professor Tomuschat and his committee, and, consequently, the credibility of his report.
Regarding a U.N. expert’s obligation to be impartial, the report found—from the past decade alone—more than 25 examples of statements by Professor Tomuschat that exhibited an unbalanced approach toward Israel, and, in notable instances, undisguised hostility.
The mandate of the Tomuschat Committee, as recently renewed, is to monitor and assess any domestic, legal or other proceedings undertaken by both the Government of Israel and the Palestinian side concerning the allegations in the Goldstone Report, including the independence, effectiveness, and genuineness of these investigations and their conformity with international standards.
Decided in 2002 that Israel’s Legal System Was Hopeless
Astonishingly, eight years before Tomuschat undertook to objectively and impartially perform this examination, he had already made up his mind about Israel’s system for investigations. In discussing Israel and its alleged ordering of the “systematic commission of war crimes,” he concluded that “[i]n such instances, there is little hope that the judicial system of the State concerned [i.e., Israel] will conduct effective investigations and punish the responsible agents.”
Impartiality requires that an investigator be free of any commitment to a particular outcome. Given that Tomuschat had stated, in stark and unequivocal terms, his commitment to a particular outcome—that Israel’s judicial system offers “little hope” of effective investigation or punishment of alleged violations—his impartiality on the principal question addressed by his committee are severely compromised.
Compared Israeli Actions to World War II Barbarism
One of the most peculiar and troubling findings of the report is that, on several occasions, Professor Tomuschat associated Israeli military actions not to contemporary and similar actions by American, British or NATO troops, which have resulted in many thousands of civilian casualties in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, but rather to the barbarism of World War II:
· In a 2007 essay on the previous year’s Lebanon war, Tomuschat compared Israel’s actions to the “barbarism which was the particular hallmark of World War II.”
· In a further comment on Israel, he wrote that its alleged practice of classifying targets as military even if they “only remotely serve to benefit one war party” could be regarded “as a relapse to the Inferno of World War II, when in many cases both sides acted according to the principle that the means justify the end.”
· In 2006, Tomuschat wrote that “the observer gets the impression that the Israeli Armed Forces inconsiderately geared itself toward the overall concept of the Totalen Krieges.” This concept was made most famous by Goebbels’ 1943 Total War speech. In 2007, Tomuschat again accused Israel of actions that were “close to total war, which does not take into consideration any protection needs of the civilian population.” And in an essay from earlier this year, Tomuschat wrote that Israel’s actions are “a recipe for total war.”
Israel is “State Terrorist”
An additional theme that emerges from Tomuschat’s statements is Israel as a state terrorist—morally indistinguishable from, and equally blameworthy as, those who deliberately target Israeli civilians with suicide bombs. For example, in a 2002 essay, Tomuschat singled out Israel as a prime example of “state terrorism,” of the “systematic” commission of “war crimes,” and of “crimes against humanity.” Such states, in his view, “deserve the same blame as those targeted by them.”
In a 2007 interview, Tomuschat equated Israel’s targeting of Hamas terrorist leader Ahmed Yassin with terrorism itself, saying that “Targeted killings are as reckless as terrorist attacks.” Asked if this meant “state terrorism,” Tomuschat said that “It very much leads in this direction.”
Tomuschat adopts an extreme position toward counter-terrorism in general. He has argued that the targeted killing of terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden would be “absolutely illegal under international law.” Moreover, he argues that a country targeted by terrorism needs to “discover [its] own shortcomings,” “analyze its own conduct,” and “ask itself searchingly whether it has made mistakes which have given and give rise to frustration, hatred and despair.” The only way to cure terrorism, argues Tomuschat, is for countries to show that they are “seriously committed to world-wide welfare goals without any distinction as to race, colour or religion.”
It is telling that when a German academic journal featured a debate on the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, Christian Tomuschat was the one chosen to present the side opposed to Israel.
Other examples of Tomuschat’s statements on Israel include:
· Israel is bombing “entire families”;
· Arab nations rightly feel that Israel receives “far better treatment”;
· Israel targets U.N. peacekeepers;
· Israel seeks “to reduce humanitarian law to irrelevance”;
· Israel’s policy is to “bomb a country out into a lunar landscape”;
· Israel’s peace concessions are a cynical plan for “dominance.”
Tomuschat’s Response
At the 27 September 2010 debate of the U.N. Human Rights Council, UN Watch raised several of these points in an interactive dialogue with Professor Tomuschat, and distributed an advance copy of this report to the press. The Reuters news agency concluded that Tomuschat’s reply to UN Watch was non-responsive to the issues raised, and, at a press conference, asked him once again to address the questions.
In response, Tomuschat attempted to defend his statements as nothing more than legitimate academic writings that criticized targeted killings, and as being unrelated to the Goldstone Report. At the same time, Tomuschat revealed that he had shared his doubts with U.N. authorities in Geneva about whether to accept the position; that he offered to step down from the committee, presumably at some later point after having assumed the chairmanship, if they felt he was biased; but that the U.N. authorities in Geneva, which would be the office of High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, saw no reason for it. Tomuschat insisted that his writings were “not in any way the offspring of some kind of prejudice.” Moreover, his opposition to targeted killings was only his “personal view.”
The report finds that Tomuschat’s attempted rebuttal misrepresented the prejudicial nature, degree and extent of his statements and actions, and failed to establish their conformity with his obligation to be independent and impartial.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Videos below the More Continue Reading →
Islam in Europe on the current riots:
From Islam in Europe, an excerpt. For the rest please click over and have a read:
France: Riots ‘outbursts of hate and anti-French racism’
Yesterday I posted an article about the French rioters, many of whom are disaffected youth from the ghettos. Today a reader sent me two more articles which point the finger at North-African Muslim youth.
Ivan Rioufol, of Le Figaro, wrote the following on his blog (FR):
All students are obviously not rioters. But the rioters of the past few days – and Wednesday morning again in the center of Lyon – are indeed students. They are, mainly, from the ghettos. The hooded people aren’t marching to defend retirement at 60, or even the welfare system which enticed their parents or grandparents.
They’re there to battle the Republic, its culture and it’s most visible symbols: the security forces, the schools. That’s why a school was burned down in Mans. The scenes of urban guerrilla warfare that they’re reproducing are very similar to the images of the intifada of the young Palestinians confronting the Israeli forces. Comparisons are misleading, but these ethnic insurrections of youth who are often of Muslim culture, also reject the state seen as a colonizer and oppressor. These wild people, each time more intrepid and organized, remind us of the failure of their integration.