This is interesting. And endorsed by Hillary Clinton who I thought was a lot smarter than this.
Here are a few gems from this article:
“The workshop will represent a quantum leap in media action, as it discusses, beyond rhetoric, the practical steps to address the phenomenon of Islamophobia,” the OIC said.
Resolution 16/18 aims to combat intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatisation of discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.
Well of course this is preposterous. The idea that one cannot discriminate based on belief. In essence this means that Islam and only Islam will have the right to preach genocide, war, discrimination and apartheid as it is central dogma to the belief system, while any attempt to point this out will result in a criminal charge at best. A visit from the local sharia-brownshirts at worst.
The second quote is by necessity self contradicting. Clearly the Muslim belief that only Muslims may enter Mecca or Yathrib (Medina) will be sacrosanct while say, someone else’s belief that no Muslims should work, visit or live somewhere will be illegal.
So no, it will not be a protection for persons based on religion or belief. It will be a shield for Muslims to commit any discriminatory act they wish, say whatever they wish, force complicity for whatever policy they wish while anyone else will be criminalized for having their own views. This will be the practical outcome. One only needs look at any nation where Islam has over 10% of the population and is anywhere close to “the whip hand” (as Enoch Powell is noted for reading from a constituent’s letter.)
In other words, it is highly unlikely that my firm belief in freedom of speech. In the right, no; the responsibility to mock, chastise, and criticize both anonymously (as is my right by law as a central tenet of democracy) and openly totalitarian and authoritarian and indeed, ultra conservative systems like Islam and other theocracies which remove my individual rights will not be protected under this new bill. If it did, it would be redundant by U.N standards itself according to Eleanor Roosevelt’s charter.
In fact, the Muslim nations are so very far out of bounds of this charter that it utterly boggles the mind that any UN or official from any civilized nation would entertain any sort of ‘rights’ law suggested by a Muslim nation and perhaps least of all Saudi Arabia. (although that would be highly debatable) It is critical to remember that people have rights. Beliefs do not. This should be said as a mantra by all and daily. One cannot give rights to a political system, a belief system or an alternative physics. People can have rights so long as we are prepared to fight for them. Belief systems are to be promoted or opposed as people see fit and in their own enlightened interests.
I hope all people carefully asses the risk-benifit equation of freedom and liberty vs. what they think they might lose by opposing the rapid encroachment of Islam and it’s barbarous and horrific laws on all of us.
And so for those who will defend freedom of speech, and also for those who believe in a totalitarian theocracy, I dedicate this video: