US & Europeans: Islamic countries want to limit free spe
The UN is looking increasingly unattractive. From the Canadian Press US, Europeans say Islamic countries want to limit free speech at the UN 5 hours ago GENEVA — The United States, Canada and some European countries said Tuesday that Islamic nations were trying to limit freedom of speech at the UN by trying to make an independent rights expert scrutinize individuals instead of dictatorial regimes. The amendment passed by the UN Human Rights Council in its rush to adjourn Friday told its expert on freedom of expression to report on people who abuse their free speech rights to espouse racial and religious discrimination. The measure, proposed by Egypt and Pakistan, passed 32-0 with the support of Islamic, Arab and African nations. European nations and some other countries abstained. "The resolution adopted attempts to legitimize the criminalization of expression," said Warren W. Tichenor, U.S. ambassador to the UN in Geneva. The document seeks to impose "restrictions on individuals rather than to emphasize the duty and responsibility of governments to guarantee, uphold, promote and protect human rights," he told the council. The United States is not a member of the council but has rights to speak as an observer. The expert should "report instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination," according to the measure. Ambeyi Ligabo, a legal expert from Kenya, currently holds the post. Slovenia's ambassador Andrej Logar, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said "the focus of the mandate is shifting from protection of freedom of expression to limitation thereto." Terry Cormier, a member of the Canadian delegation, said the resolution "turns the special rapporteur's mandate on its head." "The job of a special rapporteur is not to police the action of individuals. It is to monitor and support the compliance of states with their international human rights obligations," he told the council. The 47-nation council is dominated by Arab and other Muslim countries. Pakistani Ambassador Masood Khan, who was speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, denied that the resolution would limit free speech. It only tries to make freedom of expression responsible, he said. Egyptian Ambassador Sameh Shoukry said there was a growing trend to erode human rights law, permitting "some of the worst practices that incite racial and religious hatred." Islamic groups have been demanding limits on free speech since a Danish magazine published caricatures of Muhammad, provoking riots across the Islamic world in 2006. Ligabo told the Associated Press in an interview last month that he was against any groups of individuals inciting hatred based on religious belief. But, he said: "We advocate the rights of individuals, not of a particular belief or ideology." Paris-based group Reporters Without Borders condemned the amendment. "It turns someone who is supposed to defend freedom of opinion into a prosecutor whose job is to go after those who abuse this freedom," it said. New York-based Human Rights Watch said the resolution turns the expert's mandate into a policing function over individual freedom of expression and questioned the very basis of media freedom and independence.

The reality is that there is no middle ground available, no room for compromise. If the Islamists get there way they will be imposing Islamic rule by default on the rest of the world. No criticism will be permitted of anything or anyone Islamic. There will be no give and take, only domination. The solution? Banish Islam to the margins of society and the world stage, where it belongs. It doesn't want to participate unless it can control and that is no good for the rest of us. The UN have sleepwalked into giving them what they want. It is only now a matter of time before there is no resistance at national level left as Islam will have its supra-national hands on all the levers.

One thought that has been increasingly occurring to me, is that Islam tends to enjoy its bases in backward states and third world countries. Ergo, a majority of its adherants are pig thick: for want of a better term. Thus the arcane and wholly idiotic and restrictive practices of this so-called religion, tend to be based in a sort of medieaval time warp. Therefore trying to apply such backwards tenets to modern countries in the West must lead to social confliction. It would be no different if Druidism were to be rolled out as the New Wave "Religion", with all its trappings including human sacrifice. Personally, rather than trying to turn the other cheek, a la Rowan Williams, I believe it is high time that both Anglican and Catholic Christians declared Jihad! I mean this in a moral and social way, not a martial way, for those looking at this site from a Crime and Justice Act perspective! In other words, we, the UK as a society, are currently allowing a shower of unwashed, uneducated third world rabble, to dicatate social policy. Madness! :shock:

I mean this in a moral and social way, not a martial way, for those looking at this site from a Crime and Justice Act perspective! But Jihad is all about inner struggle and the battle to be as good a human being as possible... . . . . . . . . you know, just like the murdering kiddy-fiddler that started it all...

Here is some interesting stuff! http://www.laughingatislam.com/sacranie.html http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Paedophiles+and+Islam&hl=en&start=10&sa=N http://salibiyyah.blogspot.com/2008/01/paedophile-islam-is-religion-for-you.html

The fatwa in question, written by the late Ayatollah Khomeini, is presented below. Please read it carefully (if you can stomach it): "A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual acts such as foreplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed. A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister." A few points to ponder... This fatwa allows a grown, Muslim man to commit virtually any sexual act - including sodomy(!) - upon a child, even as young as one day old. The only limitation is vaginal intercourse. At least until she is nine years of age, the same age Aisha was when the Islamic prophet Mohammed raped her. However, if the Muslim man chooses to penetrate an infant girl, he has not committed a crime. It is only an 'infraction'. An infraction that carries no punishment other that a financial burden should the penetration cause physical damage. In that case, the Muslim man will have to provide for the girl for the rest of her life. He does not have to marry her. Just provide. Provide. In even the most humane societies, one can chain a dog to a tree and toss it food and water every few days. That is 'providing'. It isn't 'caring'. Essentially, if a Muslim man rapes a one day old infant causing permanent physical damage, his only punishment is that he has purchased a slave. There is no consideration if the girl suffers emotional or psychological damage. She doesn't matter. She is only an object of pleasure for Muslim men. Still want to integrate the 'religion of peace' in your community? It says it all really. :cry: