 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
deRodes
Honored Fellow Grover
| Joined: | Fri Aug 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 739 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10th, 2009 07:25 am |
|
You Can't Say That
The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.
President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president's penchant for "engagement" as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America's most treasured freedom.
For more than a decade, a UN resolution on the freedom of expression was shepherded through the Council, and the now defunct Commission on Human Rights which it replaced, by Canada. Over the years, Canada tried mightily to garner consensus on certain minimum standards, but the "reformed" Council changed the distribution of seats on the UN's lead human rights body. In 2008, against the backdrop of the publication of images of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, Cuba and various Islamic countries destroyed the consensus and rammed through an amendment which introduced a limit on any speech they claimed was an "abuse . . . [that] constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination."
The Obama administration decided that a revamped freedom of expression resolution, extracted from Canadian hands, would be an ideal emblem for its new engagement policy. So it cosponsored a resolution on the subject with none other than Egypt--a country characterized by an absence of freedom of expression.
Privately, other Western governments were taken aback and watched the weeks of negotiations with dismay as it became clear that American negotiators wanted consensus at all costs. In introducing the resolution on Thursday, October 1--adopted by consensus the following day--the ranking U.S. diplomat, Chargé d'Affaires Douglas Griffiths, crowed: "The United States is very pleased to present this joint project with Egypt. This initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration's commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."
His Egyptian counterpart, Ambassador Hisham Badr, was equally pleased--for all the wrong reasons. He praised the development by telling the Council that "freedom of expression . . . has been sometimes misused," insisting on limits consistent with the "true nature of this right" and demanding that the "the media must . . . conduct . . . itself in a professional and ethical manner."
The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."
Pakistan's Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made it clear that they understand the resolution and its protection against religious stereotyping as allowing free speech to be trumped by anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. The idea of protecting the human rights "of religions" instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion--as defined by government--to curtail it.
Even the normally feeble European Union tried to salvage the American capitulation by expressing the hope that the resolution might be read a different way. Speaking on behalf of the EU following the resolution's adoption, French Ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattéi declared that "human rights law does not, and should not, protect religions or belief systems, hence the language on stereotyping only applies to stereotyping of individuals . . . and not of ideologies, religions or abstract values. The EU rejects the concept of defamation of religions." The EU also distanced itself from the American compromise on the media, declaring that "the notion of a moral and social responsibility of the media" goes "well beyond" existing international law and "the EU cannot subscribe to this concept in such general terms."
In 1992 when the United States ratified the main international law treaty which addresses freedom of expression, the government carefully attached reservations to ensure that the treaty could not "restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States."
The Obama administration's debut at the Human Rights Council laid bare its very different priorities. Threatening freedom of expression is a price for engagement with the Islamic world that it is evidently prepared to pay.
Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a professor at Touro College, and the editor of EYEontheUN.org.
____________________
Politicians and diapers should be changed often - for the same reason!
_________________
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit. Proverbs 18:21
|
*Phil*
Opinionated Interventionist
| Joined: | Thu Apr 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 3592 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10th, 2009 04:15 pm |
|
____________________
Pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in Christo!
Galactic Signature: Blue Self-Existing Monkey
|
deRodes
Honored Fellow Grover
| Joined: | Fri Aug 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 739 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10th, 2009 05:53 pm |
|
Man, you nailed it, Phil!
Brigette Gabriel asked the question a few weeks ago: "Caliphate or Republic?"
I think we're beginning to see the answer.
This is an email I sent to my blogger friend:
Our government is following in the foot steps of past governments that fell because of paganism and debauchery.
While reading Ezekiel 32, it came to me that he was referring to Islam. Ezekiel and Daniel prophesied after Muhammad's death in 632 B.C. (Actually, Daniel was before Ezekiel.) Islam is Babylon "the great, mother of harlots and of earth's abominations. And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." (Rev. 17:5, 6)
http://www.chn-net.com/teaching/endtimes/mapmusl_ref.html
THE MUSLIM EMPIRE
ISLAMIC CONQUEST
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108559
Look who Muslims promote as 'Antichrist'
The Islamic production company responsible makes the case that the endtimes global leader, also known as "the Beast of Revelation," will actually be the Christian and Jewish Messiah.
Richardson points out: "Muslim apocalyptic tradition holds that the Antichrist, whom they call 'the Dajjal' will be blind in one eye. Numerous Muslim authors and teachers have used this one-eyed motif to point the finger at a secret conspiracy of Freemasonry / Illuminati as the source of evil behind all world ills."
Richardson's book stands in stark contrast to most other popular prophecy books of the last 40 years.
The student of Islam and the Middle East says that after decades of reading popular prophecy books and even best-selling fiction like the "Left Behind" series, millions of evangelical Christians around the world are expecting the Antichrist to emerge from a revived Roman Empire, which many have assumed is associated with the Roman Catholic Church and the European Union.
Not so, argues Richardson. His book, The Islamic Antichrist, makes the case that the biblical Antichrist is one and the same as the Quran's Muslim Mahdi.
"The Bible abounds with proofs that the Antichrist's empire will consist only of nations that are, today, Islamic," says Richardson. "Despite the numerous prevailing arguments for the emergence of a revived European Roman empire as the Antichrist's power base, the specific nations the Bible identifies as comprising his empire are today all Muslim."
Richardson believes the key error of many previous prophecy scholars involves the misinterpretation of a prediction by Daniel to Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel describes the rise and fall of empires of the future, leading to the endtimes. Western Christians have viewed one of those empires as Rome, when, claims Richardson, Rome never actually conquered Babylon and was thus disqualified as a possibility.
____________________
Politicians and diapers should be changed often - for the same reason!
_________________
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit. Proverbs 18:21
|
Roy
Quasi-Infallible Egocentric Tyrant
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10th, 2009 05:59 pm |
|
Is this what he got the Peace Prize for? This selling out on Free Speech?
"Good doggy".
____________________
"The force and degree of a man's inner benevolence evokes in others a proportionate degree of ill-will" - Gurdjieff
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
|
deRodes
Honored Fellow Grover
| Joined: | Fri Aug 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 739 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10th, 2009 07:05 pm |
|
That's what I'm thinking, too.
I don't suppose there's any way to tell whether or not the members of the Nobel Committee are Muslims?
____________________
Politicians and diapers should be changed often - for the same reason!
_________________
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit. Proverbs 18:21
|
Roy
Quasi-Infallible Egocentric Tyrant
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10th, 2009 08:46 pm |
|
DeRodes, no, I don't think that they are. I think that they gave him that crown out of their own narcissism, which he validates.
It was an act of worship. Pure and simple.
____________________
"The force and degree of a man's inner benevolence evokes in others a proportionate degree of ill-will" - Gurdjieff
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
|
deRodes
Honored Fellow Grover
| Joined: | Fri Aug 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 739 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 11th, 2009 03:31 pm |
|
I just learned that the nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize ended in Feb. 2009 - just a couple of weeks after BHO was inaugurated.
The ignoble peace prize
by Joseph Farah
Nearly everyone I talked to yesterday had the same reaction when they heard Barack Obama won the Noble Peace Prize for his stunning diplomatic efforts as president in the first nine months of office: This is a satire, right? This is a joke. This is someone's idea of high comedy. This is a "Saturday Night Live" routine that someone mistakenly interpreted as a news story. This is the lead story in the Onion, not the New York Times.
Personally, I had to read four or five different news accounts before I believed the report yesterday morning.
There was no way this could be true!
But, indeed, it was. This is the reality of the now shamefully politically correct Nobel Prize. We should realize this by now. Remember, Jimmy Carter won this award. Yasser Arafat won this award. Kofi Annan won this award. And, yes, Al Gore won this award.
So, why should it surprise us when Barack Obama, a new president with no accomplishments to his credit, wins the once-coveted prize.
There's just nothing noble any more about the Nobel Peace Prize. They ought to rename it the ignoble peace prize.
For instance, do you know who Al Gore beat out for the prize in 2007?
Irena Sendler was a senior administrator in the Warsaw Social Welfare Department in Poland in 1939 when Germany invaded. She began rescuing Jews, hiding them, providing them with fictitious identities, bringing them food, clothing and offering shelter – all at great personal risk.
When 5,000 people were dying every month in the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw, she smuggled out 2,500 children – in gunnysacks, body bags, toolboxes, potato sacks and coffins.
By 1943, the Nazis were on to her work. She was arrested, imprisoned and tortured by the Gestapo. They broke her feet and legs – but she would never give up the whereabouts of those children or the names of those who aided her in rescuing them.
She was sentenced to death, but managed to escape. She was crippled for life as a result of the injuries. But she never pitied herself. She never thought of herself as a hero.
"I could have done more," she said. "This regret will follow me to my death."
That's the kind of person who did not win the Noble Peace Prize in 2007.
Instead, it went to Al Gore. Why? Because he put together a slide show on global warming that was full of lies and was purposely designed to mislead people around the world to give up their freedoms in favor of more government control over their lives.
It's the ignoble peace prize. No other name will do.
Its image has been permanently and irrevocably tarnished for its association with terrorists, anti-Semites, evil people and fools.
The reaction around the world to the Obama award has been interesting to say the least.
Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic had it about right: "It might be smart for Obama to turn this prize down, at least until he achieves peace somewhere. Or trade for Olympics."
continued
Cartoon predicts the future 50 years ago. This is amazing insight!
____________________
Politicians and diapers should be changed often - for the same reason!
_________________
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit. Proverbs 18:21
|
*Phil*
Opinionated Interventionist
| Joined: | Thu Apr 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 3592 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 12th, 2009 01:00 am |
|
I'm not privy to the discussions going on behind closed doors but somehow I think the surprising and shocking "win" like this one arrived just in time to stave off a narcissitic breakdown of our President. There is something else here I am pondering, I hope Obama doesn't come to feel that he should score easy left-wing "progressive" points through transferring, bit by bit, American powers, sovereignty, independence, inheritance, and wealth to the eager and very hungry NWO institutions. I hope and pray that somewhere there is a wise and capable adviser, like Joseph or Daniel of Old Testament days, who will be close to Obama and will counsel him.
____________________
Pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in Christo!
Galactic Signature: Blue Self-Existing Monkey
|
Roy
Quasi-Infallible Egocentric Tyrant
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 12th, 2009 04:13 am |
|
I am watching the cartoon. Very, very good. I like the ISM thing a whole lot because it does more than just address communism.
____________________
"The force and degree of a man's inner benevolence evokes in others a proportionate degree of ill-will" - Gurdjieff
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
|
Current time is 03:49 am | |
|
|
|
|
