Posted on 02/09/2006 11:55:20 AM PST by iPod Shuffle
Muslims want anti-blasphemy clause in rights body
09 February 2006
UNITED NATIONS: The president of the UN General Assembly on Wednesday took over fractious negotiations to establish a new UN human rights body, with Islamic nations wanting language against blasphemy because of the dispute over cartoons in a Danish newspaper.
Jan Eliasson of Sweden, this year's assembly president, is conducting "intensive" bilateral talks with key UN members in an effort to resolve severe splits on the new rights body aimed at replacing the discredited Geneva-based UN Human Rights Commission, his spokeswoman said.
The aim is to get adoption this month, so the new rights body can begin to function this summer. Some US Congressmen want to make a new rights body a condition for paying UN dues.
At the same time, some leading members of the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) have added conditions to the already heated debate over the rights body, diplomats and UN officials said.
The OIC, led by Turkey at the United Nations, told Secretary-General Kofi Annan that language against blasphemy should be written into the tenets for a human rights council, envoys reported. So far Western nations as well as UN officials object.
A Danish paper first published the cartoons last September, which included one of the Prophet Mohammad with a turban resembling a bomb. A Norwegian publication reproduced them, followed by newspapers in several other European countries.
The cartoons have sparked fury from Muslims and violent protests at Danish embassies and other European targets in the Middle East. Islam forbids images of the Prophet. Advertisement Advertisement
On Tuesday, the OIC Group at the United Nations issued a tougher statement than previous declarations. It said original cartoons and their reproductions "constituted an incitement to hatred and violence against Muslims" and called in European nations "to ensure such incidents do not recur."
With countries on all sides of the debate represented at the United Nations, the controversy was bound to seep through discussions on human rights and other issues.
World leaders agreed at a UN summit in September to create a new body to replace the 53-member Human Rights Commission, known for giving seats to countries such as Sudan and Zimbabwe and blocking criticism of rights abusers.
A draft resolution calls for rights criteria for candidates, geographic representation and 45 members.
Still undecided is whether a candidate would be elected by a two-thirds or a simple majority. The United States and the Europeans wanted a two-thirds vote, which would make it easier for them to stop a nation from getting a seat.
"The president intends now to hold intensive bilateral consultations through most of next week," said assembly spokeswoman Pragati Pascale.
"He doesn't want to put an artificial deadline on it, but is aware of the need to have a smooth transition before the (current) commission meets in March," she said.
Eliasson is hoping for a consensus resolution rather than calling a vote, although many envoys say that will be difficult. The landmark 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights was voted on paragraph by paragraph.
does this mean the islam crowd will not be allowed to use cartoons of the evil "jooooze"? or Christians?
or do they just want a one way right.
Hard to have a 21st century discussion with a 8th century mentality.
They should add it in right after the anti-jihad clause.
Go right ahead. Islam claims Jesus was merely a prophet. That's blasphemy and therefore Islam wil be illegal.
UN = Unwanted Nuisance
Can we also add an anti-gutter religion clause? Oh, pretty please Mr. 'martyr' sir!?
Stop making sense. You will only confuse the matter.
It's all about THEM. No one else matters. It's all about what they want and what they will do.
islam is an insane death cult.
They consider Christianity and Judaism to be blasphemy. Will they get the U.N. to ban them?
Oh, so, the U.N. is something that should be listened to and respected when it's for a Muslim cause but when muslim countries wanna do what they wanna do I.E. WMD's it's okay for them to thumb there nose at them.
Hasn't the U.N. been closed yet?
Somebody pull the plug on that dinosaur.
Anti blasphemy laws with these freaks will mean no one can say “Muhammad was a pedophile and a terrorist and that’s just for openers” No one will be able to tell the truth about the evil man who was in fact a terrorist and child rapist
No one will be able to utter “there is no Allah and Muhammad is a false prophet”
Does New Zealand want to give up it's freedoms?
My mistake, it's the U.N. they're asking. Even worse.
I've been told that "Allah", or "Al lah" means "the one" in Arabic and that Arab Christians use the word "Allah" when they pray and mean the Christian God.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/773
We, too, want to live in peace, but for the short time that we, Europeans, still have before the era of Eurabia, we want to do so in our land according to our rules, not those of islam. Jyllands-Posten wondered whether this was still possible in a country with a Muslim minority. It found out that when a country has let in a Muslim minority it has let in the Muslim majority from the rest of the globe. Today Muslim radicals set the Middle East on fire, bullying their religious minorities, because we dare to “disrespect” them, our religious minority (which our political leaders have so foolishly allowed to enter our countries), by printing mild cartoons in our newspapers.
One religion's dogma is another religion's blasphemy. This could get interesting.
Will I still be able to point out that as a Christian, their sacred prophet is just another antiChrist to me?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.