E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

Defamation of religions
[Dawn] THE recent tragic events surrounding the profane and provocative video insulting Islam's Prophet ((PTUI!)) have again revived tensions between the Islamic world and America and revealed the wide cultural and political gulf between them.
Sharia or no sharia: that is the question.
This gulf was evident from the statement made at the UN General Assembly by the US president on Sept 25 and the response the next day from the presidents of Egypt, Yemen, Pakistain and Iran.
Indeed.
President B.O. argued for absolute freedom of expression, asserting that he defended this right even for those who criticised him. He described the video as "disgusting" but condemned the violent reactions to it in the Moslem world especially the murder of the US ambassador in Libya. Obama opined that restraints on freedom of expression result in repression, particularly against minorities.
And so they do. Whither the Jews of the Land of the Pure? Not to mention the Christians, the Hindus, the Ahmaddis, the Hazeris...
Rejecting these premises, President Morsi said: "Egypt respects freedom of expression ... that is not used to incite hatred against anyone. ...Insults against the Prophet of Islam ... are not acceptable. We will not allow anyone to do this by word or deed."
That's nice. We do.
President Zardari expressed "strongest condemnation for acts of incitement of hate against the faith of billions of Moslems ... and our beloved Prophet Muhammad ((PTUI!))". He called for criminalising such insults against religions.
No.
In fact, 12 years ago, Pakistain, as chair of the Islamic (OIC) Group on human rights
...which are often intentionally defined so widely as to be meaningless...
 in Geneva, proposed a resolution in the Human Rights Commission entitled 'Defamation of Islam'. It called for adoption of laws to prohibit insults against Islam and other religions and beliefs, just as denial of the Holocaust had been criminalised by several European countries.
'Twere better handled with derisive laughter, but in Europe they prefer making good manners a matter of law, for some reason.
In negotiations with the West, the proposal's title was amended to 'Defamation of Religions'. It was adopted by a comfortable majority despite abstentions by several Western countries including the US.

As for almost all Moslem causes, this forceful move against insults to Islam suffered a severe setback because of the 9/11 attacks and the launch of the 'war on terror' whose targets were Al Qaeda, the Taliban and, soon, almost all bad boy Moslem groups.
And what a puzzle that is, to be sure.
Nevertheless, Pakistain, which still holds the OIC leadership in Geneva, has persisted in annually proposing and securing adoption of the resolution on Defamation of Religions in the Human Rights Council.

Three years ago, the US initiated a determined diplomatic campaign to prevent the adoption of this annual resolution.
Credit where due, President Obama.
.Its principal argument, apart from freedom of expression, was that religions cannot be defamed in legal terms. Under US pressure, support for the OIC resolution began to dwindle over the past few years -- even within the OIC group. In 2010, Pakistain had to work overtime in Geneva to ensure a simple majority. Following the latest provocations -- the US video and the French cartoons -- support for the effort to criminalise 'defamation' of religions may secure renewed and wider support in the UN.
Or it may evaporate, in light of the evidence. Let us hope for the latter.
To fast-track the process, the proposal to criminalise insults against Islam and other religions could be submitted for a legally binding decision by the UN Security Council. Pakistain is currently a non-permanent member of the Council. And, the Security Council has jurisdiction since, as President Zardari pointed out, such religious provocations "destroy the peace" and "endanger world security by misusing freedom of expression".
"Nice world ya got there. Be a shame if sumthin' happened to it."
Although such a proposal may be vetoed by the Western permanent members in the Security Council,
Yes, please.
it will serve to underline the serious intent of the Moslem world and can generate some restraints in the West against anti-Islamic provocations.

Obviously, while seeking this objective, Moslem governments will need to ensure an equal degree of probity and respect towards other religions and beliefs within their own societies.
And then his lips fell off.
Pakistain and several other Moslem countries have laws prohibiting incitement to religious hatred. Thus, the growing incidents of religious and sectarian discrimination and violence in Moslem countries, especially in Pakistain, are not only un-Islamic, they are also illegal. The destruction of one's own property and lives in response to alien insults is also pretty senseless. Such acts reinforce the portrayal of Moslems as innately violent.
Why yes, they do. How terribly clever of you to notice.
And, they erode the credibility of the case for criminalising the insults to Islam in non-Moslem countries.

It is depressing also that the US and its Western friends fail to understand or admit the root causes of Moslem anger.
We understand. We just don't care.
This is the consequence of the history of American policies which most Moslems find offensive: its pro-Israel positions in the Middle East, Mossadeq's ouster, the blind eye to Kashmire, military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, post-9/11 discrimination against Moslems. This is self-evident to common people in the Moslem world; but it is not accepted by American policymakers and not understood by the general public.
And the defeats at the gates of Vienna, the expulsion from Spain, the Crusades, U.S. Marines doing their thing from the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli... Do get over yourselves. And remember: insh'Allah. This is as God wills it.
Nor is there a willingness in Washington to admit past mistakes and rectify and rebalance failed policies. Obama's weak effort in Cairo to appear even-handed towards the Paleostinians was slapped down by Netanyahu, displaying Israel's deep political influence in the US. There has been no US apology for the invasion of Iraq on false pretences; nor for Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, and no change in continuing to fight the futile war in Afghanistan which has also destabilised and alienated Pakistain.
Poor, precious darlings. How they suffer!
It is in these circumstances that the narrative of Islamic Islamic fascisti still has resonance in Moslem countries and the popularity of those who confront the US is rising.
One daisy cutter each for Islamabad, Mecca, Medina, and Qom. We'll save the nukes to use if they don't understand the warning.
The reaction in Washington to the killing of its ambassador in Libya and the violence in Cairo seemed to indicate a blithe belief that its "support" to the democracy movements in the Arab Spring would be sufficient to win it the goodwill and compliance of the new, democratically elected governments. What it did not recognise perhaps is that these elected governments closely reflect the composition, culture and sentiments of the majority of their peoples. They are thus religiously conservative, nationalist and, so far, psychologically independent of US power.
It was indeed a mistake.
Under the circumstances, no one can discount the future spiral of fresh tensions between the West and the Moslem world. Unless conscious preventive measures are adopted, there could be new provocations in the West and further violent reactions in the Islamic countries.
There will, indeed, since the mere existence of an independent West not subjugated to Sharia is a provocation.
What is slightly heartening is that both the recent anti-Islam insults in the US and La Belle France and the violent reactions to these in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Pakistain and elsewhere were the work of fringe groups, not mainstream political parties. If governments on both sides of the cultural and political divide can adopt responsible policies to contain provocations and violent reactions on religious issues, a serious dialogue could be undertaken on how best to bridge the deep divide between Islam and the West and address the root causes of today's 'clash of cultures'.
How about this: on our side some will continue to be irreverently provocative, and on your side you learn to live with it. The alternative will in the end involve lots of rubble bouncing on your side of the line, as Barack Hussein Obama has at best only four more years.

Posted by: Fred 2012-10-01
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=353016