Shhhh! DonÂ’t offend the Muslims or you are going to jail for a violation of international law.

The U.N.Â’s top human-rights body approved a proposal by Muslims nations Thursday urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism.

The proposal put forward by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic countries — with the backing of Belarus and Venezuela — had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies.

A simple majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution. Eleven nations, mostly Western, opposed the resolution, and 13 countries abstained.

And remember – Muslims have repeatedly told us that any criticism of Islam, the Quran, and Muhammad constitutes defamation of their religion. This effectively means that this measure will ban any negative comments about the religion of jihad and decapitation or its false prophet. The time has come for the civilized peoples of the world to stand up and oppose such efforts to silence those who speak the truth about Islam, the greatest threat to human rights in the world today – because it is only a small step from imprisoning critics to beheading them.

But as for me, I'm proud to be an international criminal for speaking the truth.

Posted by: Greg at 11:59 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

Just a couple of quick notes about the sorts of things going on in the name of "The Religion of I'm Gonna Cut Your Head Off, Infidel Dog".

First, this example of fatherly love for a daughter.

We are all too familiar with the persecution of Christians in countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan. Yet sitting in front of me is a British woman whose life has been threatened in this country solely because she is a Christian. Indeed, so real is the threat that the book she has written about her experiences has had to appear under an assumed name.

The book is called The Imam’s Daughter because “Hannah Shah” is just that: the daughter of an imam in one of the tight-knit Deobandi Muslim Pakistani communities in the north of England. Her father emigrated to this country from rural Pakistan some time in the 1960s and is, apparently, a highly respected local figure.

He is also an incestuous child abuser, repeatedly raping his daughter from the age of five until she was 15, ostensibly as part of her punishment for being “disobedient”. At the age of 16 she fled her family to avoid the forced marriage they had planned for her in Pakistan. A much, much greater affront to “honour” in her family’s eyes, however, was the fact that she then became a Christian – an apostate. The Koran is explicit that apostasy is punishable by death; thus it was that her father the imam led a 40-strong gang – in the middle of a British city – to find and kill her.

Yep -- the incestuous rapist religious leader was at the head of a mob that planned on beheading this young woman for the "crime" of exercising her fundamental human right to determine her own religion and practice it freely. This is but one more example that flies in the face of the oft-repeated claim that Islam teaches that there shall be no compulsion in religion. If such is the case, then someone ought to tell the paragon of Islamic manhood of Islam who led that murderous mob, a religious leader in the Islamic community, about that particular tenet of the Muslim faith.

Still, Hannah Shah does seem to have come out of her experience of Islam much better than Aasiya Z. Hassan -- whose 'moderate Muslim" husband entered a plea of Not Guilty in a Buffalo courtroom to charges of murder after he beheaded her.

Of course, it isn't just those who have had the misfortune to be born and raised Muslim who are subjected to violence for daring to act in a manner contrary with the barbaric tenets of that faith and the sharia law it inspires.

A Christian minister in London who has clashed with Muslims on his television show says he was brutally attacked by three men who warned him, "if you go back to the studio, weÂ’ll break your legs," the Daily Mail reported on Sunday.

The newspaper said Reverend Noble Samuel was driving to his studio when a car pulled over in front of him. A man got out and came over to ask him directions.

"He put his hand into my window, which was half open, and grabbed my hair and opened the door," Samuel said. "He grabbed my cross and pulled it off and it fell on the floor. He was swearing. The other two men came from the car and took my laptop and Bible."

While the article goes on to describe the perpetrators as "three Asian men", please be aware that this is British PC-speak from southern Asia -- and in this case undoubtedly Muslims. After all, you can be reasonably certain that the perps were not Buddhists or Shintoists, because they would have no reason to attempt to intimidate a Christian opponent of Islam into silence.

But of course, such acts of violence against those of us who oppose the teachings of Islam and the atrocities committed in its name may soon face a different sort of retribution for the exercise of our civil liberties and human rights -- criminal charges mandated by the UN.

Egypt sought to outmanoeuvre Canada at the United Nations Human Rights Council Friday as it began pushing for a "free-speech" resolution the West says deviates from traditional norms.

Egyptian diplomats effectively hijacked the recurring measure Canada has traditionally sponsored by acting three months before their Canadian counterparts were preparing to move.

* * *

The Egyptian draft expresses "concern" at what it calls a "rise of instances of abuse [of the right of freedom of speech]," and highlights a need for "limitations [on that right]." It also calls on countries to co-operate with the Special Rapporteur by handing over "all (requested) necessary information."

"The text of the (Egyptian) resolution is pretty much what one would expect from a country that throws its bloggers in jail for no reason at all," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based monitoring group UN Watch.

At its heart, the proposal calls for laws restricting speech which insults and denigrates a religious faith -- and singles out Islam as the specific faith that needs this protection. Interestingly enough, it is written in such a way that the post you are reading would be illegal as a matter of international law -- but Muslim religious texts that refer to Christians and Jews as pigs and monkeys would be exempt, as would the repetition of the blasphemous (from a Christian perspective) claims that Jesus was a mere man, did not die on the cross, did not rise from the dead, and will return in the future to destroy Christianity and condemn Christians to Hell. On the other hand, blasphemy as defined by Islam would be illegal. So if such a measure is ever accepted as a part of international law, expect freedom of speech and religion to become meaningless concepts -- and for Americans to become subject to Islamic law and not the laws and Constitution of the United States.

Posted by: Greg at 04:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1002 words, total size 6 kb.

She obviously is getting what she has coming to her under Islamic law -- after all, she did accept an unaccompanied ride from a man who was not her relative.

Saudi judge has ordered a woman should be jailed for a year and receive 100 lashes after she was gang-raped, it was claimed last night.

The 23-year-old woman, who became pregnant after her ordeal, was reportedly assaulted after accepting a lift from a man.

He took her to a house to the east of the city of Jeddah where she was attacked by him and four of his friends throughout the night.

She later discovered she was pregnant and made a desperate attempt to get an abortion at the King Fahd Hospital for Armed Forces.

According to the Saudi Gazette, she eventually 'confessed' to having 'forced intercourse' with her attackers and was brought before a judge at the District Court in Jeddah.

He ruled she had committed adultery - despite not even being married - and handed down a year's prison sentence, which she will serve in a prison just outside the city.

She is still pregnant and will be flogged once she has had the child.

But let me remind you that we here in the West should not make any negative judgment about nations or religions that countenance such barbaric practices -- that would be hateful, ethnocentric, and imperialistic. After all, Islam had something worthwhile to offer the world a millennium ago, so who are we to judge it simply because it remains mired in that time period? WRONG! Civilized people must speak out as one against such things.

I'm curious -- where are the cries of outrage from the feminists of the world? What does Barack Obama think about this disgusting action, and will he have Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton voice our nation's revulsion at treating the victims of crime as criminals.

H/T Gateway Pundit

Posted by: Greg at 11:28 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

There is no doubt that this action by a Brazilian prelate is controversial.

A Brazilian archbishop says all those who helped a child rape victim secure an abortion are to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

The girl, aged nine, who lives in the north-eastern state of Pernambuco, became pregnant with twins.

It is alleged that she had been sexually assaulted over a number of years by her stepfather.

The excommunication applies to the child's mother and the doctors involved in the procedure.

The pregnancy was terminated on Wednesday.

It is also beyond doubt that the action was correct under the Code of Canon Law.

Can. 1398: A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

And under Canon 1398, the archbishop arguably needs do nothing – the excommunication was automatic when the abortion is procured. Indeed, it would appear to apply to all of those who materially participated in the act.

Now one might argue with the position of the Catholic Church on abortion. I do not, for abortion is always the intentional taking of an innocent human life.

One may argue with the appropriateness of the sanction. I do not – having chosen to leave the Catholic Church some years ago, I do not have a dog in the fight over what is essentially an internal regarding the discipline of the Church.

But I remind folks of one thing – excommunication is intended to be a tool of rehabilitation as much as it is an instrument of punishment. In a case like this one, the rarely applied sanction is intended to acknowledge a grievous violation of the laws of God, and to call those punished back into full communion with Rome. Rather than cruel, one may therefore argue that the sanction is a merciful one.

Posted by: Greg at 01:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.