Articles – Page 2 – Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.)

Afghan Constitution, Women’s Rights, and the Taliban

On May 12, 2010, in Washington DC, arguably the most powerful man in the world, United States President Barack Obama, publicly supported the efforts of Afghanistan President Karzai for reconciliation with those supporting the Taliban supremacist ideology.

The basis for such a planned surrender to defiance against supporters of the Taliban, which have been amongst the most notorious human rights violators in history, was based on two points:

1. The Taliban are not all really the Taliban. President Karzai and President Obama argue that many Taliban supporters do not support the Taliban ideology. President Karzai states that “there are thousands of the Taliban who are not ideologically oriented,” and President Obama states that “the Taliban is a loose term for a wide range of different networks, groups, fighters, with different motivations.” In fact, the word “Taliban” means “students,” and many of their original recruits came from madrassas supporting their ideology. The Encyclopedia of Islam & the Muslim World describes the Taliban ideology as an “innovative form of sharia combining Pashtun tribal codes.” To describe the Taliban as anything other than the “students” of this ideology, simply ignores the very meaning of the word “Taliban.” Moreover, it places very real and disingenuous blinders about the supremacist views that Taliban “students” have.

Afghanistan Taliban "Police" Beat Women in Public - in Kabul - in 2001 - We Must Never Let Afghanistan Return to This

2. Support for the Afghanistan Constitution indicates a support for Universal Human Rights. On May 12, 2010, U.S. President Obama stated that: “the United States supports the efforts of the Afghan government to open the door to Taliban who cut their ties to Al-Qaeda, abandon violence, and accept the Afghan constitution, including respect for human rights. I look forward to a continued dialogue with our partners on these efforts.” Since 2004, a key question that has not been clearly answered is whether referencing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as something to be “observed” constitutes support of unqualified, universal human rights in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. But recent history in Afghanistan continues to make this an ever-concerning question. Inviting the Taliban back into political and public roles in Afghanistan society will only further make this question more evident, no matter how inconvenient that question may be. (It is noteworthy that not a single press question on the subject of human rights was recorded at the May 12, 2010 joint Obama/Karzai news conference.)

Afghan Parliament Calling for Death Penalty for Apostates (Photo: Gulf Times) — Afghan Parliament Calling for Death Penalty for Apostates According to "the laws in place in Afghanistan" (Photo: Gulf Times)

Let’s also be clear as well – creating a nation-state whose name embodies only one religion should be the starting point to ask questions about its legitimate support for our unqualified universal human rights and religious pluralism. Certainly, it would be a question if the U.S. was not the United States of America, but was instead renamed the “Christian United States of America.” Such a decision would rightly be a cause for global criticism and condemnation. But when a nation is named the “Islamic Republic of Afghanistan,” asking questions about its commitment to pluralism is viewed as simply being narrow minded. For pluralism to work, pluralism must be consistent. We can’t expect pluralism in some cities, some states, and some nations, and not others. Just like we can’t have borders around our unqualified, universal human rights.

The Afghanistan Constitution has two clauses that are key to consider here:
— Afghanistan Constitution, Article 3: “In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.”
— Afghanistan Constitution, Article 7: “The state shall observe the United Nations Charter, inter-state agreements, as well as international treaties to which Afghanistan has joined, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

Many Americans would be more comfortable reading Article 3 as merely a non-binding cultural statement that reflects a general more, sort of like “In God We Trust” on American coins. But that is not what Article 3 states. What Article 3 states is “no law can be contrary to… Islam.” How do you prove that and ensure equality? How do you prove that and ensure liberty? How do you prove that and ensure universal human rights? The English translation of the Afghan Constitution states that Article 7 calls for “observing” the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But the word “observe” has multiple meanings in the English language, “observe” can be viewed as “conform with” or merely “to take note of.” Which is it?

For nearly the past 6 years, human rights groups have been asking this question. But no one wants to discuss this question. However, it is a fundamental question now that Presidents Obama and Karzai are using as a baseline to measure whether Taliban supporters can be reconciled and reintegrated within the Afghanistan government, military, and political system. How else do they plan to gauge whether Taliban supporters will now support “human rights,” as President Obama stated they must on May 12? They will simply ask him if he supports the Afghanistan constitution, and expect that no one will be impertinent enough to ask the obvious question “has support for the Afghanistan constitution demonstrated support for human rights?”

With Afghan girls imprisoned by Afghanistan courts for fleeing forced marriages, with an Afghanistan government that first sought to pass a law guaranteeing marital rape (and then when global pressure became too great – quietly passing it instead as guaranteeing the right to starve your wife if you don’t get on-demand sex), with an Afghanistan parliament calling for the death penalty for someone who chooses the freedom of conscience to leave Islam because his “apostasy” was “contrary to the laws in place in Afghanistan,” the answer to this question should be clear. But this is simply what human rights groups have been saying for years, while world leaders refused to listen. How will such denial impact America’s willingness to allow a rehabilitation and political resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan?

What Others Have Said

In 2004, Equality Now reported in a December 2004 report “Action 21.3 – Access to Justice for Afghan Women” on this subject. In the Equality Now posting, the author stated: Article 22 of this Constitution provides: ‘Any kind of discrimination and privilege between the citizens of Afghanistan are prohibited. The citizens of Afghanistan — whether man or woman — have equal rights and duties before the law’. Article 3 of the Afghan Constitution provides that ‘no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.’ It is critical that the Supreme Court ensures that its judgments harmonize these provisions of the Constitution rather than impose singular interpretations of the Koran that are harmful to women and do not respect the constitutional right to equality between men and women.”

In 2006, Equality Now reported in Action 21.4, that “Following her visit to Afghanistan in 2005, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women noted that one of the principal causes of pervasive gender-based discrimination and violence against women in Afghanistan is the lack of enforcement of the rule of law. The Special Rapporteur particularly noted that the ‘diverse and contradictory interpretations’ of Sharia Law tended to ‘undermine the establishment of any universal code of conduct’ and worked to legitimize the violation of women’s rights in Afghanistan.”

In 2007, Equality Now reported in Action 2.15 that “Afghanistan ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in March 2003 and adopted a new Constitution in January 2004, which provides for equal rights for women and men before the law. However, women continue to be violently targeted in Afghanistan and denied equal rights and equal protection of the law. The United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) published research in 2006 documenting systematic abuse of women’s rights in Afghanistan, including violence against women instigated by state actors such as the army and police, including forced prostitution, forced marriage, rape, kidnapping and sexual assaults. In June 2007 two women journalists were murdered with many others receiving death threats. On 25 September 2006 Safia Ama Jan, the southern provincial head of Afghanistan’s Ministry of Women’s Affairs, was murdered outside the front gate of her Kandahar home. In recent months a large number of schools for girls have been forced to close after being attacked. ”

In 2008, Equality Now reported in Action 2.16 that “Afghanistan ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in March 2003 and adopted a new Constitution in January 2004, which provides for equal rights for women and men before the law and protects freedom of speech. However, women continue to be violently targeted in Afghanistan and denied equal rights and equal protection of the law and Malalai Joya remains suspended from parliament.”

In July 2009, the United Nations reported that “Afghan women have limited freedom to escape the norms and traditions that dictate a subservient status for females….Violence, in its acute form, makes it presence felt in widespread lawlessness and criminality. Findings reveal that Afghan women are subjected to an increasingly insecure environment. Women participating in public life face threats, harassment and attacks. In extreme cases, women have been killed for holding jobs that are seen to disrespect traditional practices or are considered ‘un-Islamic.'”

What Are We to Believe, President Obama and President Karzai?

Are we supposed to believe that all of this is because all of these Afghanistan citizens, courts, state actors — ALL reject the Afghanistan constitution?

Or should we instead recognize that they understand the Afghanistan constitution better than Americans do, and the only relevant clause is “In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam,” based on whatever interpretation that individual, the court, that state actor, and even that terrorist, may have of how they view and interpret “Islam?”

With this proven history of inconsistency within the very Afghanistan government and state institutions, and throughout its citizenry on the issue of what “human rights” even mean, let alone what universal human rights women and all human beings deserve, how can we expect “reconciled” Taliban to now “respect human rights” in a way that could possibly mean anything?

Afghanistan President Karzai and U.S. President Obama Meet at White House (Photo: AP/Evan Vucci)

This is an inconvenient question for an America tired of war, and tired of Afghanistan’s problems. It is an inconvenient question for an America with financial and plenty of other problems of its own. Even the press is tired of it, as seen by their total unwillingness to ask a single question at the May 12, 2010 press conference on human rights or women’s rights, even when yet more girls’ schools were poison gassed the day before in Afghanistan. They really would rather not discuss this inconvenient question about human rights. It is a distraction from the tactical and detailed topics that are less troubling to discuss. With growing threats from Pakistan and Iran, some even view that Afghanistan is simply something Americans can no longer afford to pay attention to.

But we have another choice – the ability not to be driven only to a path of ultimate failure, but to address conflicts honestly and show the courage of our convictions and our support to human rights to the world.

Instead of fleeing from Afghanistan as a hopeless disaster, we could also choose to honor the sacrifices of the lives of American men and women by challenging Afghanistan to become an example instead.

America: Learning from Our Own History of Supremacism

For American readers, imagine in 1961, if President John F. Kennedy decided not to challenge the ideology of the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Imagine if he chose instead to convince us that really that the KKK was just a “loose term” for a lot of people who are uneducated, come from broken homes, and have had career and financial challenges, and instead believed that “there are thousands of the KKK who are not ideologically oriented.”

Moreover, imagine if President John F. Kennedy then decided to encourage members of the Ku Klux Klan to leave that terrorist organization by offering them the incentives of government jobs, even positions in the U.S. military and police forces, if they accepted a U.S. Constitution that calls for equal rights.

Where would America have ended up if we never faced the ideology of white supremacy and defied it as a nation?

Will America Learn from its own lessons in Defying Supremacism?

America’s documented commitment to equal rights were part of its founding identity from its very Declaration of Independence. Yet despite this, slavery existed. Despite the declaration that “all men are created equal,” a form of racial apartheid existed throughout many parts of America even into the 20th century. In 1961, the United States had been a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for 13 years – and still racial supremacism and apartheid style laws of racial segregation existed in many parts of America. The Declaration of Independence was not enough and our Constitution was not enough. We had to amend our very Constitution to guarantee the racial equality that was inherently promised in our national identity since July 4, 1776. America has made more than its share of mistakes. We have done things the hard way, the wrong way, many, many times before. Haven’t we learned from our lessons and national struggles in defying supremacism?

If we KNOW this, and we have seen, with our eyes and our own history, what it takes to defy supremacist ideologies, why do we believe that Afghanistan will somehow be different? Why do we believe that agreeing with the Afghanistan government’s plan to “reconcile” with Taliban supporters who will claim to support the Afghanistan constitution and “human rights” has one iota of credibility, without challenging the Taliban’s supremacist ideology?

We know better. Too many are too tired, too distracted, and too discouraged to acknowledge what we know. But we have also learned another lesson in history that problems delayed are not problems denied. Such problems continue to plague us over and over again, and the mistakes that we make in Afghanistan will also set expectations for making similar mistakes in other parts of the world.

Another Choice for Afghanistan

What if instead of surrender and abandoning the sacrifices of so many in Afghanistan, we chose to make a stand for freedom and human rights? What if we challenged Afghanistan to accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights not just as an “observation” in their constitution, but as fundamental to their law and acceptance of pluralism in a new nation of Afghanistan – not just for Muslims but for all Afghan citizens? What if denied accepting any reconciliation of the Taliban until a new plan of national re-education was conducted explaining that Afghan citizens would accept pluralism, women’s rights, and human rights as part of their identity of as a new nation of Afghanistan?

What if all our efforts were not towards just an “Islamic Republic of Afghanistan,” but instead to a “Free Republic of Afghanistan?”

The managers of our resources and our tactics will argue that such choices are impossible, unacceptable. They will argue that the die is cast for Afghanistan and that choosing another path is impossible.

But as we have seen wherever we have not challenged such supremacist ideologies, we continue to see a drip, drip, drip affect of hate, abuse of women and religious minorities, and international terrorism continue to grow.

We have given billions of dollars to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, but very little of our own lessons on challenging supremacism and our own commitment to universal human rights. The price that we continue to pay is a growing terrorist threat to the American homeland, to Pakistan, and the world from the very same Taliban ideology that in Afghanistan, U.S. President Obama says on May 12, 2010, he is willing to open the door to “reconcile” with. This is the very same Taliban ideology that reportedly shaped a recent terrorist who plotted to attack America in New York City’s Times Square.

Seeking a different direction for Afghanistan would be very painful, costly, and difficult.

But in the long run, won’t the alternative be even worse?

If we legitimize those who support the ideology of the Taliban to “reconcile” with the Afghanistan government, what have we learned?

Let us choose instead to be Responsible for Equality And Liberty.

Where Our Universal Human Rights Apply...

Policy Against Terrorism Begins with Human Rights

Today, at the White House, supporters of R.E.A.L. will be asking U.S. President Obama and Afghanistan President Karzai to reconsider the planned discussions on “reintegration” and “reconciliation” of Taliban supremacists in Afghanistan, including suggestions to allow them to return to the police and armed forces.

The reason that the United States of America is in Afghanistan today is because of the September 11 attacks on America by Al-Qaeda terrorists, with the Afghanistan Taliban providing a safe haven for such terrorist training and plots to kill thousands of Americans. The statutory reason that the United States is in Afghanistan is based on the September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which gives vague terms around what the American military can do in response to those associated with the 9/11 attacks.

But if we have learned anything from the 9/11 attacks, it is that there are those in the world who deliberately and consciously seek to reject our unqualified, universal human rights. There are those who reject our freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of press, and our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There are those who reject a pluralist society that respects our differences, but ensures our unity in an omniculture of universal human rights.

Any foreign or domestic policies that ignore human rights and that ignore women’s rights (half of humanity) are bad decisions, and directions that we will not support.

We have seen a steady stream of HATE against women in Afghanistan, some of it by the Taliban, and some of it by the Afghanistan government. Such hate begins with a conscious and deliberate rejection of our unqualified, universal human rights. Such hate and rejection of human rights is the same root cause of terrorist tactics whether they are domestic or international. This is what American and Afghanistan government policy must first address.

On May 6, 2010, another Taliban attack on government office resulted in the death of an Afghan woman. Recently, a woman was murdered in Kandahar as she left work. Women’s rights activist Roona Tahrin regularly gets death threats in Afghanistan, and another women’s rights activist was murdered a year ago. On April 24, 2010, girl’s schools in Kunduz province was attacked with poison gas, sending nearly 90 girls to the hospital. On May 4, 2010, there was another poison gas attack on a girl’s school in Kabul, putting another 20 girls in the hospital. Then once again, on May 11, 2010, there was yet another poison gas attack on girl’s schools in Kunduz and Kabul, with so many girls coming into the hospital a doctor told Reuters that they couldn’t give an accurate count of those affected.

So when Afghanistan President Karzai repeatedly calls for talks and negotiations with the supremacist Taliban, it is understandable why some women’s rights activists ask who is the “good Taliban,” why other women’s rights activists feel women’s rights are being forgotten, and why other women state that Afghan President Karzai is “failing women.”

But the rejection of human rights for women and others goes beyond the Taliban. The Taliban are a reflection of such hate also found in the Afghanistan government and society.

In March 2010, Reuters reported on Afghan girls who have been imprisoned in Kabul for the “crime” of avoiding forced marriages and “moral crimes.” Reuters also reports on one 16 year old girl “sold, raped and jailed, a girl faces Afghan justice” – a girl raped while incarcerated. The United Nations has repeatedly warned about that violence, abuse, and rape of women is “widespread” in Afghanistan, it warns about how women are bought and sold in Afghanistan, and it warns about “a culture of impunity that leaves such crimes unpunished.” Just a year ago, the Afghanistan government sought to pass a bill legalizing marital rape for Shiite Muslims; an “amended version” permitting starvation of women was quietly passed in August 2009. One cleric, Mohammad Asif Mohseni, told the media that such rape was defended as part of Afghanistan “democratic rights,” and asked “”Westerners claim that they have brought democracy to Afghanistan. What does democracy mean?”

In the United States, our government leaders apparently cannot answer that question. Richard Holbrooke complains that Americans should not expect a “perfect democracy” in Afghanistan. The U.S. has provided a graphic (see larger size) that illustrates its “strategy” in Afghanistan. Notably, it is not centered on human rights or women’s rights.

In Afghanistan, Americans must ask where is the policy for human rights? Where is the policy to address the root causes of terrorism?

What are we fighting for?

Human rights and women’s rights are not an afterthought, not a marginal issue for human peace, and certainly not inconsequential in addressing the ideological basis for terrorism tactics.

We will have no security without human rights. We will have no security without women’s rights.

We will have no conscience if we abandon the Afghanistan women to hate, misogyny, violence, and yes – the TERRORISM – of the Taliban and those who view women as less than human beings.

When we abandon the victims of terrorism, we enable terrorists ourselves.

Choose Love, Not Hate. Love Wins.

Sudan’s Darfur and “A Deal with a Devil”

A Deal with a Devil
by Mohamed Yahya, Damanga

We are saddened by the so-called Doha Peace Negotiations that were signed in Qatar last week between Al-Bashir of the Sudan Government and other groups. This included Dr. Khalil Ibrahim from the JEM- Justice and Equality movement and Dr. Tigani Sessi from the smaller LJM- Liberation Justice Movement.

This was a very controversial agreement that completely neglected the concerns of the majority of Darfuri people. JEM and LJM should have rejected any deal with the ICC Indicted war criminal Omar Al-Bashir. Al-Bashir’s arrest warrant was announced by the prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo on March 4, 2009.

The Darfuri people can’t accept such deals with a government that has slaughtered more than 450,000 innocent civilians in Darfur alone from 2003 to date. This is a Sudanese government that has not respected its own people or any agreement made before – from South Sudan to Darfur and Beja at the Eastern Sudan.

Peace and human rights are not mutually exclusive choices. We know that real peace begins with respecting our human rights, respecting justice, and respecting human dignity. The process for peace will begin with justice and human rights for the Darfuri people.

We strongly believe that no peace was honored before, especially when made with splintered rebel groups, and when the main core demands of the Darfuri people were not addressed.
•   Both parties deliberately ignored even mentioning justice and the accountability in their negotiation agenda.
•   They ignored the disarmament of the marauding Janjaweed militias, who are the allies of Al-Bashir government in Darfur.
•   They failed to address the replacement of those settled in the villages of the IDP’s and refugees.
•   Moreover, they failed to recognize that security and ceasefire agreements were never honored by the Al-Bashir government.

Al-Bashir took advantage of the Doha meetings and ordered his Janjaweed and Sudan Popular Defense Army-to attack the “Jabel Marra” area by airplanes and tanks with massive campaign and destroyed more than 36 villages within a week. This resulted in more than 400 causalities, and over 100,000 displaced from the whole Jabel Marra area.

Despite all of this destruction, Al-Bashir has been allowed to continue violating the Darfuri people’s human rights of free expressions, movement, assembly, and life itself. The people of Darfur are targeted inside and outside their homes and forced to register to vote for Al-Bashir even by using their food distribution cards. Otherwise, no food or aid is allowed. All kinds of Intimidation and brutal harassment are used against Al-Bashir’s opponents.

It is immoral that the whole civilized world leaders are watching this shameful scenario of “honoring the criminals” of the Sudanese government beginning with Doha peace negotiations that seek to legitimize Omar Al-Bashir, who is a man worse than Hitler and Saddam Hussein, coming to power in a fake democracy.

It is also terribly sad to see the U.S. government and the U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan, General Scott Gration, giving support to Al-Bashir and his rogue NIF-National Islamic Front regime that hosted Osama Bin Laden in the Capitol Khartoum in early 1990’s for almost five years. This is the same Sudanese government that has terrorized its own people, as well as hosted international terrorists.

It is unfortunate to see the Obama administration, United Nations, African Union, Arab Leagues, European Union, and the Islamic world to come together this time to support this genocidal regime, when they never came together before to support the victims of Darfur. Where has such world unity been to restore justice and human rights in Sudan for a lasting peace? Darfur has largely been abandoned, while the Darfuri people’s human rights have been taken away. Too many have accepted a policy to “let Darfur die.”

The most shocking phenomena was that even those leaders, such as Dr. Khalil in JEM and Dr. Tigani Sessi of LJM, have shown a lack of leadership because of their power ambitions, their narrow visions of the people’s needs, and their unwillingness to prioritize human rights and justice for all of the Sudanese people. At the Doha peace negotiations, these leaders have acted in their own interests, regardless of what the ultimate results will be. Their focus has instead been their personal selfish goals wrapped by tribal circles and political Ideological agendas.

Dr. Khalil was known as a former Mujahedeen leader who fought against our own Christians in South Sudan, inspired at that time by Dr. Hassan El-Turabi. This was before he was being kicked out of power by Al-Bashir, which was the main reason for Dr. Khalil to escape Khartoum to form JEM. It is an issue of personal vindication for him, rather than Darfur cause for him. Both Al-Bashir and Dr. Khalil are old friends and Students of El-Turabi, so they are simply” two faces for one coin” of NIF/NCP.

In addition, Dr. Tigani Sessi of LJM has not been engaged in actively defending Darfur since he left Sudan over 20 years. He has not been popular even with his own FUR Tribe. He was only imposed and recommended by the Sudan government to lead a small group of the LJM at the Doha negotiations. He was engaged because he is willing to listen to the genocidal regime of Al-Bashir and could easily used to pass their agenda through him against the people of Darfur. He has not demonstrated strength and hasn’t fought with the rebels anywhere.

This peace is nothing more than a ceremony as many have said. The people of Darfur can’t afford another war, but that will be imminent. The new coalition of the National Islamic Front will turn the war against their own people of Darfur.

A “Darfur versus Darfur” war is on the horizon. The Khartoum Arab government will claim to steer clear of such a war, while they also fuel the upcoming phase of the war between the SLA- Abdulwahid faction and other possible alliances from those Darfuri rebels rejected the deal in Qatar. “Slaves against slaves” will be the Al-Bashir government’s policy of divide and rule.

The future may also see other possible wars with the same new Islamic alliances against Southern Sudan, even if the South secedes due to the referendum that is scheduled for 2011. There’s no guarantee for any lasting peace in Sudan since this NCP/NIF remains in power in the country.

History is repeating itself again In Sudan and it could be for the worst. This is especially true for
Darfur and other marginalized areas that have never enjoyed any significant representation to share power or wealth in their own country since the independence of Sudan in January 1956 from United Kingdom.

This time, the worst form of colonialism will be from fascists and fundamentalists within Sudan itself. Mr. El-Turabi will have renewed influence with Dr. Khalil’s arrival to Khartoum or Darfur. Mr. Sadiq al-Mahdi, the former Prime Minister and “Umma Party” leader that pulled out of the power in Al-Bashir’s June 1989 coup, will also have renewed influence and power. Dr. Tigani Sessi, who signed on behalf of the LJM in Doha, will be back to Khartoum. It is very sad news for major Darfuri people who will never forget what Sadiq al-Mahdi and Tigani Sessi did to them while the Umma Party was in power. The Umma Party has created the first conflict in Darfur when It favored Arab tribes in Darfur against the black African tribes, and created special militias called in that time ” Al-firs an.” “Al-firs an” is an Arabic version of the term “the Knights” in English.

Weapons were provided by Sadiq al-Mahdi to arm this “Al-Firs an” militia, which started the attacks against the black farmers while they grow their crops These weapons came from the Umma defense minister and General Fadlalla Burma Nasser, who at that time was part of the Arab tribes. The Arab Firsan militia drove their animals into the farms and started shooting anyone who blocked their animals. It was the beginning of the Darfur war era during that time in the early 1980’s .

Then the regional conflict was exacerbated by the war between Libya and Chad. Thousands of pro-Libya fighters (the so-called “Arab Gathering Forces,” “Arab Islamic Army Corps,” “Olad Salih Group”) were allowed by the Sadiq al-Mahdi government at that time to use Darfur territory to attack Chad from East. This happened while Libyan troops were attacking Chad from Libyan borders with Chad. The war between Chad and Libya was known as the “Ouzo War,” because both Libya and Chad claimed the Ouzo area belongs to its territory

After being defeated by Hussein Habry of Chad, these forces scattered in the area from Chad to Darfur and Central Africa looking for safe haven. This situation contributed to the disaster of extensive distribution of cheaply sold arms to Arab herders in the area; some Arab herders were given such weapons as free gifts as well. This helped to create the chaos in Darfur from that time, with the Umma Party playing a big role in that conflict.

When Al-Bashir came to the power by coup in 1989, he recruited these same elements, reorganized them, trained them, and paid them salaries, and provided them logistical support to use against the same black Darfuris from Massaleit, Fur, Dajo, Zagawa, Gimir Tama Bargo and other minorities.

Under Al-Bashir’s rule, the only difference was that the militia’s name of Al-Firsan was changed to “Janjaweed,” and the renamed “Janjaweed” militia began using more sophisticated weapons and trucks, in addition to horses and camels.

Most Darfuris will never forget these grievances. They will never forget how Sadiq al-Mahdi of the Umma Party humiliated them in many ways during his two terms ruling Sudan in 1964 and 1986. Mr. Mahdi never made any development in Darfur; no schools, hospitals, or even wells for water were built in Darfur. He advised Darfuris to send their children to” Koranic Khalawas” instead of schools, to prevent them from learning about science and politics, so that would not have the chance to understand their human rights or develop the ambition to demand power for Darfuris.

This is the same mentality of all Arabs of the ruling parties in Sudan. It is their ultimate policy to keep the black African Sudanese — from Darfur to South Sudan, Nuba Mountains, and the Beja of East — as illiterate and marginalized so that it will be easier for them to rule over forever.

These tactics have not changed and have only become worse with the Al-Bashir government. They are all the same: NCP, Umma, DUP, Communist, Bathists, and the rest of Arab’s current new parties. Sudan and Darfur doesn’t need more Mahadis, Turabis, Communists, or Islamists.

Let the people of Darfur and the rest of those marginalized people in Sudan have justice first, then they will decide who they will choose to govern them. Flawed peace agreements have been beginning with Abuja in 2006 with Sudan and SLA splintered factions of Arkuwi Mennawi in Doha. Such flawed peace agreements choose a version of peace that ignores justice and ignores human rights. There is no lasting peace that does not begin with justice and human rights. The only ones who benefit from such flawed peace agreements are the Sudanese genocidal government that seeks to stay longer in power to kill more people and destabilize the entire region.

The US and the United Nations along with the international community must stop the Sudan government from committing more atrocities. We need to hold them all accountable, instead of promoting them. No peace will be without justice, and the only way for long lasting peace in Sudan would be through Justice.

Thank you.

Mohamed Yahya, Damaga

Mohamed Yahya, Executive Director of Damanga

=========================================

Resources:

– Damanga Web Site

– U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Web Site on Sudan

– Damanga Mission

– History of Damanga

– Mohamed Yahya Biographies (Damanga, USHMM)

– “The Meaning of Damanga”

A Secret Revealed on American Renaissance

The “white nationalist” “hate group” VDARE once again posts from another “white nationalist” “hate group” leader, “white supremacist” Jared Taylor of “American Renaissance (AR).”

In his latest complaint “Reap the Whirlwind” on the VDARE “hate group” web site (and others), Jared Taylor bemoans how few have stood up to criticize those hotels that chose not to host his group’s event in February 2010 to promote “white nationalist” hate against their customers of other races.

In Jared Taylor’s latest article, he states that Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) was one “of the groups that claimed responsibility for shutting down the AR conference.” As I have written and stated repeatedly, R.E.A.L.’s goal was to educate hotels and the public about the AR conference in February and we repeatedly asked for the opportunity to offer a counter-message to American Renaissance’s message of racism and hate, with our message of racial harmony and love. We sought to counter American Renaissance’s message attacking diversity, with our message showing the strength of our diversity in America itself.

Nor was there any “suppression” of American Renaissance’s right to assemble. They had every right to assemble as I did to reach out to the public on February 19. In fact, R.E.A.L. invited them to join us and the rest of the public at our Columbia Heights event in Washington DC right out in public view. American Renaissance and Jared Taylor chose not to show up, just like their supporters failed to show up, except for two frightened youths from Occidental Dissent (one hiding his face behind a black bandanna) that cowered at another street corner.

Despite this, Jared Taylor is calling for an investigation into who is responsible for the rejection of American Renaissance’s message of racial hatred. I can help him with such an investigation. In fact, R.E.A.L. did not “shut down” the AR conference, nor did any of the other “groups” that Jared Taylor blames.

I will reveal the “secret” to Jared Taylor here as to who is really responsible for hotels and the public rejecting the message of hate that the American Renaissance sought to promote:

— It was America itself.

Land of the Free, Home of the Brave — America Needs No "Renaissance" from the Truths that we hold self evident - that All Men Are Created Equal...

This is the real adversary that Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, VDARE, and their supporters simply cannot tolerate. What those of who support “white nationalism” never grasp is that it was never “one person” or “one group” that rejected and protested against the message of racist hate from “American Renaissance.”

America itself has simply had enough of such racist hate in our nation.

America knows that it doesn’t need a “renaissance” from the truths that we hold self-evident — that All Men Are Created Equal — no matter what the American Renaissance group seeks to believe.

America wants no “renaissance” of “white nationalist” hate. America wants no “renaissance” of racism. America wants no “renaissance” that disparages blacks and Hispanics. America has grown up, and has lived through those dark days. America has no intention of going back to the “bad old days.”

Such support for human equality and rejection of racism is a fundamental part of the very declaration of what it means to be an American. This is what those who are blinded by racist hate cannot comprehend.

When I spoke to hotels, their very senior management, and public relations department, I spoke about the TRUTHS that we share – that all men and women are created equal – and that our diversity is a part of our acceptance of such truths. This is why most businesses have public diversity programs. Not because of pressure. But because it is the RIGHT thing to do. It is the AMERICAN thing to do.

So when R.E.A.L. and myself contacted senior decision makers on this issue, that is what we spoke about – the TRUTH. We never made any threats; we reject, condemn, and would help in prosecuting those who made any threats. It is not threats that drive business decisions, but it is businesses’ understanding and respecting ALL of their customers, and the American values that their customers have.

While I am disappointed that businesses did not offer R.E.A.L. an opportunity to have a counter-message event, they consistently rejected “white nationalist” racial hate.

These businesses did so EVEN WHEN IT COST THEM MONEY.

Their conscience was greater than their drive for profit.

Their commitment to all of their customers’ respect and human dignity was more valuable than racist money.

Yet you still don’t get it.

The very concept of America’s definition of its identity – inherent in our very national declaration escapes you. Americans already have a consensus on equality. Americans already have a consensus on racial hate. Americans already have a consensus on hate such as “white nationalism.”

We don’t need an army of “activists” to tell Americans what they already know.

And American businesses are ready to put their MONEY where their values are. Not once, not twice, not three times, and not even just four times. All different people, all different companies, all different races and backgrounds. And not all of them were corporate businesses… some were private businesses — with no shareholders, no corporate boards who would be embarrassed. But they had one thing in common — they were Americans who share the truths that we hold self-evident — that ALL men were created equal.

No they made their decision not because pressure by others, but guided by the compass of their conscience as Americans.

America and the businesses RUN by Americans REJECT racial hate and “white nationalist” hate. They stand tall, at their own expense, even being attacked, and when they don’t expect anyone to appreciate it – in SUPPORT of human equality, dignity, and diversity.

They Choose Love, Not Hate.

Love Wins.

======================================

Postscript

Jared Taylor quotes the Bible in the conclusion of his article, warning that those who defy “white nationalism” will “reap the whirlwind…”

While R.E.A.L. is a secular organization, we don’t believe that only “white nationalist hate groups” should be empowered to quote religious scriptures.

So our reply to you, Jared Taylor, is a quote from the same Bible that you quote:

John 13:34 “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.”

Egypt and the Undiscovered Country

As the Voice of the Copts’ Ashraf Ramellah and others have pointed out, “Christians of Egypt, also known as Copts, have been living under discrimination, oppression and persecution for almost 1430 years.”

A young nation such as the United States of America can barely grasp the concept of such a lengthy and protracted oppression of any group. America itself is only 234 years old. The international Declaration of Universal Human Rights was created just over 60 years ago. So I can only imagine the great frustration, the great discouragement, and the great resentment and anger that any group that has been persecuted for over a millennium would have today. Furthermore, I can also only imagine the great skepticism that any group persecuted that long would have in hearing suggestions from American human rights activists today.

But sometimes “out of the mouths of babes” comes great strength and wisdom. So I have a message today, on behalf of our organization here, Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) – not just to stand in solidarity with the oppressed Copts in Egypt – but also a message to the Copts’ oppressors.

To both the Copts and to their oppressors, I invite you to consider seeking a path to a new Egypt, to an Undiscovered Country, where freedom of religion, where freedom of conscience, where our universal human rights of equality and liberty, are not just special privileges, but are guaranteed rights for all human beings.

I invite you to pursue a path where human rights and peace are not considered as opposite choices, but are recognized as equal priorities. And I invite you to pursue a path where we leave hate in our past, and choose love for our future.

America may be a young nation, by Egypt’s standards. But for a young nation, we know a lot about hate. We also know about a lot about defying hate, and standing up for our fellow human beings’ universal human rights. America has and will continue to make a lot of mistakes; I don’t suggest for one second that we have a perfect record on human rights ourselves.

But what I do believe is that there have been instances in America’s history that both the Copts and the Copts’ oppressors can use to learn from in going forward in finding peace and human dignity in Egypt in the future.

In America, we have struggled with a terrible disease of hate known as white racial supremacism that sought to deny non-white Americans voting rights, employment, with nationwide discrimination and even attacks on non-white houses of worship. Our nation was divided and fought a Civil War over this disease. Our nation had to come to grips with a 4 million member terrorist organization, the Ku Klux Klan, over this disease. One hundred years after our national Civil War, we had to fight yet another war of ideas in American places of work, public institutions, and schools for black American civil rights. The black and other non-white victims of such oppression held rallies and protested, they sought leaders, and demanded their rights, not unlike what the Copts in Egypt are doing today.

But the ANSWER to this problem did not come only from the protests of the minority who were oppressed. Rather it also came from the majority who finally came to realize that such oppression was THEIR problem and was THEIR responsibility to change. In my own lifetime, with my own eyes, I have seen America come from a nation where black Americans were widely hated and disrespected by many, with businesses that would only serve “white clientele,” to a nation where a black American is President of the United States.

My message to Egyptians, and especially to Egyptian Muslims, is to recognize that is the POWER of love. It could change America. It can change Egypt and the world.

Egypt is not America. I know that. But we are all human beings. The human beings of any religion, any race, are still the same human beings as we are. The lesson that young America has for Egypt is that even the oppressors of others can realize our shared humanity, and find the humility and shame to admit when they have been wrong. The lesson that young America has for Egypt is that there is always hope for any of us to change and choose love, not hate.

The lesson young America has for Egypt is that any of us can set a path for the Undiscovered Country where our human rights and dignity are inherent in our national identity, including in Egypt.

So my message to Egyptian Muslims today is don’t look to just the Coptic victims of oppression for the solution to peace and human rights in Egypt. Don’t expect only the Copts and their diaspora around the world to deal with this problem.

Egyptian Muslims – this is YOUR problem and YOUR responsibility. Egyptian Muslims – the change in Egypt and your government to end the millennium of oppression against Copts – begins with YOU. Hate hurts us all. Rejecting hate is our shared responsibility as human beings, not only in Egypt, but also in all of our shared Earth.

Some will say that it is impossible for Egyptian Muslims to assume such responsibilities, and state that Egyptian Muslims cannot recognize our universal human rights, but only those “rights” dictated by the OIC-created Cairo Declaration that only recognizes rights under “Sharia.” A decision to accept our unqualified universal human rights is also a choice that Egyptian Muslims must make, if they seek to be part of the brotherhood and sisterhood accepting such shared human rights. There is no mandate to oppress Egypt Copts that all Muslims must follow. There is no mandate of “Sharia” in the Qur’an other than choosing the “right path.”

Egyptian Muslims can choose to believe that some so-called religious scholars can justify denying universal human rights under their interpretations of “Sharia,” or they can choose to “let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. (Qur’an 5:8).”

Such choices to defend human justice are never without consequences. There were some in America who once believed that white racial supremacism was legally justified. When increasing numbers of white American rejected such hate and injustices, they were called “race traitors” and were hated themselves. This continues even among some today. But real courage requires that we are consistently responsible for equality and liberty – not just for people like us, but also and perhaps especially for people who are NOT like us.

So I also know that there are those Egyptian Muslims who have called for human rights that have been demonized and hated. Some are threatened as well. But the choices we make define who and what we are as human beings. The choices we make can shape the history of our nations and the future for our children. The choices we make can bring us closer to finding the Undiscovered Country of human rights, dignity, and justice for all of our fellow human beings.

So today, we urge Egyptian Muslims, on behalf of the oppressed Egyptian Copts, but also on behalf of freeing Egypt from its bondage to hatred and oppression, to choose wisely for their future, their children’s future, and their nation’s future. Choose to end the oppression of Copts in Egypt, and the bondage of all Egyptians from codes that defy our shared universal human rights for all.

Choose Love, Not Hate. Love Wins.

(Photo: National Geographic, by Richard Nowitz)

A Double Standard on Terrorism

On Thursday, February 18, 2010, a terrorist in Austin, Texas named Joseph Stacks, flew a plane into a U.S. government building and killed former U.S. Vietnam Veteran and IRS employee Vernon Hunter. There has been a lot written about the terrorist Joseph Stacks, and his “manifesto,” that calls for a “body count” and calls for Americans to “revolt” before change will happen in our U.S. government.

But whether it is a murderous attack on our soldiers at Fort Hood by Nidal Hasan who also wanted to use violence to change the U.S. government, or it was a murderous attack on a U.S. government building killing an IRS employee by Joseph Stacks for his ideological views, there is no question in my eyes that such political violence is anything other than “terrorism.”

Terrorists Joseph Stack (Austin Terror Attack - left) and Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood Terror Attack - right) Both Attacked U.S. Govt Sites in Texas, Killing U.S. Govt Employees — Terrorists Joseph Stack (Austin Terror Attack – left) and Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood Terror Attack – right) — Both Attacked U.S. Govt Sites in Texas, Killing U.S. Govt Employees

We cannot decide one is “terrorism” and one is not, based on political sympathy, political correctness, or political appeasement to one view or another — whether it is Nidal Hasan or Joseph Stacks. We cannot ignore that terrorist attacks of political violence have been committed and simply dismiss them as a “crime.” Most of all, we cannot have a double standard on terrorism, and be outraged by some terrorist attacks, and flippantly dismiss terrorist attacks by others. There is no “good” terrorism; there is no “acceptable” terrorism. Terrorism is terrorism, and terrorism is wrong.

To those who don’t grasp that either Nidal Hasan’s or Joseph Stacks’ attacks on America’s government were terrorist attacks, I reiterate what I have said many times before, too many simply are in deliberate denial on what terrorism is and its ideological basis used by those who seek to use violence to further political goals and agendas. But we will never begin to challenge terrorism until we are consistent in recognizing it, consistent in denouncing it, and consistent in challenging political extremist ideologies that encourage it.

What has happened to America that someone can fly a plane into a government building, murder a government employee, for a political “manifesto” that believes it is necessary to have a “body count” to achieve political change, and there are those who dismiss his acts as something less than “terrorism”?

Terrorist Plane Attacks in Austin (L) and New York City (R)

Just like there are those who promote hate that called terrorist Nidal Hasan a “hero,” as I reported on February 21, there are those such as the Stormfront “white nationalists” who would praise such acts of terror, with Stormfront members describing Joseph Stacks’ terrorism as the acts of a “hero,” and describing his suicide bomb by plane attack on a U.S. government building as “going out with a bang.”

As the son of murdered IRS employee Vernon Hunter states, “How is it heroic to take upon acts that Al Qaeda used on September 11 of 2001? What makes that heroic?” Ken Hunter continues “Are you telling me that an American citizen committing an attack of terrorism against the United States is heroic?”

The most telling indicator of Joseph Stacks’ act as one of “terrorism” may be how readily those, such as many Stormfront “white nationalist” members, not only praised his terrorist attack, but also called for more such terrorist attacks, next time with a “bigger plane,” hoping that the next terrorist to escapes next time to “live to fight another day,” expecting the next attacks to be on the media, banks, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and expressing disappointment that such terrorist attacks have not yet targeted Washington DC.

Collage of Just a Few Screen Shots from "White Nationalist Hate Group" Stormfront Praising Joseph Stacks' Terrorism and Calling for Future Attacks — Collage of Just a FEW Screen Shots from “White Nationalist Hate Group” Stormfront Members Praising Joseph Stacks’ Terrorism and Supporting Future Terrorist Attacks on America

If these were comments on an Islamic group’s web site, there would be widespread calls for investigations into those praising and promoting acts of “terrorism”, but when such comments are on a non-Islamic group’s web site, the response is (to be most generous) “muted.”

How would we have felt if that was our father, Vernon Hunter, who was murdered by Stark’s terrorist attack? How would we have felt if it was an attack on our town, where we worked, or someone we knew, and we heard people call the attacker a “hero,” or we heard people dismissing the terrorists’ suicide bombing as “going out with a bang”?

Vernon Hunter, Murdered in Austin Terrorist Attack, Vietnam Veteran — Vernon Hunter, Vietnam Veteran Murdered in Austin Terrorist Attack

Has our nation’s people become so heartless, so vindictive, so merciless, and so cruel?

What type of a nation are we living in that we can accept this as civilized discussion?

An attack on the U.S. government is an attack on all Americans, because whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, it is your representative government. That is what it means to live in a democracy. The majority make decisions to choose our representative government. If you don’t like those decisions, you have many political means to effect change yourself.

But a terrorist attack that murders one our fellow Americans is an attack on all Americans, because the message sent by the terrorist is they don’t respect human life – theirs or ours – and they will take it at will.

If America is a nation that is responsible for equality and liberty, it is also nation of people who also love our inalienable right to life. In its defining declaration, America is a nation that loves life, not death. A nation where life itself is an inalienable right that defines our very identity can never afford a double standard on the deadly disease of terrorism, which ultimately seeks political and ideological change through death.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) spoke out to condemn Mr. Stacks’ terrorist attacks on February 18, 2010. What too many have failed to acknowledge is that CAIR’s leader, Nihad Awad, has been a documented supporter of the terrorist group Hamas. CAIR has also been an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist trial, and the FBI has identified CAIR at that trial as a “front group” for the Muslim Brotherhood organization, a group that has provided an ideological basis used by many who support tactics of violent Violent Extremist terrorism. I have publicly and repeatedly spoke challenging CAIR as an organization, its affiliations, and the support of Hamas terrorist group by its leaders. While all responsible Americans denounce Joseph Stacks’ terrorist activity, I recognize that CAIR too has a double standard on terrorism.

CAIR's Nihad Awad's Double Standard on Terrorism - Praising Hamas Terrorist Group, While Condemning Joseph Stacks' Terror Attack (Source: Investigative Project on Terrorism) — CAIR’s Nihad Awad’s Double Standard on Terrorism – Praising Hamas Terrorist Group, While Condemning Joseph Stacks’ Terror Attack (Source: Investigative Project on Terrorism)

But I also recognize that, if it had been a Muslim-American flying a jet into a U.S. government building and killing a U.S. government employee, there would have been little hesitancy among many Americans in deciding whether or not it was an act of “terrorism.” Everyone reading this knows this is a fact. We cannot hold a double-standard on terrorism where we can assume terrorism for some, but not for others, based on their different ideologies. Terrorism is terrorism.

Certainly in America, a nation that suffered repeated attacks by planes flown into commercial and government buildings on 9/11, one would think that Americans would be uniquely sensitive and outraged at those who seek to use planes as terrorist weapons against our government, regardless of their political views. Given the untold millions who have been endlessly inconvenienced by terrorist use of planes demanding extraordinary security measures for the traveling public, one would think that Americans would be furious at anyone who dared to try to use a plane again to attack Americans, whether it is Farouk Abdulmutallab in Detroit or Joseph Stacks in Austin. The muted response by Americans and the world to this latest abuse of air travel by the terrorist Joseph Stacks is disturbing and disheartening.

But just as disturbing are those who would challenge the double standard on terrorism by organizations like CAIR with a double standard on terrorism of their own. On February 22, 2010, the group “Jihad Watch” published an article by its contributor Hugh Fitzgerald who sought to criticize CAIR’s historical double standard on terrorism with CAIR’s comments on the Joseph Stacks’ terrorist attack.

But Mr. Fitzgerald didn’t leave it at that. Instead, he had to offer his own double standard as an answer to CAIR’s double standard, dismissing Stack’s terrorist attack, not as terrorism, but as “simply Going Out with a Bang.” Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out in comments later below his posting that it should be “obvious” that he did not “promote” such activity by Joseph Stack, but simply was dismissing it as “terrorism.”

Jihad Watch’s Hugh Fitzgerald Dismisses Joseph Stack’s Terrorist Attack as “simply Going Out with a Bang”

I was stunned, gap-mouthed as I read the posting by a group that states that it seeks to oppose jihadist terrorism, who simply dismissed the suicide bombing by Joseph Stack as “going out with a bang.” Unbelievable. Mr. Fitzgerald argues that unless you are “inculcated from a young age with hatred” or unless you have a well-understood political ideology, this means that attacks of political violence against U.S. federal government offices are somehow not “terrorism.”

In his rambling political manifesto, terrorist Joseph Stacks called for Americans to “revolt,” stating that it takes “a body count” to effect political change against “a government full of hypocrites,” and appears to be defending his terrorist actions as one of those “dying for their freedom in this country.” But for Mr. Fitzgerald that is not a sufficient political ideology to constitute Joseph Stacks’ actions as “terrorism.” If it had been another ideological argument by Violent Extremists, there is no doubt that “Jihad Watch” would have little hesitation in defining it as “terrorism.”

I had contacted Jihad Watch and strongly suggested that Mr. Fitzgerald should revisit his posting and reconsider the comments in his article dismissing Joseph Stack’s murderous attack on America’s government as something less than “terrorism.” But that has not happened. I continue to urge Jihad Watch to reconsider what Mr. Fitzgerald has stated on Joseph Stack’s terrorist attack on U.S. government offices in Austin, Texas.

Imagine if it had been any Muslim group or CAIR writing on their website, dismissing a terrorist attack on America by a Muslim-American using a plane, as someone “simply going out with a bang,” while stating that they did not “promote” such activity. There would be a hue and cry across the nation’s airwaves, and calls for an investigation. But when this is stated about a non-Muslim terrorist attack, there is merely a shrugging of shoulders. We must not have a double standard on terrorism, and certainly we must never answer a double standard with a double standard of our own.

I recognize that it will not make me popular to point this out, or to criticize Mr. Fitzgerald’s own double standard on Joseph Stack’s terrorist attack in Austin. But our human rights mission prioritizes consistency and credibility first. Like all people, I and my organizations would also wish to have popularity. But as the recent debacle with Amnesty International has shown, there are no shortcuts to credibility and consistency on human rights issues. I would rather stand alone with my conscience than compromise our credibility on human rights to look the other way at those who would praise or to those who would dismiss terrorist attacks.

There are many who believe that to challenge those who would promote jihad, we must never criticize or challenge those perceived as leaders against jihad. The argument goes that if you criticize, challenge, or disagree with someone viewed as a leader against jihad, then you are somehow “helping the enemy,” and you are better off “to look the other way.” The idea that we can have frank and honest debate is not even considered as an option by some who seek to be fighting for our freedom against jihadists. The very idea that anyone leading the “anti-jihad community” could be wrong is not an idea that some leaders will even countenance. To those challenging violent extremism, that has to change. You won’t ever influence others by tactics which are only designed to close your ranks and keep them that way.

I have worked at recognizing my own limitations and imperfections. I make mistakes like other normal human beings. Moreover, I frequently publicly apologize for such mistakes, which I have found some to find quite infuriating. But that won’t stop me from apologizing or also from making other human mistakes as all of us do from time to time. I learned years ago if you are afraid to be wrong, you will also be afraid to do anything in your life. But courage is not the same as arrogance. We must all be willing to recognize when we need to make corrections in things we say or do.

So here is another one of my own apologies. From a public perspective, I have been one of those who has too often “looked the other way” at mistakes by some within the “anti-jihad community.” Instead, I have often tried to privately communicate and hope to influence others. But sometimes there has to be a moment where one can no longer “look the other way” at such mistakes. Today, this is mine here.

I think of Vernon Hunter’s wife and son. I think of the congregation that prayed for him Sunday in Texas. I think of all of those around the country who don’t even know his name or anything about him as a victim of a terrorist attack. I think of those who dismiss the terrorist attack against our government, murdering a veteran in our armed forces as someone “simply going out with a bang.” No, Vernon Hunter and our government deserve more respect, more dignity, and more mercy than such comments.

And to those at Stormfront and elsewhere who view the terrorist Joseph Stack as a “hero,” I feel sorry for you and your hate. I urge you to release the hate from your heart, and learn that in the civilized world of humanity, “heroes” are not terrorist murderers.

There comes a time when you must face a fork in the road in your life’s journey as to what direction you will head. Sometimes you have decide whether you want to spend your life fighting against something or fighting for something. I would rather be for something.

So as for me, I will be Responsible for Equality and Liberty.

God Bless America, and God Bless Vernon Hunter – a real “hero.”

Choose Love, Not Hate. Love Wins.

Why We Must Consistently Reject Supremacist Hate

Many years ago as a small boy on vacation with my parents I saw a sign in Virginia Beach that I couldn’t understand. So I asked my parents what it meant. It was a sign in front of a hotel that read “white clientele only.” I didn’t get it. Why would a business turn away others simply because of their race?

When it was explained to me, that was when I first realized that I had to find a way to fight against supremacism. Only I didn’t know it as “supremacism” back then, I just knew it as “hate,” and I knew it was wrong. It is funny how children have a knack at being able to see the world clearly.

I have tried to struggle against supremacism in many ways over the years in various political campaigns, social activism campaigns, and now with my organization Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.). For me, the struggle against supremacism is a struggle against ideologies of hate; too often such ideologies are organized, structured, and institutionalized against others simply because of their identity. Such a struggle against ideologies of hate starts first in our own hearts and in our own mirrors. But when it comes to rejecting ideologies of hate, our personal accountability does not just end with ourselves, our friends, and our families.

When it comes to ideologies of hate, it extends beyond ourselves and our associates to our communities, our cities, our states, our nation, and our world.

Ideologies of supremacist hate are a contagious virus. They don’t stop at our lips, at our doorstep, or at our computer keyboards. The virus of such hate has a destructive life of its own. All it ever needs to spread is the gentlest push. It really doesn’t matter if that push is a supremacist view towards others because of their race or their religion. Supremacism is supremacism, and hate is hate.

Long before 9/11, I was struggling against the hate ideologies of supremacism. But like many Americans, the 2001 attacks provided a wake-up call for me on other forms of hate ideologies. But even then, I wasn’t just addressing extremist hate against others, but I was also addressing the threat of racial supremacist hate.

In my view, such ideologies of hate have a lot in common. In June 2008, reportedly with Nidal Hasan in attendance, I made that case at the George Washington University, and have addressed the same parallels in conferences around the nation. Such supremacist ideologies share the same hate, and share the same lie that belittles people of other identities by those who view themselves as inherently superior human beings over others and who view that they have superior human rights. I believe “these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” Without such fundamental human rights of equality, America has proven in its own history, that we cannot have liberty. We cannot have universal human rights, if some have “superior” human rights over others by virtue of their race, religion, gender, or national origin. That is why we must be consistently responsible for both equality and liberty.

A year later, in July 2009, I led a protest against the anti-democracy, anti-liberty, and anti-equality organization Hizb ut-Tahrir in Chicago, which held a national conference at the Hilton Hotel in Oak Lawn, Illinois. As they stated in their own conference, Hizb ut-Tahrir seeks to impose a global “supremacy of Islam” and seeks to develop a global “caliphate” that could impose its will upon those who have different faiths and different beliefs. Hizb ut-Tahrir passed out brochures calling for the “death penalty” for those “traitors” who left Islam. I led the protest there for the same reason I have led every protest against other supremacist groups and ideologies – to reject hate, and to promote our universal human rights of equality and liberty for all people of every religion, every race, every gender, and every national origin.

We cannot be responsible for equality and liberty, and only reject just those supremacist ideologies that are convenient for us. Consistency matters when rejecting the hate of supremacist ideologies, regardless of their source. At our July 2009 Chicago protest, we made a specific point of this with a sign that read “extremism is no different than racial supremacism.”

Of course, if we accept that, then the reverse of this is also true and “racial supremacism is no different than extremism.”

I am aware that too many seem to find this obvious fact to be too inconvenient for their liking, their associations, and even for their politics. But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t agree to one, and drag your feet on the other. That is what “no different” means. If we can’t stand for equality among our racial identities, then who are we to lecture others on other forms of supremacism? Equality starts with ourselves. We are responsible for setting an example to others that defy our universal human rights of equality and liberty.

You can’t be willing to support equality… just sometimes. Equality is not about “sometimes.” Equality is about “all the time.” That is the point of equality. “Partial equality” is no equality.

So when I and other supporters of Responsible for Equality And Liberty have challenged the upcoming American Renaissance “white nationalist” conference planned for the DC area in February 2010, we are not doing anything different than we did in Chicago in July 2009. Our motivations are the same. Our agenda is the same. Our actions are the same. Our consistent commitment to equality and liberty is the same.

You may not know much about the American Renaissance. It is led by Jared Taylor, who calls himself a “white nationalist,” and whose goal is “a white America,” and whose organization campaigns for “the United States [to] remain majority-white.” The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) lists it as a “white nationalist hate group.” The Anti Defamation League (ADL) describes its views as “white supremacist.” The American Renaissance hosts articles belittling the intelligence of black Americans, makes racial comments about “genetic interests,” rails against “racial heresies,” promotes books on “why race matters,” and blames black Americans for the “color of crime.” This group has a biannual conference, this year scheduled for February 2010 in the Washington DC area. The conference draws various white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and others. Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke has previously appeared, and Nazi white supremacist Stormfront leader Don Black regularly appears. Don Black claims to have known Jared Taylor for over 20 years. In addition, British National Party leader Nick Griffin is a featured speaker at this year’s conference; Griffin has previously called the Holocaust – “the Holohoax.”

Just like we contacted the Hilton Hotel about Hizb ut-Tahrir’s Chicago conference, we also contacted the Dulles Marriott and then the Dulles Westin about the American Renaissance conference scheduled for February 2010 in the Washington DC area. The only difference is that this time someone listened to us. American Renaissance has a long, well-publicized, and well-documented history of racial supremacist statements derogatory towards black Americans. But it uses a 501c3 organization called the New Century Foundation in setting up such events that few realize is the same as the American Renaissance group. Once the Dulles Marriott and the Dulles Westin hotels learned this, however, even in this difficult economy, both hotels canceled the American Renaissance conferences. Jared Taylor claims to be planning to reschedule his event at another location.

Not unlike Hizb ut-Tahrir, law enforcement agencies monitor the American Renaissance group as well. At a minimum, hotels deserve to know what type of security issues that they are getting into when they host either a Hizb ut-Tahrir or an American Renaissance supremacist conference.

The upcoming American Renaissance conference is widely promoted on the front page of the Nazi white supremacist group Stormfront, created by former Ku Klux Klan leader Don Black, whose members have been associated with the Tennessee terrorist plot against 88 black Americans (and who shot up a black church in Tennessee), and have included Richard Poplawski in Pittsburgh who killed three police officers in April 2009. In January 2010, Stormfront members have eulogized the death of white supremacist terrorist James Von Brunn who attacked Washington DC’s U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in June 2009, and who killed black security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns. According to postings from Stormfront members, Von Brunn was a “martyr” whose actions should be praised, with another Stormfront member calling for the promotion of “hate with violent passion.” Stormfront members object to our protest of the American Renaissance conference.

Stormfront members have also had things to say about R.E.A.L.’s Chicago protest of Hizb ut-Tahrir as well. Our protest in Chicago of the anti-freedom Hizb ut-Tahrir group has been criticized by Stormfront members as the work of “Jeffrey Imm… a Jew tool… as this video demonstrates” linking to a video of an interview FOX News television interview of me on July 20, 2009 after our July 19 protest against the Hizb ut-Tahrir Chicago conference. (This was posted by a Stormfront member who is supporting Jared Taylor and the upcoming American Renaissance conference in the Washington DC.)

Stormfront Member's Criticize R.E.A.L.'s Protest of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Chicago — Stormfront Member Criticizes R.E.A.L.'s Protest of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Chicago

Those who promote supremacist hate – of any kind – are not on the side of equality and liberty in any instance.

The American Renaissance conference in DC is also promoted by “white nationalist” Jared Taylor prominently on the VDARE website, where Taylor brags that he will use the conference to laugh at the value of human diversity. Some claim that the VDARE organization is focused on issues of illegal immigration, and this allows them to rationalize the racial supremacist hatred on VDARE by those who also mock the intelligence of black Americans, and who promote “white nationalism.”

I have heard from some that believe that their political views allow them to rationalize linking to VDARE contributors and authors. I have heard from some that claim to be against jihad that believe they can justify defending VDARE’s promotion of “white nationalists.” I have heard from some that believe that we must “look the other way” when some who challenge jihad are willing to attend events sponsored by groups linked to “white nationalists.”

But in every case, they have missed the point. The generational war of ideas that we face against supremacism will not be won by a few conferences, by military surges, by body scans, by profiling, by alerts, by trials, and by either our law enforcement or our military. The generational struggle for our consistent, unqualified universal human rights will not be successful by only being willing to condemn some forms of ideological hate, and giving others a free pass.

We won’t begin this struggle until we conclude that we must be consistently responsible for equality and liberty. That is where the war of ideas begins – not with attacks on human diversity or seeking to defend only a “western culture” – but by setting an example of what we believe in – not just for us, but for all human beings around the world. That is what it means to be Responsible for Equality And Liberty.

It is easy to recognize the near-term activist resource limitations that we have. But our struggle is not just for the near-term, but for the long-term. Our most vital priority is consistency. Our most precious resource is credibility. We cannot win this struggle by merely being a “special interest group,” hoping to win a few battles here and there. We need to tap into the larger consensus within America that holds “these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” We need to work with the global consensus of our fellow human beings who accept our universal human rights for all.

To do so, we need to set an example to the world.

Our February 19, 2010 protest against white supremacism in Washington DC is no less important than our July 19, 2009 protest in Chicago against extremism. If you are committed to being responsible for equality and liberty, this is your fight too, and this is an opportunity for you to demonstrate the courage of your convictions.

In regards to challenging the DC white supremacist conference, some will say that they are too busy. Others will say that this is not their fight. Still others are simply afraid. We need to be consistent in our courage – if we have the convictions to challenge extremists, then we must have the same convictions to challenge racial supremacists as well.

We need to fear no evil.

Such evil can surely be found in the virus of supremacist hatred that counts on the lie that some have superior human rights over others — a dark lie that cannot countenance the truth of human equality and liberty in the broad daylight of human reason and love for our fellow human beings.

No matter what your race, your religion, your national origin, or your gender is – we share a common cause – our shared universal human rights.

Be responsible for equality and liberty.

Why Human Rights Responsibility, Not Communism, is the Answer to Extremist Ideologies and Violence

The name of our organization, Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.), consciously reflects our mission – not only to defend our universal human rights of both equality and liberty – but also to be individually responsible for these human rights. Our mission asserts that one of the most essential parts of the individual human identity is our consistent and credible responsibility for such universal human rights. It is the need for individuals to reclaim this responsibility and to restore a culture where such human rights are a priority that is the highest goal of revitalizing outreach to our fellow human beings.

Furthermore, we view such human rights as inalienable rights. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “all human beings are born free,” and their universal human rights are not limited to the “political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory.” No nation, no political organization, and no ideology has the right to take such universal human rights away. They are inherent human rights. But for their preservation, they are also inherent individual responsibilities.

It is our support for such universal human rights and our belief that defending such rights are the responsibility of “every individual” that is the heart of our mission. The defense of human rights begins with each one of us as individuals. Our collective accomplishments will only matter as long as retain personal responsibility for equality and liberty. This means that we cannot expect “someone else” to solve the human rights problems of the world – whether it is a government, an international body, a culture, a religion, or an ideology – it is our job as individuals – we must be Responsible for Equality And Liberty.

Our support for individual human rights responsibility does not demand the ending of all state, charitable, or organizational support to the many who are in need. Without mercy and without dignity for our fellow human beings, any call for human rights would be insincere. Our love for our fellow human beings calls for us both to extend human mercy and defense of human rights. Suffering due to material hardships is just as real as suffering due to denial of equality and liberty.

Such individual responsibility also demands accountability for those ideologies that we identify with that defy such universal human rights.

Many falsely claim that they support human rights. In the past week, the extremist Taliban have stated that they are defenders of “values of humanity,” and the extremist OIC nations are planning to meet in Egypt to praise their support of “children’s rights,” while in fact, both organizations defy such universal human rights for children and others. The Communist Chinese government has praised its support for “children’s rights,” even while it arrests those who would speak about the Communist authorities’ practices of infanticide and forced abortion.

Accountability matters. Consistency matters. There is nothing “political” about seeking individual accountability on the ideologies that one holds – and how those ideologies do or do not support human rights. We hold people accountable for their racial supremacist views and for their views attacking religious freedom. So we must also call for individual accountability for those who would claim that they can support Communism and support universal human rights to challenge extremism.

Some have told me that in some parts of the world, some ex-Muslims choose to identify with Communist organizations as a way to distance themselves from the theocratic trap of extremism. We respectfully urge them to reconsider their choices in believing that the ideology of Communism is ever an answer to human rights.

Our true power as human beings begins with the power of ONE. Our true freedoms as human beings begins with power of human individuality. The belief that a paternalistic ideology that historically has proven in history that it seeks to crush human individuality, crush human freedom, and crush human liberty – is never the answer to a future where you and your children can be free.

Any “collective” or “caliphate,” with seemingly Utopian objectives, can only be measured by its commitment to individual, universal human rights. History has shown both for extremism and Communism how such individual human rights are readily discarded.

If we truly believe in universal human rights, sometimes the needs of the one outweigh the demands of the many.

If we truly believe in universal human rights, then we must oppose all dictatorships, including those who would call for a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The historical reality in Communist nations is that dictatorship by any name – results in simply another dictatorship.

I have been told that it is not productive to challenge those who promote Communism as an ideology, while they claim to be for universal human rights. I have been told by some that such Communist challenges to extremism are not an unwillingness to criticize Communist China, but simply a focus on where these individuals seek to focus their energies. I have been told that such Communist ideological views are “political” issues and that we must rise above such “political issues” in supporting human rights.

In fact, we do support universal human rights above all political ideologies. But this does not abrogate the need to challenge individuals who claim to support universal human rights, when they promote anti-freedom ideologies.

The history of Communism on Earth is a grim and horrific story. The history of Communism on Earth has led to democides that far exceed Nazi Germany’s genocide in the Holocaust. The history of Communism on Earth is so grim that in the United States there is a monument to the global “Victims of Communism.” There is an online museum to such Communist atrocities, where individuals recount in a “victim’s registry” their stories of those who have been killed and lives destroyed by Communism.

But the human rights threat of the ideology of Communism is more than a historical concern. It is a very real and mortal threat to the human rights of children, women, and men in the world today. While there are a reported 1.5 billion global adherents to Islam, there are 1.3 billion suffering under the oppression of the ideology of Communism in Communist China alone. There are over 1,000 Laogai concentration camps in Communist China holding 6.8 million human beings.

There are countless others imprisoned in Communist North Korean concentration camps. The millions that have been starved to death and murdered by Communist regimes in the past and continuing today are incalculable. Communist China, Communist North Korea, and Communist Vietnam are some of the top offenders in human trafficking in the world, including trafficking of children.

So while we appreciate those who would defy extremism as an anti-freedom ideology, we also challenge them to be consistent in their support for universal human rights. It is not credible to claim that we are supporting universal human rights, while turning a blind eye to the historical and present day horrific abuses of human rights by Communist nations.

In challenging “One Law for All’s” leader Maryam Namazie on her support for Communism (Ms. Namazie is a leader in the Communist Party of Iran), she replied: “I am a worker-communist – don’t support the Chinese or any of the totalitarian governments that called themselves communist – but I campaign on matters that are close to my heart because of my experience and field of interest. Anyway not going to be responding on this anymore.”

In fact, on those rare instances where Maryam Namazie has mentioned Communist China and Communist North Korea, it is to condemn them for being too “capitalist,” and for failing to defy “state capitalism.” Her support for universal human rights has not visibly shown her outreach to fellow “worker-communists” on the human rights atrocities and crimes against humanity by Communist nations. Outside of extremism, Maryam Namazie views the other threat to humanity to be the United States, and views “worker-communism [as] against the two poles of international terrorism – the US state and political Islamic terrorism.”

Maryam Namazie continues to position herself as a proponent of universal human rights for women and children in a rally in London today, challenging Sharia law, while defending Communism. We believe that two wrongs don’t make a right, and that consistency and credibility are essential in promoting universal human rights.

Apparently her years of experience promoting communism are not sufficiently part of her “experience and field of interest” to address the Communist threat to human rights that oppresses a near equal number of human beings. Her support for children’s rights are not sufficient for her to speak out speak out on the forced abortions in Communist China and the 400 million lives “prevented” by Communist authorities. Her support for women’s rights are not sufficient to address the dehumanization of women, imprisonment in concentration camps of women, and publicly shooting of women by Communist authorities.

Wang Shouxin refuses to kneel down before being shot to death, but the soldiers force her by kicking her knee (Photo: LI ZHENSHENG)

In all of the protests and candlelight ceremonies remembering the victims of Communist Chinese and Communist North Korean authorities, I have yet to see a single “Worker-Communist” there to remember such victims of human rights atrocities and give evidence to how Communism as an ideology does not seek totalitarianism, does not seek a “dictatorship,” and does not fundamentally deny universal human rights.

It is a message that Communist ideologues cannot honestly state.

The continuing global Communist democides of our fellow human beings are a testimony to Communism’s rejection of our universal human rights.

Individual responsibility for human rights cannot be achieved by expecting our responsibilities to be assumed by Communist governments or other organizations. Such responsibilities are our choice, and our obligation.

As individuals, we must be Responsible for Equality And Liberty.

Why Honor Killings Represent Ideological Violence Against Women

In Arizona, a week ago today, 20 year old woman Noor Almaleki died.

Some have reported that her murder by her father was another instance of unfortunate domestic violence. But the fact is that her murder was another instance of an ideological violence against women that we must challenge as a threat to our universal human rights here and around the world.

: 20 Year Old Noor Almaleki – Died on November 2, 2009 – A Victim of An Ideological Violence Against Women

Such acts of violence against women based on an ideology are more than “isolated incidents.” Such ideological violence is a human rights challenge that defies our universal human rights. Many seek to dismiss an ideological femicide to oppress women by explaining away such violence based on ignorance, cultural backwardness, or “tribal traditions.” Moreover, others point to the fact that “honor killings” are also performed by other identity groups around the world, which is absolutely true.

But in the case of the murder of Noor Almaleki on November 2, the family repeatedly told members of the Arizona press that the reason why her father murdered her had to do with his religious extremist views on what they called “traditional Muslim values.” This was the reason explained for her father’s willingness to murder her.

While the Arizona Republic and CBS-5 specifically and repeatedly quote both Noor Almaleki’s family and brother as explaining her death based on her failure “to live by traditional Muslim values,” CNN has repeatedly ignored these reports and reports her death due to “Iraqi values.” It ignores such reports by Arizona media, even when the Almalekis moved to the United States 15 years ago.

We ask CNN to review this story and report all of the facts so that the public can be informed, and so that others can challenge the Almaleki family’s allegations that “traditional Muslim values” prohibit freedom for women, including Noor Almaleki.

Extremist-rationalized “honor killings” are different than other domestic violence and violence against women, and until the basis for such ideological violence against women is recognized and discussed, we cannot prevent such violence from continuing and spreading. We must call for the mainstream media to start connecting the dots and doing the research on the ideological basis behind such violence and report this to the American people.

There is a distinct and global misogynist extremist challenge to women that we repeatedly see from those who rationalize such misogyny with an extremist ideology towards human rights. We cannot continue to ignore the ideological basis behind such extremist violence. Over and over, the perpetrators and those involved with such violence make reference specifically to extremist views towards human rights.

Noor Almaleki is not the first such ideological “honor killing” in the United States. There have been others in Dallas, in Georgia, in Cleveland, in Indianapolis, and one suspected in Buffalo. There are others who report that they have been threatened with harm, such as Rifqa Bary, in Columbus. Such ideological violence against girls and women in the United States is the tip of the iceberg of thousands of such women murdered with such ideological rationalization around the world as we have reported.

Such ideological “honor killings” are just one more link in a larger extremist rationalized ideological chain that seeks to oppress women around the world, not only to deny them equality, but to intimidate and subjugate them to being less than human – not entitled to human rights at all, but only granted privileges to serve those who would oppress them. We see this not only in the ideological “honor killings,” but also in the recent Global Gender Gap index which illustrates the hundreds of millions of women in predominantly Islamic countries that live under oppression today – many of the same countries that are the worst offenders of human trafficking. At our blog, we have endless reports of one abuse after another and another based on an ideological oppression of women rationalized by extremism.

Such ideological “honor killings” are not crimes of passion or crimes of tribal tradition. They are acts of ideological violence intended to remind women of their position of servitude and submission to those extremists who believe they are women’s “masters.” As we call for the improvement for human rights for all women around the world, as Americans we must also demand that the truth be told about those who seek to promote ideological hate and oppression against women in our country today. We must continue to demand that our media report on this issue to inform our citizens and to put pressure on our government to take action – to demand that such ideological violence against women ends.

When we see other ideological violence intended to provoke fear and intimidate others, we have a name for it: “terrorism.” We won’t see such ideological violence and oppression against women addressed by counterterrorism organizations – that focus on who, what, where, and when – but have decided to leave the issue of why regarding ideological violence occurs… to someone else.

That someone else is us. That is our challenge in being Responsible for Equality And Liberty – to speak for those who can’t speak any more and to speak for the oppressed who live in fear to speak out for their universal human rights — including those in America today. Noor Almaleki’s friends feared speaking to reporters for fear of what would happen to them. That is the terrorism against women – too common around the world – that continues to find its way to America. This is the same terrorism against women that our news media refuses to effectively report on. The is the same terrorism against women that our government refuses to act on. We must demand that our media recognize such terrorism against women for what it is and to recognize and defy those extremist ideologies that seek our silence.

Other Reports:

Facebook Page: “R.I.P Noor Faleh Almaleki”

Arizona: Terrorism Against Women — Noor Almaleki Just Wanted To Be Normal

Arizona — Noor Almaleki “Honor Killing”: Hassan Almaleki Arraignment Delayed, On Suicide Watch

Arizona — Noor Almaleki Honor Killing: Father To Be Arraigned, Face New Charges

Arizona: Woman in Suspected “Honor Killing” Dies — 20 Year Old Noor Almaleki

Arizona — Noor Almaleki Case: Arizona Jails Father in ‘Honor Killing’ Try

Arizona: Noor Almaleki Case — Father in “Honor Killing” Attempt Captured in UK — Extradited Back to US

Arizona — Noor Almaleki case: Family Says Noor Almaleki “Failed to Live by Traditional Muslim Values” — Woman in Critical Condition in Alleged “Honor Killing” Attempt

Arizona: Noor Almaleki’s Lifestyle may have put woman in hospital

Arizona: Father runs down daughter in Peoria parking lot — Noor Faleh Almaleki attacked for being “too westernized”

U.S. Religious Freedom Commission Testimony that U.N. “Religious Defamation” Resolutions Leading to “Global Blasphemy Law”

U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) Testimony of Leonard A. Leo Before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission (TLHRC) on Implications of the Promotion of “Defamation of Religions” — October 21, 2009

— “Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing on this important and timely issue. For a number of years, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has been monitoring closely, and speaking out against, the campaign by some countries to create a global blasphemy law through the passage of UN resolutions against the so-called ‘defamation of religions.'”
— “While they may sound tolerant and progressive, these resolutions do not solve the very real problems of persecution and discrimination suffered by the adherents of many religions around the world. Rather, they exacerbate these problems. The “defamation of religions” concept promotes intolerance and human rights violations, creating wide latitude for governments to restrict free expression and religious freedom. In addition, the concept deviates sharply from the historically rooted object of international human rights protections by addressing the interests of religious institutions and interpretations, rather than the rights of individuals. ”
— “Although the ‘defamation’ resolutions purport to protect religions generally, the only religion and religious adherents that are specifically mentioned are Islam and Muslims. Aside from Islam, the resolutions do not specify which religions are deserving of protection, or explain how or by whom this would be determined. The resolutions also do not define what would make a statement defamatory to religions or explain who decides this question. For its part, the OIC appears to deem any criticism of Islam or Muslims to be religiously defamatory speech — a view that goes well beyond the existing legal concept of defamation, which protects individuals against false statements of fact that damage their reputation and livelihood.”
— “In terms of states’ practices, there is no universal international approach toward ‘defamation of religions.’ The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights conducted a survey in 2008 and found no common understanding of the concept among those countries that said they had laws on the issue. Instead, the laws surveyed addressed ‘somewhat different phenomena and appl[ied] various terms such as contempt, ridicule, outrage and disrespect to connote defamation.'”
— “What should we glean from this narrow focus on Islam and the ambiguity of the applicable legal standard? For the Commission, it signals that the ‘defamation of religions’ resolutions are a poorly veiled attempt to export the repressive blasphemy laws found in some OIC countries to the international level. Under these laws, criminal charges can be levied against individuals for defaming, denigrating, insulting, offending, disparaging, and blaspheming Islam, often resulting in gross human rights violations. In Pakistan, for example, the domestic law makes blasphemy against Islam a criminal offense subject to severe penalties, including death. Extremists have abused these broad provisions to intimidate members of religious minorities, including members of disfavored minority Muslim sects, and others with whom they disagree, and unscrupulous individuals have found them to be useful tools to settle personal scores. Blasphemy allegations in Pakistan, which are often false, have resulted in imprisonment on the basis of religion or belief, as well as vigilante violence resulting in the death of accused individuals.”
— “The ‘defamation of religions’ resolutions usually come before the UN General Assembly in the fall and the UN Human Rights Council in the spring, and they continue to pass each year in each body. Yet there is some good news to report: the international community is starting — though I would stress only starting — to understand the problems with these resolutions. The last three times they were considered the votes in favor decreased from a majority to a plurality of members. At both the March 2008 and March 2009 Human Rights Council sessions, as well as the December 2008 General Assembly, the combined number of no votes and abstentions outnumbered the yes votes, although the resolutions still passed. The Commission hopes that this trend will continue when the expected ‘defamation of religions’ resolution comes before the General Assembly later this fall. To that end, we are working on a number of fronts, including with various Members of Congress, to encourage UN member states to oppose these resolutions. The Commission welcomed Secretary Clinton’s recent remarks in New York affirming the United States’ continued opposition, and we urge the State Department to continue vigorously to engage all governments to urge them to vote no.”
— “Like any smart tactician that detects a weakening of support, the OIC is diversifying its push for banning certain forms of speech by reaching into other venues and masking its objective through other language. The OIC sought, but failed, to insert language against the ‘defamation of religions’ in the outcome document of the April 2009 Durban Review Conference. Instead, a compromise was reached to include a phrase deploring ‘the derogatory stereotyping and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief.’ This is a somewhat better approach because it focuses on individuals, not religions, and does not attach legal prohibitions or punishments.”
— “The OIC also has attempted to include the ‘defamation of religions’ concept into UN resolutions dealing with the freedom of expression. At the most recent UN Human Rights Council session, the United States worked with Egypt to jointly sponsor a compromise freedom of expression resolution that sought to find common ground between the ‘defamation’ proponents and opponents. Like the Durban II Conference document, this resolution does not mention ‘defamation of religions,’ but rather focuses on negative religious stereotyping, thereby rightly keeping the focus on individuals rather than belief systems. It also does not call for any laws against such stereotyping, but instead expresses concern about it.”
— “However, many in the human rights community were surprised by the United States’ co-sponsorship of this resolution because it condemned ‘any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence’ and called on states to ‘take effective measures, consistent with their international human rights obligations’ to address such advocacy. Having just returned from Commission delegations to the European Union and Holy See, I know that many of our EU partners were equally surprised. The language on advocacy of hatred constituting incitement is taken from Article 20(2) of the International Civil and Political Rights, or ICCPR. Article 20(2) also requires states to enact laws against such incitement — a requirement on which the United States has placed a reservation to the extent that doing so would violate U.S. constitutional free expression guarantees. To be sure, the U.S./Egypt resolution does not expressly call for legal prohibitions, and therefore does not run afoul of the U.S’s reservation, and the U.S. previously has supported UN resolutions on religious intolerance and discrimination that condemned incitement but did not require laws against it.”
— “But the Commission is concerned that this use of the incitement language is a Trojan Horse for the ‘defamation of religions’ efforts. The United States and other supporters of free expression therefore must remain vigilant against attempts to conflate ‘defamation of religions’ and Article 20(2) incitement. In addition to seeking a new anti-blasphemy norm through the ‘defamation’ resolutions, the OIC has argued in various UN contexts that speech insulting or criticizing religions is outlawed under existing international law norms against incitement — citing ICCPR Article 20(2).”
— “Article 20(2) has always been and should continue to be a limited exception to the fundamental individual freedoms of expression and religion meant to protect individuals from violence or discrimination, not to protect religious beliefs from criticism. The United States should recognize that the defamation proponents’ efforts to redefine and significantly broaden this provision are of serious concern.”
— “National or international laws purporting to ban criticism or ‘defamation’ of religions are not the solution to the very real problems of religious intolerance and discrimination. In fact, such prohibitions do more harm than good, as evidenced by the human rights abuses perpetrated under them in countries such as Pakistan. The United States should continue strongly to oppose, and urge other UN members to oppose, both the ‘defamation of religions’ resolutions and all efforts to reinterpret ICCPR Article 20(2) to encompass allegedly religiously defamatory speech.”

“Expert: UN resolutions would create ‘global blasphemy law'”
— Christian Post reports: “The so-called ‘defamation of religions’ UN resolutions would create a ‘global blasphemy law,’ the chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom warned on Wednesday.”
— “USCIRF Chair Leonard A Leo testified to Members of Congress on the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission that although the resolutions proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference sounded ‘tolerant and progressive,’ they would in reality ‘exacerbate’ religious persecution and discrimination around the world.”
— “Although the ‘defamation’ resolutions purport to protect religions generally, the only religion and religious adherents that are specifically mentioned are Islam and Muslims,’ pointed out Leo, who noted USCIRF has been closely monitoring the resolutions for several years.”
— “‘Aside from Islam, the resolutions do not specify which religions are deserving of protection, or explain how or by whom this would be determined.'”
— “Out of concern that the resolutions would be abused to oppress religious minorities in Muslim-majority countries, Christian as well as secular human rights groups launched several campaigns this year alerting UN members to the potential danger of such proposals.”

Research Notes on UNHRC Resolutions and Texts:

— October 2, 2009: UNHRC Resolution A/HRC/12/L.14/Rev.1 does not see any specific reference to “Islam” in the text of the resolution

— March 26, 2009: UNHRC Resolution A/HRC/10/L.2/Rev.1 does specifically single out “Islam” and “Muslims” without any specific reference to other religions

— December 11, 2007: Widely ignored UNHRC Resolution A/HRC/6/L.15/Rev.1 mentions other religions and calls for religious freedom of conscience – the OIC nations abstained from voting on this resolution