— Daily Mail: “Missing girl was victim of honour killing, claims mother”
— Daily Mail reports:
— “A mother broke a ten-year silence to claim her teenage daughter was murdered in an ‘honour killing’, a court heard yesterday.”
— “Tulay Goren, 15, was allegedly killed by her father and buried in his garden after he learnt she was in a sexual relationship with a man twice her age.”
— “Mehmet Goren, 49, with the help of at least one of his brothers, then allegedly dug up her remains in Woodford Green, East London, and disposed of them a week later. Her body has never been found.”
— “Tulay’s mother Hanim lived with the dark family secret and at first misled police because she was scared for her safety, said Jonathan Laidlaw, QC, prosecuting.”
— “Tulay’s father and his brothers Ali, 55, and Cuma Goren, 42, both of Walthamstow, East London, yesterday appeared at the Old Bailey accused of the schoolgirl’s murder on January 7, 1999, and the attempted murder of her boyfriend Halil Unal, now 41. All three deny both charges.”
— “Tulay was living with Mr Unal and had even tried to marry him, but was too young.”
— “But after losing her virginity Tulay was seen as a ‘valueless commodity’, the court heard.”
— “Her father and uncles, who came to Britain as political refugees from Turkey in the early 1990s, are alleged to have decided in a ‘family council’ to kill the pair.”
— “Mr Unal was a Turkish Sunni Muslim but the Gorens were from the Alevi branch of the faith and an Alevi-Sunni relationship ‘would not have been tolerated’, jurors heard.”
President Barack Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed
Dalia Mogahed joined the discussion on “What Muslim Women Want” along with UK Hizb ut-Tahrir’s national women’s officer Nazreen Nawaz. According to a report by the Daily Telegraph, the program was “hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party.”
— “President Barack Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, has provoked controversy by appearing on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist group to talk about Sharia Law.”
— Daily Telegraph reports: “Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was ‘oversimplified’ and the majority of women around the world associate it with ‘gender justice'”
— “The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party.”
— “The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world. ”
— “Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir’s national women’s officer, Nazreen Nawaz.”
— “During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular ‘man-made law’ and the West’s ‘lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism'”
— “They called for Sharia Law to be ‘the source of legislation’ and said that women should not be ‘permitted to hold a position of leadership in government’.
— “Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that ‘promiscuity’ and the ‘breakdown of traditional values’ were what Muslims admired least about the West.”
— “She said: ‘I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media.”
— “‘The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance.'”
— “‘The portrayal of Sharia has been oversimplified in many cases.'”
— “The video of the broadcast has now been prominently posted on the front page of Hizb ut Tahrir’s website.
— “Miss Mogahed, who was born in Egypt and moved to America at the age of five, is the first veiled Muslim woman to serve in the White House. Her appointment was seen as a sign of the Obama administration’s determination to reach out to the Muslim world.”
— “She is also the executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, a project which aims to scientifically sample public opinion in the Muslim world.”
— “During this week’s broadcast, she described her White House role as ‘to convey… to the President and other public officials what it is Muslims want.'”
B. Summary of the Hizb ut-Tahrir Organization
The Hizb ut-Tahrir organization is an international religious extremist organization that has denounces democracy, equality, capitalism, and calls for the creation of a global caliphate. In July 2009, Hizb ut-Tahrir led a public conference in the Chicago suburb of Oak Lawn where they promoted this global extremist caliphate, as well as condemned democracy. In addition, Hizb ut-Tahrir handed out a pamphlet to the estimated 700 attendees in Oak Lawn defends the death penalty for so-called “apostates” – who leave Islam (pages 62 and 68), and that condemned “Women’s groups engaged in gender equality campaigns” (page 13).
Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) and other Chicago protesters rejected Hizb ut-Tahrir’s anti-democratic views and protested in support for democracy and equality. R.E.A.L.’s Jeffrey Imm also addressed direct quotes from the HT’s manifesto, and pointed out that HT states that: “the democratic system… is a Kufr [infidel] system” (page 25); rejects democracy because it “is the rule of people, for the people, by the people” (page 24); “Democratic Capitalism” … “is a Kufr ideology and its ideas are Kufr ideas, and its systems are Kufr systems, and they contradict Islam” (page 24); “freedom of belief, freedom of speech, freedom of ownership of capital and personal freedom”… “are in conflict with Islam” (page 24); “personal freedom does not exist in Islam” (page 24); “liberty and democracy, and the Capitalist and Socialist systems… totally contradict with” Islam (page 7); freedom of religion is denied by HT, whose manifesto states the “Muslim is not free in the matter of his belief because if he apostasizes from Islam, he is asked to return. If he does not, the punishment is death” (page 24).
The Hizb ut-Tahrir’s branch in Malaysia promoted its July 26, 2009 conference for a global Caliphate with an image of a “beheaded” Statue of Liberty and NYC in smoking ruins. The HT web site refers to democracy as “perverted.”
Hizb ut-Tahrir promotion for Caliphate conference shows “beheaded” Statue of Liberty and “burning” NYC
This same Hizb ut-Tahrir blog has also promoted the HT pamphlet (page 62), distributed at Hizb ut-Tahrir’s Oak Lawn conference in the United States, that supports killing those individuals who leave Islam as guilty of “treason and a political attack on the Khilafah.”
C. Additional Background on the Supremacism of Hizb ut-Tahrir
At the July 19 meeting at the Chicago Oak Lawn suburb, HT publicly promoted its goal as the “supremacy” of its extremist view of Islam. HT speaker Dr. Jaleel Abdul-Adil called for conference attendees to achieve such a caliphate, work towards making Islam “supreme on this earth,” or to “die in the attempt.” HT justified its extremist views by stating “every group tries to expand its influence,” while distributing a pamphlet to conference attendees that justified killing Muslims who choose to leave Islam.
The HT pamphlet mocks human rights, freedom, equality, and justifies killing Muslims who choose to leave Islam. It is designed to reject the concept of any type of “Islamic reformation” demanding instead the creation of a caliphate. The HT pamphlet mocks the efforts by Canadian Islamic reformer Irshad Manji (page 6), condemns “Women’s groups engaged in gender equality campaigns” (page 13), claims that challenging the Taliban’s rejection of human rights was merely a ploy “to attack Islam” (page 16), mocks “The Fallacy of Western Universalism” (page 21), mocks “allegedly universal values of secularism, freedom, democracy, Human Rights, pluralism, and the rule of law” (page 23), calls for “Shari’ah rule” (page 39), and demands separate laws for men and women.
The HT brochure defends the death penalty for so-called “apostates” – who leave Islam (pages 62 and 68). On page 62, HT justifies killing other Muslimswho leave Islam because HT views such Muslims as guilty of “treason.”
The HT brochure rejects human equality stating (page 64), “Equality is not the basis of Islam and never has been in the history of Islamic jurisprudence. This is a term alien to Islam.”
In the most recent July 26 London meeting, HT claimed that “thousands” attended its London conference, where HT attacked U.S. President Obama as seeking to “reinterpret the Qu’ran.” In August 2007, Barack Obama identified as America’s enemies those who would create “a repressive caliphate.” Such a caliphate is the primary organizational objective of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
On July 4, 2009, the London Times reported that on followers of Hizb ut-Tahrir leader have called for “the creation of the caliphate in which strict Islamic laws would be rigorously enforced.” It stated that a UK Hizb ut-Tahrir member had moved to Pakistan to promote such a caliphate. The London Times reported that: “Tayyib Muqeem, an English teacher from Stoke-on-Trent, said he had moved to Lahore to convert Pakistanis to the movement.” “At Lahore’s Superior College, where Muqeem has set up a Hizb ut-Tahrir student group, he said the organisation’s aim was to subject Muslim and western countries to Islamic rule under sharia law, ‘by force’ if necessary.” “In a caliphate, ‘every woman would have to cover up’ and stoning to death for adultery and the chopping off of thieves’ hands would be the law, he said.” “He added that Islamic rule would be spread through ‘indoctrination’ and by ‘military means’ if non-Muslim countries refused to bow to it. ‘Waging war’ would be part of the caliphate’s foreign policy.”
— BBC: Hizb ut Tahrir
— “Hizb Ut Tahrir or HT is an Islamic splinter group, which is banned in many countries around the world. It operates freely in Britain.”
— “But Newsnight has discovered that its website promotes racism and anti-Semitic hatred, calls suicide bombers martyrs, and urges Muslims to kill Jewish people.”
— “The party has expressed support of suicide bombings in Israel. It denounces Western governments and what it sees as their lackey regimes in the Middle East.”
— “In Denmark, HT’s spokesman has been found guilty of distributing racist propaganda.”
— April 2008 – Daily Telegraph: “Islamists ‘urge young Muslims to use violence'”
— “Hizb ut Tahrir, which wants to overthrow democracy and establish a worldwide Islamic theocracy, distributed leaflets to young Muslims inciting them to resist the occupation of Islamic lands, according to a TV documentary by a former group member.”
— “One leaflet read: ‘Your forefathers destroyed the first crusader campaigns. Should you not proceed like them and destroy the new crusaders?'”
— “‘Let the armies move to help the Muslims in Iraq, for they seek your help.’ Another leaflet, handed out last August, pours scorn on the UN and tells followers to embark on a Violent Extemism, or ‘holy war’.”
— “The Panorama documentary contains the first testimony indicating it has advocated the use of force. The group has been accused of fuelling terrorism in the past, but has always denied involvement in any form of violent activity.”
— “Omar Shariff, the first UK suicide bomber, who blew himself up in a Tel Aviv bar in 2003, is alleged to have been radicalised by Hizb ut Tahrir.”
— “Panorama has also uncovered a speech made in August last year by Ata Abu-Rishta, the global leader of Hizb ut Tahrir, when he called for the “destruction” of Hindus living in Kashmir, Russians in Chechnya and Jews in Israel.”
— “‘The Caliphate (global Islamic government) will liberate the countries and the people from the influence of the Kafer (non-believer) and its allies and the tyranny of its men and followers,’ he said.”
— “Rishta also spoke recently at its annual conference in Jakarta, Indonesia, where, as video footage in the Panorama expose shows, he whipped the 100,000-strong crowd into a frenzy by calling for a war on Jews. Saleem Atchia, a senior member of Hizb ut Tahrir UK, later made a firebrand speech from the same platform.”
— “Maher, a former friend of the bombers who tried to blow up Glasgow Airport in June and the organisation’s north-east ‘director’ until he left in 2005, claims its aims are the same the world over.”
— “He says its British disciples believe they will eventually fight on these shores.”
— “‘Hizb ut Tahrir despises democracy and believes Shariah law must be imposed over the whole world, by force if necessary,’ he said.”
— “‘I think unless we challenge this we are sleepwalking into a very dangerous future.'”
— UK Guardian: “leaflets handed out by Hizb ut-Tahrir supporters in Copenhagen which claimed suicide bombings in Israel were ‘legitimate’ acts of ‘martyrdom'”
AFP: US mulls working with some Taliban — AFP reports: “The Obama Administration was looking at whether it could work with some members of the Taliban as part of a review of the Afghanistan war strategy, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hinted overnight.”
— “‘We’re in the midst of a very thorough analysis of our assumptions about how best to achieve our core goals of protecting our country, our interests and our friends and allies from the scourge of terrorism,’ Ms Clinton said.”
— “‘I’m not going to pre-empt or prejudge where this analysis comes out,’ Ms Clinton said in response to a question on whether she agreed with some in President Barack Obama’s Administration who support Washington working with some ‘reconcilable’ elements of the Taliban.”
— “‘We are looking at every possible question that can be raised, including the one that you just asked, in order to determine the smartest approach for the president to adopt,’ the chief US diplomat said as she stood alongside New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Murray McCully.”
National Post: Obama willing to talk to Taliban — “‘Bowing to the reality that the Taliban is too ingrained in Afghanistan’s culture to be entirely defeated, the administration is prepared, as it has been for some time, to accept some Taliban role in parts of Afghanistan,’ the official said, according to the AP story.”
Huffington Post: Obama To Accept Taliban In Afghanistan’s Future: Senior Official — “The Taliban and the question of how the administration should regard the Islamist movement have assumed a central place in the policy deliberations under way at the White House, according to administration officials participating in the meetings.”
Reuters: General wants 40,000 more U.S. troops for Afghan — “The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan has recommended an increase of 40,000 troops as the minimum necessary to prevail, two sources familiar with his recommendations said on Thursday.”
— “General Stanley McChrystal also gave President Barack Obama an option of sending more than 40,000 troops, the sources said, which could be politically risky given deep doubts among Obama’s fellow Democrats about the eight-year-old war.”
— Today’s Zaman reports:
— “The family did not report her as missing to any authorities, telling other villagers that they had ‘left the incident to God.'”
— “The prosecution charges in its indictment that the murder was an honor killing and that pressures related to the woman’s interactions with men in the conservative village had led her male relatives to kill her.”
— “The prosecution examined the woman’s cell phone records and found that her last call was to her boyfriend, H.K.”
— “He told the prosecution that the day Kilic supposedly got ‘lost,’ she had called him. ‘Her voice seemed very tense. She said she was at home — it was as if she was afraid someone would see her talking on the phone. She was in a hurry, she suggested we elope and said ‘otherwise they’ll kill me.'”
Palestinians Remember Murdered Christian Bookstore Leader — BOSNEWS Reports:
— “Palestinian Christians on Tuesday, October 7, urged prayers as they observed the second anniversary of the day that militants murdered the director of the only known Christian bookstore in the Gaza Strip.”
— “Rami Ayyad, 32, was discovered stabbed and shot to death in a street of Gaza City, the territory’s main city, on October 7, 2007. The killing death came six months after his Teacher’s Bookshop of the Palestinian Bible Society was blown up by militants.”
Rami Ayyad, 32, was discovered stabbed and shot to death in a street of Gaza City.
— see also Elam report
— see also FREETHEMM report
— ICC reports: “Washington, D.C. (October 08, 2009) – International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that on October 7 an Iranian judge charged Maryam and Marzieh with ‘crimes’ of apostasy and propagation of the Christian faith. They could face life imprisonment if convicted of apostasy.”
— “Elam ministries told ICC that Maryam and Marzieh were unexpectedly taken to appear before the court yesterday morning.”
— “In a positive development, their case has now been transferred from the revolutionary court to the regular courts after the judge dropped the earlier charge of anti-state activities. Maryam, Marzieh and their lawyer are pleased with this development.”
— “Maryam and Marzieh were detained on March 5, 2009. The Iranian officials accused them of ‘anti-state activities’ following their conversion from Islam to Christianity. During their appearance before the revolutionary court on August 9, they told the court that they would not recant their faith in Christ.”
— “Iranian officials sent Maryam and Marzieh to the infamous Evin prison where they have endured mistreatment, including solitary confinement and deprivation of medical attention. Both of them are in poor health. On October 4, Maryam suffered severe food poisoning and was given medical attention after much insistence.”
— “In an interview with the Voice of America Persian News Network, Maryam and Marzieh’s lawyer said, ‘My clients are not prepared to lie about their faith under any condition.'”
— “ICC’s Regional Manager for Africa and the Middle East, Jonathan Racho, said, ‘We welcome the move by the Iranian court to drop the charges of anti-state activities against Maryam and Marzieh. We urge Iranian officials to drop charges of apostasy and propagation of Christianity, as well. As party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Iran has an obligation to respect the right of Maryam and Marzieh to follow the religion of their choice.'”
On Friday, October 2, 2009, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) adopted resolution A/HRC/12/L.14/Rev.1 that was co-sponsored by Egypt and the United States. This freedom of expression resolution condemned any expression considered to promote “racial and religious stereotyping.”
A. Summary of New Resolution and Concerns Regarding Freedom of Expression Raised by Human Rights Groups
Resolution A/HRC/12/L.14/Rev.1 states:
— “its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law to address and combat such incidents..”
— “Recognizes the positive contribution that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, particularly by the media, including through information and communication
technologies such as the Internet, and full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can make to the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and to preventing human rights abuses, but expresses regret at the promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes of vulnerable individuals or groups of individuals, and at the use of information and communication technologies such as the Internet for purposes contrary to respect for human rights, in particular the perpetration of violence against and exploitation and abuse of women and children, and disseminating racist and xenophobic discourse or content…”
Rights group Article 19 challenged the resolution stating that “the language of ‘negative racial and religious stereotyping’ does not resolve the problems inherent in the earlier draft resolution: it is ambiguous as to what ‘stereotyping’ refers to and it may be easily interpreted to encompass religions, religious ideas and religious symbols, none of which are not protected by international law.” Article 19’s Agnes Callamard stated that “The equality of all ideas and convictions before the law and the right to debate them freely is the keystone of democracy.”
During the UN Human Rights Council discussions (see webcast), Egyptian representative Mr. Hisham Badr decries that freedom of expression has been used to promote “racial and religious stereotyping” and “incitement to racial and religious hatred.” U.S. representative Mr. Douglas M. Griffiths (see webcast) stated that U.S. partnership with Egypt on this resolution was to “bridge an unhelpful divide over the issue of freedom of expression in this Human Rights Council.”
In December 2007, however, OIC nations, including Egypt, abstained from voting on UNHRC resolution A/HRC/6/L.15/Rev.1 because it also defended the right of individuals to freedom of religion and conscience, urging States:
— “To ensure that their constitutional and legislative systems provide adequate and effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief to all without distinction, inter alia, by the provision of effective remedies in cases where the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, or the right to practice freely one’s religion, including the right to change one’s religion or belief, is violated.”
Despite the boycotting of A/HRC/6/L.15/Rev.1 by OIC nations, that UNHRC resolution passed in December 2007. The UNHRC has not sought to support the rights called for under December 2007 Resolution A/HRC/6/L.15/Rev.1, or seek the remedies for freedoms called for therein.
Increasingly, religious minorities have been oppressed by nations supporting a form of extremism that denies freedom of religion and that oppresses religious minorities through various laws, including laws that punish individuals for “blasphemy” and “apostasy.”
B. Associated Press Report on October 2009 UNHRC Resolution A/HRC/12/L.14/Rev.1
— “The U.N. Human Rights Council approved a U.S.-backed resolution Friday deploring attacks on religions while insisting that freedom of expression remains a basic right.
The inaugural resolution sponsored by the U.S. since it joined the council in June broke a long-running deadlock between Western and Islamic countries in the wake of the publication of cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. The resolution has no effect in law but provides Muslim countries with moral ammunition the next time they feel central tenets of Islam are being ridiculed by Western politicians or media through ‘negative racial and religious stereotyping.'”
— AP also reported that human rights groups “said Egypt was in no position to lecture other countries about free speech as it has a poor record on the matter”
— AP report continues: “‘Egypt’s cosponsorship of the resolution on freedom of expression is not the result of a real commitment to upholding freedom of expression,’ said Jeremie Smith, Geneva director of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies. ‘If this were the case, freedom of expression would not be systematically violated on a daily basis in Egypt,’ he said.”
— “Others warned that the resolution appears to protect religions rather than believers and encourages journalists to abide by ill-defined codes of conduct. ‘Unfortunately, the text talks about negative racial and religious stereotyping, something which most free expression and human rights organizations will oppose,’ said Agnes Callamard, executive director of London-based group Article 19. ‘The equality of all ideas and convictions before the law and the right to debate them freely is the keystone of democracy,’ she said.”
— “Although the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism.”
— “Some Asian and African countries had called for stronger condemnation of articles, cartoons and videos they believe defames Islam.”
C. October 2009 – UNHRC Resolution A/HRC/12/L.14/Rev.1 Debate
— “In a resolution on Freedom of opinion and expression (A/HRC/12/L.14/Rev.1), adopted without a vote, the Human Rights Council reaffirms the rights contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping continue to rise around the world; calls on all parties to armed conflict to respect international humanitarian law; recognizes the moral and social responsibilities of the media and the importance that the media’s own elaboration of voluntary codes of conduct can play; invites the Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, to carry out his activities in accordance with its resolution 7/36 and all relevant Council resolutions and decisions; requests the Secretary-General to provide the assistance necessary to the Special Rapporteur to fulfill his mandate effectively; requests the Special Rapporteur to submit an annual report to the Council and the General Assembly on the activities relating to his mandate; and decides to continue its consideration of the issue of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in accordance with its programme of work.”
“The resolution was introduced by Egypt and the United States on Thursday afternoon and a summary of the introduction can be found in press release HRC/09/124 of 1 October 2009.”
The European Union’s representative, Jean-Baptiste Mattei (France), “speaking on behalf of the European Union” stated that:
— ” The freedom of opinion and expression was a fundamental human right that every member of the Council had to uphold, promote and protect. The cornerstones of the European Union’s value systems were their beliefs in tolerance, non-discrimination, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and freedom of religion or belief. They demanded that all people of the world were able to enjoy their right to hold opinions without interference. Restrictions on the right to freedom of expression should be no more extensive than permitted by human rights law. Respect for the freedom of expression and opinion was vital for strengthening democracy, combating racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance.”
— “Optional Paragraph four of the current resolution constituted a final compromise for the European Union since they firmly believed that debate on how to deal with these issues had to be grounded in international human rights law, which protected individuals in the exercise of their freedom of religion or belief. Human rights laws did not and should not protect belief systems. Hence, the language on stereotyping only applied to stereotyping of individuals and not of ideologies, religions or abstract values. The European Union rejected and would continue to reject the concept of defamation of religions and also rejected the misuse of religions or belief themselves for incitement of hatred. Further, the notion of a moral and social responsibility of the media as expressed in the resolution went well behind the ‘special duties and responsibilities’. The European Union could not subscribe to this concept in such general terms. States should not seek to interfere with the work of journalists and had to enable editorial independence of the media.”
The OIC’s representative, Zamir Akram (Pakistan), “speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference” stated that:
“ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the Organization of the Islamic Conference attached great importance to the exercise of freedom of belief and expression, but the exercise of this right carried with it duties and responsibilities, including the need to fight against hate speech. The joint Egyptian/United States initiative sought to address contemporary issues in the exercise of this right. Building on the 2005 text, the current text included issues of incitement to racial or religious hatred, negative stereotyping, and the need to combat and address the abuse of the right under international human rights law. Negative stereotyping or defamation of religions was a modern expression of religious hatred and xenophobia. This spread not only to individuals but to religions and belief systems, leading to violence, discrimination and hatred, negatively affecting human rights. The Organization of the Islamic Conference wished to put on record, that as per its understanding, the references to obligations under international human rights law came under the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and other particular bodies. The resolution should be adopted by consensus, now and in the future.”
D. United Nations Links on Resolution A/HRC/12/L.14/Rev.1
E. March 2009 UNHRC Resolution on “Defamation of Religion” A/HRC/10/L.2/Rev.1
In March 26, 2009, the UNHRC passed a resolution A/HRC/10/L.2/Rev.1 on “defamation of religion” that focused on “stressing the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam and Muslims in particular,” and that urged “all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, and to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs.”
F. Impact of UNHRC Resolution A/HRC/6/L.15/Rev.1 Challenging Intolerance But Allowing Freedom of Religion
The December 2007 UNHRC resolution A/HRC/6/L.15/Rev.1 has been widely ignored by the UNHRC and OIC members on this topic. Notably 15 of the OIC members abstained from supporting that December 2007 resolution on “intolerance,” because resolution A/HRC/6/L.15/Rev.1 also sought to promote freedom of religion and conscience.
On December 14, 2007, the UNHRC passed resolution A/HRC/6/L.15/Rev.1 “Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief.” In that December 2007 UNHRC resolution, the resolution condemns “Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and Christianophobia” (paragraph 2), urges states to allow “the right to practice freely one’s religion, including the right to change one’s religion or belief” (paragraph 9.a), and urges states to make it illegal for “advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to… violence” (paragraph 9.d).
In seeking to protect the religious rights of the individual (rather than the protection of religious rights based on organizations), as demonstrated by resolution A/HRC/6/L.15/Rev.1’s defense of the right to “change one’s religion”, this resolution provides a clear distinction from the goals of political Islamist organizations and Sharia law. Under Sharia law, the changing of religion (from Islam to another religion) is illegal, and a number of Islamist states have apostasy laws forbidding such an individual choice of religious freedom.
Notably, 15 Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) nations in the UNHRC abstained from voting on this resolution, as they felt this resolution conflicted with the OIC’s support for Sharia, which is fundamental to their extremist view of “human rights”, as described in the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. Pakistan (representing the OIC) urged for an Amendment to this resolution via A/HRC/6/L.49 to eliminate verbiage about the right to change one’s religion. Saudi Arabia felt that the resolution “went against Sharia law”, and Egypt felt that resolution needed to be applied “within the context of the tenets of Islam.”
December 2007 UNHRC Vote on Resolution A/HRC/6/L.15/Rev.1 - Where OIC Nations Abstained from Voting for a Resolution Supporting Religious Freedom
In fact, Egypt was one of the OIC nations that abstained from voting on the December 2007 resolution A/HRC/6/L.49stating that:
“SAMEH SHOUKRY (Egypt), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Egypt attached great importance to the freedom of religion, and had been a traditional supporter of the resolution, while maintaining that it should be applied within the context of the tenets of Islam. Egypt had frequently during the negotiations expressed concern with regards to the text – of particular concern was the way in which it approached the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, in total disregard of the agreements reached during the institution-building process. It was not possible to continue consultations, as the European Union had circumvented the discussion with the Third Committee. Egypt had however continued to remain engaged in the process. The efforts made by some delegations to bridge gaps were acknowledged. However, it had become apparent during the later stages that some of the more important suggestions by the OIC would not be accommodated. Egypt regretted that the Council seemed to have missed a historic opportunity to comprehensively address the issue of religious intolerance, and hoped the issue would be considered in the future. Egypt would abstain from a vote on the text.”
March 26, 2009 – Reuters: U.N. body adopts resolution on religious defamation — European Union: “The European Union does not see the concept of defamation of religion as a valid one in a human rights discourse”
— “Condemnation of defamation of religion had been included in a draft declaration being prepared for an April U.N. conference on racism, known as “Durban II,” but was removed earlier this month after Western countries said it was unacceptable.”
— “India and Canada also took to the floor of the Geneva-based Council to raise objections to the OIC text. Both said the text looked too narrowly at the discrimination issue.”
— “‘It is individuals who have rights, not religions,’ Ottawa’s representative told the body. “Canada believes that to extend (the notion of) defamation beyond its proper scope would jeopardize the fundamental right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of expression on religious subjects.”
— “A separate, EU-sponsored resolution about religious discrimination is due to be discussed by the Council on Friday.
— “Earlier this week, 180 secular, religious and media groups from around the world urged diplomats to reject the resolution which they said ‘may be used in certain countries to silence and intimidate human rights activists, religious dissenters and other independent voices’ and ultimately restrict freedoms.”
December 2007 – UNHRC Resolution A/HRC/6/L.15/Rev.1 – stated that: — Paragraph 4: “legal procedures pertaining to religious or belief-based groups and places of worship are not a prerequisite for the exercise of the right to manifest one’s religion or belief;”
— Paragraph 5: “Emphasizes that such procedures as described in paragraph 4 above, at the national or local levels, as and when legally required, should be non-discriminatory in order to contribute to the effective protection of the right of all persons to practise their religion or belief either individually or in community with others and in public or private;”
— Paragraph 8: “Emphasizes that promoting tolerance and acceptance by the public of and its respect for diversity and combating all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion and belief are substantial elements in creating an environment conducive to the full enjoyment by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as enshrined in article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;”
— Paragraph 9a urges States “To ensure that their constitutional and legislative systems provide adequate and effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief to all without distinction, inter alia, by the provision of effective remedies in cases where the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, or the right to practice freely one’s religion, including the right to change one’s religion or belief, is violated”
— Paragraph 9b urges States “To design and implement policies whereby education systems promote principles of tolerance and respect for others and cultural diversity and the freedom of religion or belief;
— Paragraph 9c urges States “To ensure that appropriate measures are taken in order to adequately and effectively guarantee the freedom of religion or belief of women as well as individuals from other vulnerable groups, including persons deprived of their liberty, refugees, children, persons belonging to minorities and migrants;”
— ICC reports: “Islamists Attack Pakistani Christian Family For Refusing to Convert” — “International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that on September 28, Islamists attacked the home of a Christian family for refusing to convert to Islam in Murree, a town near the Pakistan capital of Islamabad.”
— “Rafiq Mashi Bhatti and his family had lived in peace and harmony with their Muslim neighbors for years. However, in the past few months, they received anonymous phone calls and letters warning them to convert to Islam, leave their home or die.”
— “In one of the letters, the Christian family was told, ‘You Christians are agents of US led forces… Therefore it is our religious duty to wipe out all Christians from Islamic Holy land of Pakistan.'”
— “The family reported the death threats to the police but the police were unable to prevent the attack. The police are investigating the attack but the unknown assailants remain at large.”
(UK) Man in court over ‘honour’ killing
— UK Press Association reports: “A man has appeared at the Old Bailey charged with the ‘honour’ killing of Banaz Mahmod.”
— “Mohammed Saleh Ali, 27, of no fixed address, appeared by videolink and was remanded in custody to face trial in March.”
— “Ali was extradited to Britain from Iraq in June and charged with murder, conspiracy to murder and perverting justice. Ms Mahmod, 20, of Mitcham, south London, was strangled and her body buried in a suitcase on the orders of members of her family. Her father and uncle were jailed for life in 2007.”
Pakistan Federal Shariat Court acquits rape convict
— Pakistan Daily Times reports:
— “The Federal Shariat Court on Tuesday acquitted a convict, Zahid Hussain, who had been awarded five years imprisonment and a fine of Rs 100,000 in a rape case.”
— “The convict had filed a jail appeal, challenging his conviction and sentence. According to the prosecution, Hussain had sexually assaulted a girl in Larkana. The trial court had found him guilty and convicted him under Section 10 Offence of Zina (EOH) 1979. He was handed down awarded five years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs 100,000. Justice Salahuddin Mirza after hearing arguments by the appellant’s counsel, Haji Abdul Mujeeb, acquitted him”
