10

A United Nations Declaration of Religion?

A controversial resolution at the UN called “Defamation of Religion,” ultimately aims to

enforce recognition of Islam under the guise of racism and xenophobia. Even though sponsors of
the resolution maintain it is for all religions, the wording says quite the opposite.
For starters, the title of the resolution substantiates disingenuousness, using the singular,
“Religion” rather than the plural “Religions.” Islam is the only religion that the resolution
mentions by name, and sponsors of the U.N. Defamation of Religion view Islam as the only true
religion. The Defamation of Religion resolution seeks to protect a totalitarian legal system--with
mandatory beliefs and rituals--from question, debate, or critical inquiry worldwide. Using
Orwellian vernacular to distort the true and expected definition of human rights and religious
freedom, the Defamation of Religion resolution might more appropriately be titled “The
Declaration of Religion.”
The totalitarian ideology of Islam only recognizes Shari’ah Law, which violates the
Constitution in several ways. Islamic Shari’ah Law violates the First Amendment granting
freedom of speech and the press, and the separation of church and state. It violates the Fifth
Amendment requirements for a grand jury and due process of law. It violates the Sixth
Amendment granting legal council and an unbiased jury for criminal offenses. It violates the
Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. And finally, since rights in Islam
are only relative to Shari’ah Law, it violates the tenth amendment guaranteeing that powers not
delegated to the federal government belong to the states or to the people.
The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), a group of 57 Muslim majority nations,
holds the largest voting bloc in the UN. The OIC Secretary General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, is
the one who congratulated Obama on his inauguration, and appealed for the new president’s help
to work out problems that face the Muslim world. In 1990, the OIC adopted the Cairo
Declaration on Human Rights in Islam at the nineteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers
on August 5, 1990 dictating that Islam is the only legitimate religion.
 Article Two of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights is repeated from Chapter One to
stress its severity:

“(a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is

guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of
individuals, societies and states to protect this
right from any violation, and it is prohibited to
take away life except for a Shari'ah prescribed
reason.
(b) It is forbidden to resort to such means as may result in
the genocidal annihilation of mankind.
(c) The preservation of human life throughout the term of
time willed by God is a duty prescribed by
Shari'ah.
(d) Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the
duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is
prohibited to breach it without a Sharia-prescribed
reason.”1

The OIC and its allied organizations have aggressively engaged in efforts to expand
Islamic Shari’ah law in the West. If adopted, the UN Defamation of Religion resolution would
make it illegal in Islamic dominated countries, and countries that reach them via the Internet, to
hold discussions, to debate, have opinions, or point out historically accurate information that
describe Islam unfavorably. Cruel and unusual Islamic punishment methods of stonings,
hangings, amputations, honor killings, punishments for blasphemy, executions of apostates,
sanctioned wife-beatings, female genital mutilations, and the legitimization of modern Islamic
slavery could be practiced worldwide regardless of ones religious persuasion.
The OIC’s Declaration on Human Rights in Islam makes it clear that the UN Defamation
of Religion resolution is based on, and would adhere to Islamic Shari’ah law, legalizing
discrimination against women and non-Muslims, criminalizing free speech, freedom of religion,

1
“Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,” http://www.oicun.org/articles/54/1/Cairo-Declaration-on-Human-
Rights-in-Islam/1.html
and freedom of conscience. In persistent efforts by the OIC, the so far non-binding UN
Defamation of Religions resolution has received landslide votes every year since 2005. The OIC
has declared its intention to seek a binding resolution requiring UN member states to criminalize
criticism of Islam.
The Defamation of Religion resolution is rightly viewed by concerned non-Muslims as
contradictory to human rights. The purpose of the UN as set forth in its charter is “to maintain
international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in
solving international economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems and in promoting
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to be a centre for harmonizing the
actions of nations in attaining these ends.” Peace, security, and human rights are for people, not
belief systems, therefore religious opinion is not susceptible to the dictates of the UN.
On March 28, 2008, the U.N. Human Rights Council voted for a Special Rapporteur on
Freedom of Expression to report on cases where freedom of expression is “abused.” Such
“abuse” of freedom includes using free speech to analyze Islamic doctrine, and criticizing
Islamic doctrine that somehow “justifies” violence against non-Muslims.
The U.S., Canada, and European countries abstained from voting on the 2008 Special
Rapporteur Resolution, but no nation voted against it. What would cause them to not take a
stand? Perhaps they do not take Islamic doctrine at its word, or perhaps they are intimidated by
the presence of OPEC nations. Any sane human being would have to wonder if they are terrified
cowards, the recipients of bribery, dangerously naïve, extorted; or all of the above.
The UN resolution threatens those who try to inform others about the Islamic manifesto
to Islamize the world. Geert Wilders, a Dutch Parliamentarian, is an example of a victim of the
twisted definition of freedom of expression. GeertWilders lives in hiding for producing “Fitna,”
a forthright documentary that accurately reveals the aggressive Islamic manifesto to make the
world submit to Islam according to the dictates of the Koran.
Geert Wilders and Robert Spencer wrote an article together when Geert Wilders was
prosecuted by the Amsterdam Court of Appeals for his statements about Islam. Wilders and
Spencer wrote that:

“Civilized states have no business participating in a forum

that has been hijacked by the Islamic-supremacist agenda
 to replace fundamental human rights with the barbaric
strictures of sharia.” 2

Justifiable concerns are that the resolution will eventually criminalize the practice of
Christianity and Judaism under international law. According to the American Center for Law &
Justice (ACLJ), a United States non-profit organization that launched a campaign to defend
freedom of religion worldwide, anti-defamation started as a plan to specifically ban defamation
of Islam, but wording in the document was later modified to sound like it includes all religions. 3
An article, “U.N. Schemes to Make Christians Criminals,” by Bob Unruh, dated
September 10, 2008, for World Net Daily, said that the ACLJ’s European division, the European
Center for Law & Justice (ECLJ), submitted arguments in June 2008 to the UN opposing the
proposal:

“The position of the ECLJ in regards to the issue of

‘defamation of religion’ resolutions, as they have been
introduced at the U.N. Human Rights Council and
General Assembly, is that they are in direct violation of
international law concerning the rights to freedom of
religion and expression.”

The brief noted that in Islamic dominated countries, the laws protect Islam and harass
religious minorities with penalties up to and including execution. Unruh’s article revealed
concerns of many who understand the definitive consequences of the resolution, citing an ECLJ
quote that said:

“The implementation of domestic laws to combat

defamation of religion in many OIC countries reveals a
selective and arbitrary enforcement toward religious

2
Wilders, Geert & Spencer, Robert; “2009: A Year to Defend Free Speech,” January 26, 2009,
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODBhOTYyZWYzYjQ2MDUxOWI2OTU2YTY4Yjc2ZmFlMTk=&w=MA
3
“Petition Opposing The Organization of Islamic Conference,”, https://www.aclj.org/petition/Default.aspx?
AC=DNE0807017&SC=3359
 minorities, who are often Christians. Those violations are
frequently punishable by the death penalty.”

The ACLJ said, in promotion of its petition opposing the resolution, that:

“They’re attempting to pass a sinister resolution that is

nothing more than blatant religious bigotry.” "This is
very important to understand. This radical proposal would
outlaw Christianity … it would make the proclamation of
your faith an international crime.” 4

The resolution draft submitted in March 2008 only claimed discrimination against
Muslims specifically. It condemned a growing trend of “Islamophobia,” which is itself a
derogatory term for those who oppose Islamic standards. It hypocritically expressed concern
over negative stereotyping, urging a provision of “adequate protection against acts of hatred,
discrimination, intimidation and coercion results from the defamation of any religion.” Without
mentioning any other religions, it would make the proclamation of other faiths an international
crime because in Islam, it is a crime to have any other faith except Islam. This is itself an act of
hatred, discrimination, intimidation, coercion. Actually, it is extortion.
Durban I, a committee preparing for a conference held in Durban, South Africa, April
2009, was principally incompatible with U. S. interests and the Constitution because the plan
contained offensive references to limits on free speech, contained anti-Israel and anti-Jewish
provisions while alleging the victimization of Muslims are a result of counter-terrorism “racists.”
The U.S. and Israel walked out of Durban I—but without standing up for the U.S. Constitution
and Israel.
Durban II was held in Geneva in April 2009. Its planning committee consisted of a
Libyan chair, an Iranian vice-chair, a Cuban rapporteur, with Russian Yuri Boychenko
presiding.5 Anne Bayefksy, an observer of the UN who runs the EyeontheUN.Org website, wrote

4
Unruh, Bob; “U.N. Schemes to Make Christians Criminals” , July 10, 2008,
http://propheticnews.net/content/view/6380/67/
5
Bayefsky, Anne; “A Foreign Policy of Obsequiousness,” February 17, 2009,
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTNlNmE3NDdkMTc0M2I4ODYyYjI1YTNlMmM2N2VjYzU
about the U.S. State Department team Barack Obama sent to the February 2009 planning
conference for Durban II in a Forbes column:

“The Obama administration’s decision to join the

planning of the UN’s Durban II ‘anti-racism’ conference
has just taken a new twist: ‘cover-up’. On Friday, State
Department officials and a member of the American
Durban II delegation claimed the United States had
worked actively to oppose efforts to brand Israel as racist
in the committee drafting a Durban II declaration. The
trouble is that they didn’t. The Feb. 20[2009] State
Department press release says the U.S. delegation in
Geneva ‘outline our concerns with the current outcome
document’ and in particular ‘our strong reservations about
the direction of the conference, as the draft document
singles out Israel for criticism.”

Baefsky wrote further that a member of the delegation told The Washington Post that Obama’s
delegation did not object to framing Israel in “an anti-racism manifesto that makes no other
country-specific claims.” Baefsky also wrote that:

“Obama’s Durban II team slipped easily into the UN’s

anti-Israel and anti-Jewish environs, taking the approach
that ‘fitting in’ was best accomplished by staying silent.”6

European states to boycott Durban II were undermined when the US agreed to

participate. France, England, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands were considering
boycotting but found it unrealistic for ally countries to disengage because U.S. participation
effectively legitimized it.

6
Bayefsky, Ann; “The Obama Administration Sacrifices Israel,” February 22, 2009,
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/22/obama-israel-holocaust-durban-opinions-contributors_united_nations.html
 A Human Rights Council session in March 2009 preparing for Durban II opened with
Human rights authorities from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Venezuela,
Russia, Yemen, the Arab Group, the African Group, Malaysia, Bahrain, Senegal, and the OIC.
The opening statement given by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Secretary-
General of the Durban II Conference had a demeaning tone:

“The Review Conference has also been the target of a

disparaging media and a lobbying campaign on the part of
those who fear a repetition of anti-Semitic outbursts. This,
in my view, is completely unwarranted...Narrow,
parochial interests and reflexive partisanship must be cast
aside in the interest of a greater common good.”

Iran’s representative who spoke next, contradicted himself by saying:

“The Islamic Republic of Iran welcomes the timely

decision of the General Assembly and the Human Rights
Council for holding the Durban Review Conference in
2009. We are of the view that the Durban Review
Conference and its preparatory process can provide the
international community with an ample opportunity to
take stock of the Durban commitment as well as to further
strategize in the global fight against racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance and to
address their contemporary forms and manifestation with
a view to adopting further initiatives and actions. The
struggle against racism has led to a persisting
manifestation of racism and intolerance including racial
and religious profiling and the rise of Islamophobic
incidents in certain parts of the world.”
 The last statement is illogical and hypocritical, as it clearly says the struggle against
racism begets more racism. It further labels those who disagree with Islam as “Islamophobes”,
while blurring the distinction between race and religion.
At the exclusion of followers of every religion except Islam, the draft adopted in March
2009 mentions the word “Muslim” four times, and the plural “Muslims” one time. Near the end
of the document, a request was made for the Special Rapporteur to report cases of Islamophobia
in particular.
Then, the April 2009 Durban Review Conference, or Durban II, did not include the word
religion in its name as it previously had. Its official name was “World Conference Against
Racism” (WCAR). The conference was boycotted by Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy,
the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, and even the United States. Twenty-three European
Union countries sent low-level delegations, and the Czech Republic discontinued its attendance
on the first day. Concerns were that the conference would be used to promote anti-Semitism and
laws contrary to free speech.
On the first day of the conference, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a
speech condemning Israel as “totally racist.” Ahmadinejad’s attendence was controversial
because of his past statements on Israel and the Holocaust, such as statements accusing the West
of using the European Holocaust as a “pretext” for aggression against Palestinians.7
The UN-sponsored “Alliance of Civilizations” reflects the views of the OIC and mimicks
the UN Defamation of Religion resolution. A 2005 statement issued after a summit in Mecca
explains the Alliance mission to internationally criminalize defamation of Islam as a form of
racism:

“The Conference underlined the need to collectively

endeavor to reflect the noble Islamic values, counter
Islamophobia, defamation of Islam and its values and
desecration of Islamic holy sites, and to effectively
coordinate with States as well as regional and
international institutions and organizations to urge them
to criminalize this phenomenon as a form of racism.” 8

7
“Durban Review Conference,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_II, May 11, 2009
 Along with various sovereign states, members of the Alliance include the OIC, the
Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (set up by the OIC), the Arab League,
and the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization. There is no
representation from Israel in the Alliance.9 Obama was scheduled to attend an Alliance meeting
in April 2009, but the White House did not confirm if he actually did.
After Bush resisted years of such initiatives at the UN, the Obama Administration is co-
sponsoring with Egypt, another anti-free speech resolution at the UN. This resolution has no
immediate effect in law but provides Muslim countries with ammunition when they feel central
tenets of Islam are being challenged. Approved by the U.N. Human Rights Council in early
October 2009, it calls on states to condemn and criminalize “any advocacy of national, racial or
religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” 10
The real hate and discrimination is directed against non-Muslims in the UN Defamation
of Religion. The U.S. has no business participating in alliances and organizations that endorse a
specific religion or in any way limits free speech. Against all the freedoms enjoyed and valued in
the West, if we remain members of the UN, we will not only be assimilated into a one-world
government, but a Shari’ah one-world government that dictates everything from finances to
personal and religious rights. All that the Constitution stands for is being mocked and abused by
even allowing such an organization to convene on American soil.

8
Gaffney, Frank Jr.; “Gaffney: “Friends of the Muslim Brotherhood are no friends of America,” March 16, 2009,
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025266.php
9
Rosett, Claudia; “The UN’s Alliance of Civilizations,” March 26, 2009,
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/25/alliance-of-civilizations-opinions-columnists-obama-un.html
10
Spencer, Robert; “Obama Declares War on Free Speech,” October 8, 2009,
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33869