Wednesday, January 6

Hillary supported a U.N. resolution that would criminalize any criticism of...can ya guess?

How many of you have heard of U.N. resolution 16/18?  (I'll guess less than one percent.)

If you're one of the tiny percentage of Americans who have heard about it, how many of you know what it says?

If you don't, don't feel bad:  Not one American out of a thousand knows.  So try this:  When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she strongly pushed for its passage.  Obama and loyal moron of state John "I served in VietNam" Kerry are also strong supporters.  That should tell you what you need to know, but if you're new I'll explain.

To understand what "16/18" does, you need to know about an organization called the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).  It's a group of 57 mostly majority-Muslim countries that comprises the largest voting bloc in the U.N. 

For a couple of decades the OIC has pushed the idea that speech or writing even slightly critical of Islam or its prophet should be punished--with the goal of suppressing such speech altogether.  In fact making “defamation of Islam” illegal everywhere is a chief objective in the OIC’s charter.

In 2005 the OIC published a 10 Year Plan of Action to criminalize ‘defamation of Islam.’  But rather than use those words--which free people would correctly have recognized as a complete revocation of free speech--the OIC drafters substituted the far more benign phrase “Countering Islamophobia.” The ten-year plan includes this:
3. Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.
That was 2005.  Six years later, in December of 2011, the U.N. passed UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, which was co-sponsored by Pakistan...and the United States??

You're kidding, right?

Unfortunately I'm not.  And it gets better:

After the murder of a dozen unarmed French employees of the satire mag Charlie Hebdo by Muslim terrorists, the spokesman for the OIC--one "Ufuk Gokcen"--tweeted...what, great sympathy for the unarmed victims so cruelly slaughtered by the men armed with machineguns?

Of course not.  Muslim diplomat Gokcen tweeted this:
That is, he implies the mass shooting--which your emperor claims simply doesn't happen outside the U.S. (yes, he actually said that--in Paris, no less--and just three days after a second group of Muzz armed with machineguns killed an additional 130 Parisians)--was the fault of the victims, and that the fix is to outlaw criticism or lampooning of Islam.

Now, why is this resolution so important?  Because Hillary Clinton strongly backed it.  And it would be astronomically unlikely that she would admit doing so was stupid.

It would certainly be helpful if a reporter would ask Hillary whether she still supported 16/18, and if so, what she thinks it requires U.N. members to do to their citizens that criticized Islam or its murderous pedophile prophet.

I won't hold my breath.

Okay, for you Democrats out there:  You're about to tell me that U.N. resolutions passed by the General Assembly--unlike those passed by the Security Council--aren't regarded as binding.  The true answer is, "not yet."  If you want to know the true intent of the OIC's and Hillary's 16/18, look at how the U.N. and the International Court of Justice have carefully, deliberately made it absolutely impossible to say conclusively how a resolution becomes binding on all member nations. 

Really, you need to click on that last link.  It's a textbook example of "lawfare" used by the former Soviet Union and everyone they trained:  Blur the rules, and later claim everyone agreed to X when that wasn't remotely the case.

And did it work?  Well here's how the U.S. Left spins the resolution:
Resolution 16/18, Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief, was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in March 2011. Among its many specific points, it highlights barriers to religiously tolerant societies and provides recommendations on how these barriers can be overcome. The resolution calls upon all member states to foster religious freedom and pluralism, to ensure religious minorities are properly represented, and to consider adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief. Other recommendations include creating government programs to promote inter-religious tolerance and dialogue, training government employees to be sensitive toward religious sensitivities, and engaging in outreach initiatives.
Wow, who could possibly be worried about such wonderful ideas, right?  It says the drafters want to "highlight barriers to religiously tolerant societies," right?  Sounds great--except what the resolution's drafters--the member states of the Organization for Islamic bullshit mean by that isn't at all the ordinary meaning of the phrase.

What they mean is, no one will be permitted to say anything deemed by them to be critical of Islam.

Leftists counter, "You can't possibly know that!  You're just an intolerant hater!"

Really?  Consider that the OIC had been trying to pass this resolution for several years, and that previous versions proposed criminalizing "blasphemous speech" and “defamation of religion.”  These were regularly rejected by our U.N. delegation on the grounds that limitations on speech – even speech deemed to be "blasphemous" – violated our Constitution.  
 
But after the ascension of emperor Barack, the U.S. government mysteriously switched positions:  The Constitution's protection of free speech was thrown overboard in the rush to please Muslims. 
 
Again, you're just sure this has to be tinfoil-hat stuff.  You literally can't believe it.  But the version that passed--with U.S. approval--includes the “incitement to imminent violence” phrase quoted above.  You think that simply bars some redneck from saying 'We need to kill some o' them Muzz guys,' and since you're fine with banning that you don't think the "incitement" clause is a problem.
 
But once any kind of speech is criminalized, the crucial next step is...who decides if, say, a cartoon could be said to "incite" someone to violence?  Would speech considered “blasphemous” do it?  Of course--because fundamentalist Muslims are incited to violence by...well, virtually everything.

Again, if you want to know what the OIC has in mind with this resolution, look at the language they originally proposed:  Against "blasphemy."  Which they alone get to define.
 
Getting the picture yet?  And keep in mind that while the Bush administration steadfastly opposed the original language, the emperor's regime--including Hillary Clinton--approved the resolution after the drafters substituted "incitement" for "blasphemy."  But the change is simply cosmetic--no rational adult can deny that it limits speech.  The emperor and Hillary have ditched free speech to win the favor of the Muslim drafters.
 
Example:  If anyone writes a column objecting to any Islamic government or group throwing gays off buildings, or stoning rape victims (a very common fate for Muslim women who've been raped), or against what the mainstream media prefers to euphemize as simply "FGM"--cutting off the clitoris of 12-year-old girls--then you've criticized Islam.  And violated resolution 16/18.

Resolution 16/18 explicitly seeks to have U.N. member states pass laws to enact criminal penalties.  For example, Quebec has introduced "Bill 59," which would criminalize websites offensive to Islam with fines of up to $20,000.  If this bill passes (as seems likely at this point) it suggests a similar measure will become law for all of Canada.
 
But of course, Canada has always coddled Muslims. That wouldn't happen here...would it?
 
Well consider that just one day after the San Bernardino Islamic terrorist attack, your emperor's hand-picked attorney-general Loretta Lynch vowed that the laughably mis-named "justice department" will prosecute anyone she and the emperor claim has used “anti-Muslim rhetoric.”  And how does she define that?  'Well, Canada defines it as anything offensive to Islam.  The entire U.N. general assembly has passed a resolution that criminalizes...'  You get the idea.

Again, if you think this isn't the goal, go back and look at the original language the Islamic drafters used--language criminalizing "blasphemy."  And we know that Muslims consider anything critical of Islam is "blasphemy."

Do you think the drafters changed their purpose after the Bush administration said it violated our First Amendment?  Ask a leftist.  Of course they don't care either way, since anything that weakens Christianity or the U.S. is fine with them.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home