SOB’s Grins & Grumps

Everything Between Heaven and Earth and Beyond

  • Copyrights and Contact

    Henric C. Jensen
    All images and Artwork are
    © 2006-2018 Henric C. Jensen
    Mail

  • October 2021
    S M T W T F S
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
  • Categories

  • Meta

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘Sharia Laws’

UDHR under Attack Part 4.5 – an example of what it means

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 23, 2008


Eleven Editors-in-Chief and one Cartoonist are expected to be indicted, in their absence, in a Jordanian Court – in the wake of the Muhammad Cartoons. The charges enumerated are blasphemy, insulting a prophet and attempt to cause a rift in Jordanian national unity.

Prosecutor Hassan Abdullat has chosen to strike one of the original charges brought against the 12 Danes – that of crime against the Crown.

Töger Seidenfaden, editor-in-chief of Politikken and Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist from Jyllands-Posten who sparked the Cartoon Controversy with his image of Muhammad wearing a bomb for a turban are among the 12 to be indicted.

Orders for arrest

It is the newly formed Jordanian movement The Prophet Unites Us that has brought the legal action against the Danish journalists. Its Secretary General, Zakaria al-Sheikh, editor-in-chief for the news paper al-Haqiqa, tells Politikken that he expects order for the arrest of the 12 editors-in-chiefs and of Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who created the movie FITNA, a 15 minute movie depicting alleged exhortations to violence in the Qu’ran.

The Prosecutor is demanding that Interpol issue orders for the arrest the implicated journalists.

The Prophet Unites Us was formed in February 2008 after 17 Danish news papers had published Kurt Westergaard’s cartoon a second time. The cartoon was originally published by Jyllands-Posten as a comment in a debate on Freedom of Expression.

Working for boycotts

The movement organizes some 40 Jordanian media-outlets and organizations. It also works for a boycott of Danish products.

The indictment is based on the Jordanian blasphemy law, which forbids any insults of prophets. The issue of crime against the Crown was raised because the Royal House of Jordan is considered to hail from the prophet Muhammad and because king Abdullah, following the first caricature crisis said that any insult to the prophet is an insult to him. (my translation -original Swedish article here)

With all due respect to the Prophet (pbuh) and every honest, devout Muslim out there – this is silly. However it is also the writing on the wall that gives an indication of the attitude behind the way the OIC has hijacked the Human Rights Council, the UN, the UDHR and ultimately Freedom of Expression.

The Jordanian attitude described by the article above would be extremely offensive, if it wasn’t so ridiculous. Denmark has never been, nor will it ever be the jurisdiction of Jordanian Court, nor does King Abdullah have any say in what happens to Danish citizens.

I could have understood this whole thing, and even agreed with the prosecutor, if the images had been published in Jordan, but they weren’t and they won’t be.

However with the amendment to the UDHR/Human Rights Council, chances are that we will see more legal actions like this.

G-d Save the Queen!

numly esn 44452-080430-361656-15
© 2008 All Rights Reserved.

Posted in General, Human Rights, OIC, UN | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

UDHR under Attack part 4

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 23, 2008


372807144_5e55600ef7

Yesterday’s attack by the Islamists, led by Pakistan, had the subtlety of a thin-bladed knife slipped silently under the ribs of the Human Rights Council. At first reading the amendment to the resolution to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression might seem reasonable. It requires the Special Rapporteur:
“To report on instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination …” (My emphasis.)

“might seem reasonable…” But why would it seem reasonable?

Because, contrary to what many believe, there are actual limits on Freedom of Speech – or rather, there is a general consensus, that if you say certain things there may be legal repercussions, because certain things might be hateful or incite to hatred, and that in turn is a violation of the UDHR articles

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.

Article 14.
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

While those articles can primarily be said to deal with how a Government may or may not treat its citizens – they are also clear indications of what we, as a Society, consider to be comme il faut between citizens.

While the amendment to the “job-description” of the Special Rapporteur seems reasonable enough, it isn’t, because it requires the Special Rapporteur to regard as non-violations those violations that may be committed by nations against their own citizens. As Ketutar said in a comment to my entry yesterday:

“… still violations of human rights, but CRITICISING and PROTESTING against violations of human rights have become violation of human rights…

I.e – Criticizing one’s own government where that government tries to infringe on Civil Liberties has become “illegal” – exactly what Freedom of Speech an Freedom of Expression was once instituted to safe-guard – the People’s right to criticize its Government without risk of reprisals.

The consequences of this “amendment” to the UDHR article 19 are far-reaching. Not only does it make it impossible for citizens in religiously rigid societies, such as many Islamic Countries ruled by Sharia Laws, to voice their discontent with their Government. It also makes it possible for said countries to arrest, restrain, expel, gag any Human Rights Organizations that wish to monitor or investigate human rights violations in OIC countries, with impunity – this would include the UN and the Human Rights Council itself.

Freedom of Speech is the back-bone of any democracy, and where Freedom of Speech is restricted in regards to critical analysis of one’s government, there can be no democracy. The OIC has clearly told the world that they disagree with democratic principles and democratic government.

Posted in Human Rights, UDHR, UN | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

UDHR under Attack Part 1

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 21, 2008


International Humanist and Ethical Union carried an article on March 30, 2008.

Eleanor Roosevelt with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

“With the support of their allies including China, Russia and Cuba (none well-known for their defence of human rights) the Islamic States succeeded in forcing through an amendment to a resolution on Freedom of Expression that has turned the entire concept on its head. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression will now be required to report on the “abuse” of this most cherished freedom by anyone who, for example, dares speak out against Sharia laws that require women to be stoned to death for adultery or young men to be hanged for being gay, or against the marriage of girls as young as nine, as in Iran.”

The entire idea is silly, because Religious Freedom and Protection of honor and reputation is already guaranteed by the UDHR (articles 12 and 19), so it seems the OIC is somehow overshooting.

Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan saw the writing on the wall three years ago when he spoke of the old Commission on Human Rights having “become too selective and too political in its work”. Piecemeal reform would not be enough. The old system needed to be swept away and replaced by something better. The Human Rights Council was supposed to be that new start, a Council whose members genuinely supported, and were prepared to defend, the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Yet since its inception in June 2006, the Human Rights Council has failed to condemn the most egregious examples of human rights abuse in the Sudan, Byelorussia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China and elsewhere, whilst repeatedly condemning Israel and Israel alone.

Considering that we have 22 Arab Nations, a bunch of Islamic Nations, and Russia, Cuba, China involved as well as the usual abstentions one might be allowed some skepticism. If the old Commission didn’t work because of WHO are the members and the incessant politicking around who votes for because another votes against, one can hardly expect a Council to make much head way, if the same members are allowed to influence the work.

It’s like the debacle with the UN Resolutions – they will always be slanted against Israel, because there will always be 22 votes against her, plus the allies of those 22 votes…and the allies of those allies…

The whole idea of nations being members of UN Bodies is ridiculous, especially in Bodies that should have no political agenda at all, such as the Human Rights Council. Human Rights, Children’s Rights etc are non-political, so the people in UN who deal with those Rights should not be political either – i.e members of the Human Rights Council should not be nations and they should be separated from their Nationality when they assume their duties on the Council. They should also be required to swear that they will maintain their neutrality for the duration of their service on the Council. Any amendments to the various UN Charters and Declarations should be made by those neutral council members and not be voted on out-side the Council.

End Part 1

Posted in Human Rights, UDHR, UN | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: