King Abdullah II of Jordan plays a key role in Alliance of Civilizations’
and related interfaith dialogue initiatives. These initiatives have a global
reach. They come with a heavy price for it
involves “finding the balance between free speech and religious freedom”. In practice, free speech is always sacrificed. This recent headline perfectly illustrates this
balance.
The Jordanian government clearly
had no interest in protecting this man and it’s subsequent condemnation of the
killing rings hollow.
The fact that this writer’s free
speech is criminalized perfectly illustrates what free nations should come to
expect as the United Nations’ governmental structures attempt to reconcile
Islam with the West through its Alliance of Civilizations and related social
cohesion initiatives. President Obama
joined the United States to the initiative in 2009. The AoC initiative is a key component of the
U.S. global counter-terrorism strategy.
Note that Mr. Hattar was charged
with inciting sectarian strife and insulting Islam. In 2005, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said
during the launch of the Alliance of Civilizations initiative that no one
should have the right to criticize Islam.
The UN Human Rights Council promptly introduced the Defamation of Religion
resolution intended to criminalize such free speech. Western nations rejected that proposal then and
every time it was subsequently re-introduced.
The Council changed strategy and reintroduced the resolution, this time
on steroids, with a different name: Resolution
16/18. The face given the Resolution is the
Istanbul Process. The Process was
launched by the Organization of Islamic Co-operation (OIC) for the Islamic
world, Hillary Clinton for the U.S., and High Representative Catherine Ashton
for the European Union.
This is what is envisioned for the
West as penned by the OIC: “The OIC has
always upheld its unwavering commitment to freedom of expression but has never
held back in expressing caution and concern of its misuse and abuse. Like all other rights, the right of freedom
of expression is not absolute and that cannot be exploited to infringe on the
rights of others or to incite violence and hatred to endanger human lives by
engaging in blatant insult, denigration and mockery of the deep seated
religious beliefs and symbols and personalities sacred to religions and their
followers.” (See Fifth
OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia)
“Any depiction of God is prohibited
in Islam” and could “incite” violence.
So while the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that the burning of a flag is an expression of free speech, we have yet
to see whether a new Court shall follow the recommendations of the OIC and
Hillary Clinton that the burning of Koran is not protected speech. I personally view actions as disgusting. Nevertheless, relinquishing our free speech
rights to accommodate Islamic law or those who are thin skinned does not serve
the best interests of the western world.