Sounds of Silence

By MARK DUBOWITZ
June 19, 2008

Welcome to a world where criticism of militant Islam could land you in court or worse. In Vancouver, Canada’s venerable Maclean’s magazine awaits a hate-speech verdict from a human-rights tribunal for publishing a chapter from syndicated columnist Mark Steyn’s best-selling book “America Alone.” The accusers charge the author and publisher with “Islamophobia.”

Last week, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), warned a gathering in Kuala Lumpur that “mere condemnation or distancing from the acts of the perpetrators of Islamophobia” would not suffice. He recommended that Western countries restrict freedom of expression and demanded that the media stop publishing “hate material” like the Danish cartoons. “It is now high time for concrete actions to stem the rot before it aggravates any further,” he said.

AP

Kabul speech: Afghans demonstrate against a Dutch Quran documentary and Danish cartoons that depicted the Prophet Muhammad. March 21, 2008.

Islamic countries already scored a victory on this front back in March. They pushed through a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Council urging a global ban on the public defamation of religion — read Islam.

* * *

These are examples of a growing campaign to use judicial power to silence critics of militant Islam. In the U.N. Durban Review Conference, scheduled for April 20-24, 2009 in Geneva, it appears that the OIC and its cohorts have identified the perfect platform to further their agenda.

Recall the first Durban meeting, the 2001 U.N. World Conference Against Racism, which took place only days before 9/11. That gathering deteriorated into a hate-fest against Jews, America and Israel. Disgusted by the vile rhetoric and Stürmer-like caricatures of Jews on display, the U.S. and Israeli delegations walked out.

Hopes that the Durban II conference next year will be a more enlightened event have already been dashed by the fact that some of the worst human rights abusers are setting its agenda. At the urging of the OIC, Libya secured chairmanship of the preparatory committee. Iran and Pakistan each won a seat on the committee. And Egypt, another OIC member, has been representing the 53-nation African Group during floor debates.

And so instead of Durban II rectifying the sins of the past, this latest U.N. forum will seek to undermine free societies by invoking the specter of Islamophobia. The OIC is the U.N.’s most powerful voting bloc. As the democracies at the U.N. have repeatedly learned, the OIC, with 57 members the controlling group in the 130-member bloc of developing countries, can usually push through its agenda with little difficulty.

The likely outcome of Durban II will be to urge all U.N. member states to pass legislation restricting basic freedoms of speech and action — all in the interest of preventing “Islamophobia.” The discrimination or defamation of Muslims, or of any other group for that matter, is of course reprehensible. But “Islamophobia,” as defined by Libya, Iran and the other Durban II organizers, covers any criticism of Islam, Muslims or their actions.

If the leaders of these countries have it their way, writing op-eds criticizing Islamic radicalism, or speaking out against Muslim terrorists or, of course, publishing cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, are soon to be considered criminal examples of racism.

During the most recent Durban II preparatory meetings in April and May, OIC members from Iran to Indonesia all insisted that freedom of expression is what causes Islamophobia. “The most disturbing phenomenon is the intellectual and ideological validation of Islamophobia,” noted the Pakistani representative to the U.N., Marghoob Saleem Butt, on behalf of the OIC. “While it is expressed in the form of defamation of religion, it takes cover behind the freedom of expression and opinion.” Voicing the demands of the Muslim bloc and its many authoritarian leaders, Mr. Butt requested that the Durban process “devise normative standards that provide adequate guarantees” against the intolerance of Muslims promoted by these freedoms.

Human rights advocates worried about this threat to civil liberties have been voicing their concerns with little success. Juliette De Rivero, for example, the Human Rights Watch advocacy director in Geneva, raised the alarm in late April: “Justified concerns about the complex relationship of racial and religious intolerance and hatred should not be the pretext to undermine key freedoms, including freedom of speech,” she told the conference organizers in Geneva.

The danger of the Durban process is that it seeks to shape international and national laws. If the OIC succeeds, a broad definition of “Islamophobia” will be incorporated into Durban II’s final outcome document. Thereafter, expect U.N. bodies, such as the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, to call countries to task if they fail to implement these recommendations. Other organs of the international system will adopt and cite the Islamophobia definition as well, until it and its ill effects have migrated throughout the international system.

The Durban II recommendations, however, will not stop only at warping international standards on what constitutes Islamophobia — the OIC aims to export its language into individual countries’ domestic laws. The first point in a draft of the conference’s final outcome document compels countries to pursue the “enactment of adequate legislation in line with [those] international standards.” The same diplomatic draft paper identifies freedom of expression as a “main challenge and obstacle” to addressing contemporary forms of racism.

Only the European Union can now stop this insidious process. Canada has already announced that it will boycott the conference, and the U.S. has also indicated that it will not participate in Durban II unless satisfied that it will not be another fiasco. But only the threat of a European pullout would deal a true blow to the credibility of the proceedings and deny the partisans of “Islamophobia” the U.N. imprimatur they crave.

Next month, France ascends to the EU presidency. It will be up to Paris to lead the fight for Western freedoms and, for once, put Iran, Libya, and other authoritarian states on the defensive. Let’s hope French President Nicolas Sarkozy understands what’s at stake.

Mr. Dubowitz is executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

DÉCLARATION DE PRINCIPES FONDAMENTAUX POUR LA SUITE DE WCAR
(CONFÉRENCE MONDIALE CONTRE LE RACISME)
En 2001 plus de trois mille personnes ont participé au forum des ONGs de la Conférence mondiale des Nations Unies
contre le racisme, la discrimination, la xénophobie et les intolérances y afférentes (WCAR) pour tracer la voie pour les
générations futures afin d’éradiquer le racisme, la discrimination et l’intolérance. Les participants se sont engagés à
adhérer aux standards des Droits Humains établis et à opérer en toute transparence et dans le respect du discours
démocratique.
Beaucoup de représentants de la société civile ont été déçus quand le travail des ONGs, qui soulevait d’importants
problèmes du racisme contemporain ainsi que les blessures historiques de l’esclavage et de la discrimination, a été
discrédité Le Haut Commissaire aux Droits Humains des Nations Unies, Mary Robinson, s’est exprimée contre ce qu’elle a
appelé une atmosphère “de haine et de racisme” antisémite qui a infecté le forum des ONGs. Elle a refusé de le
recommander à l’attention des gouvernements. D’éminentes organisations internationales actives dans le domaine des
Droits de l’homme ont qualifié le langage employé dans la déclaration comme étant inexact, inapproprié et même contreproductif.
Elles ont regretté que le progrès accompli sur des sujets vitaux comme la discrimination à l’égard des Roms et la
discrimination de caste soit ainsi affecté. Les observateurs ont été choqués par les violations de procédure durant le
processus de préparation et de rédaction, par le le traitement raciste, y compris violence, exclusion et intimidation, envers
les participants juifs, et du mauvais usage fait de la terminologie anti-raciste dans la déclaration traîtant du conflit Israélo-
Palestinien.
À quelques exceptions près, la vaste majorité des groupes ont été silencieux ou ont refusé de se prononcer. Depuis,
beaucoup se sont dit que cela a résulté en une regrettable vacance de leadership moral.
Les organisations mentionnées ci-dessous s’engagent à rejetter (l’incitation à) la haine sous toutes ses formes, y
compris l’antisémitisme, à apprendre des erreurs de la Conférence de 2001, et à travailler ensemble dans un esprit de
respect mutuel.
1. Nous sommes unis dans notre profond engagement pour les buts de la Conférence de tracer une voie
pour les générations futures afin d’éradiquer le racisme, la discrimination et l’intolérance sous toutes ses
formes.
2. Le racisme, la discrimination raciale, la xénophobie et les intolérances y afférentes affectent des gens
dans beaucoup des états membres. Nous sommes attachés à l’importante mission des ONGs de suivre et
de tenir pour responsable ceux qui sont comptables de l’échec des programmes et de l’application de
mesures destinées à prévenir et punir de tels actes.
3. Mais l’effort global d’éradication du racisme ne peut pas progresser en stigmatisant des populations
entières comme étant le mal absolu, en stimulant les stéréotypes haineux au nom des Droits humains.
4. L’ONU et ses forums des Droits de l’homme ne doivent pas servir de véhicules pour quelque forme de
racime que ce soit, y compris l’antisémitisme, et doivent prévenir l’incitation à la haine à l’égard de groupes
sous couvert de critiques envers un gouvernement particulier. Nous nous engageons à empécher que cela
ne se reproduise.
5. . Nous nous engageons à employer un langage et à avoir un comportement qui unissent plutôt que
divisent. Commes ONGs, nous prenons l’engagement d’utiliser un langage conforme aux standards
internationaux des Droits de l’homme et de nous comporter avec civilité et respect pour les standards des
Droits humains.
Ont signé jusqu’à présent:
1. Magenta Foundation
2. Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights
3. International League for Human Rights
4. Human Rights First
5. ENAR – European Network Against Racism
6. UNITED for Intercultural Action - European network against nationalism, racism, fascism and
in support of migrants and refugees
7. Anti-Defamation League
8. ACP - “Culture of peace” Association (Romania)
9. The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (USA)
10. SOVA Center for Information and Analysis (Russian Federation)
11. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (USA)
12. European Jewish Congress
13. ILGA-Europe, International Lesbian and Gay Association
14. LICRA - Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l’Antisemitisme
15. B’nai B’rith International
16. Simon Wiesenthal Centre
17. Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
18. CCDN - Celebrating Cultural Diversity Network (UK)
19. CRARR - Center for Research-Action on Race Relations (Canada)
20. Observatorio sobre Conflictos Etnicos en la Argentina – OSCEA
21. CAERS - The Canadian Anti-racism Education and Research Society
22. Citizens’ Watch (Russia)
23. AFRICAN UNION Social organization of St.Petersburg (Russia)
24. NEVER AGAIN Association (Poland)
25. Asian American Justice Center
26. CIDI (Netherlands)
27. European Council of WIZO Federations
28. GRA Foundation against racism and antisemitism (Switzerland)
29. Dženo Association (Czech Republic)
30. AJC - American Jewish Committee
31. Hadassah
32. Freedom House (USA)
33. Human Rights Without Frontiers International
34. World Jewish Congress
35. Athinganoi, the Romani Student Association (Czech Republic)
36. Jewish Labor Committee (USA)
37. DACoRD - Documentation and Advisory Center on Racial Discrimination (Denmark)
38. Movimiento contra la Intolerancia (Spain)
39. Civitas Bosnia and Herzegovina
40. ZARA - Zivilcourage und Anti-Rassismus-Arbeit (Austria)
41. United Nations Association of the USA (UNA-USA)
42. Roma Virtual Network (RVN)
43. International Institute for Education and Research of Antisemitism (Germany/UK)
44. Amadeu Antonio Stiftung (Germany)
45. RADAR (Netherlands)
46. CEJI - A Jewish Contribution to an Inclusive Europe
47. B’nai B’rith Europe
48. NIK - Organization of Jewish Communities in the Netherlands
49. United Nations Watch (Switzerland)
50. International Council of Jewish Women
51. Rabbis for Human Rights (Israel)
52. MAPP (France)
53. Association ESTER (Slovakia)
54. Na’amat (Belgium)
55. The Kyrgyz Committee for Human Rights (Kyrgyz Republic)
56. Le Conseil des Femmes Juives de Belgique - CFJB (Belgium)
57. Bund Schweizerischer Jüdischer Frauenorganisationen - BSJF (Switzerland)
58. The Citizens Accord Forum between Jews and Arabs in Israel – CAF
59. Consultative Council of Jewish Organisations (EU)
60. Roma National Congress (RNC)
61. Israeli Association for Immigrant Children
62. National Roma Centrum (Macedonia)
63. New Israel Fund – NIF
64. Union of Balkans Egyptians (Macedonia)
65. Roma National Centre (Moldova)
66. National Campaign for Nomadic Tribes Human Rights – NCNTHR (India)
67. Association of citizens Sumnal (Macedonia)
68. Tribuna Israelita (Mexico)
69. Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly of Moldova
70. Defence for Children International (Czech section)
71. Sisters of Mercy, Mercy Justice Office – SCP (Ireland)
72. Centro de Cultura e Pesquisas Axé – CCPA (Brazil)
73. Yad Sarah (Israel)
74. International Women’s Rights Action Watch (USA)
75. Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities
76. The International Council of Christians and Jews – ICCJ
77. The American association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists
78. ORT America/World ORT
79. Canadian Ethnocultural Council
80. Comite Central de la Comunidad Judia de Mexico (JCCM)
81. Physicians for Human Rights
82. The Advocates for Human Rights - formerly Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights (USA)
83. Antinazi Initiative (Greece)
84. World Council of Conservative/Masorti Synagogues
85. Jewish Council for Public Affairs (USA)
86. Helsinki Committee for Human Rights (Sweden)
87. The Bahá’í International Community
88. United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism (USA)
89. The Canadian Helsinki Watch Group
90. Moscow Helsinki Group
91. Roma Democratic Development Association SUN (Macedonia)
92. INACH - International Network Against Cyber Hate
93. European Union of Jewish Students – EUJS
94. The Tandem Project, international HR NGO promoting tolerance and preventing
discrimination based on religion or belief (USA)
95. DAIA, The Delegation of Argentinian Jewish Organizations
96. American Jewish Congress
Les ONGs souhaitant approuver et soutenir cette déclaration peuvent faire part de
leur support à info@magenta.nl
Vous pouvez trouver les signataires mis à jour énumérez à www.magenta.nl