UNHRC – Save us from two-headed Uranuslings unbelievers! Or we’ll have to kill the deniers

• Home
• Members of the UNHRC

Comment at end

29th March, 2009

The UN Human Rights Council has just passed this CRAZY recommendation (pdf or read it below) where it equates the rights of a belief system to the rights of humans. In other words, if you believe that fairies live at the bottom of the garden or that men from Uranus have two-heads and not the expected one, and you get upset if some think you’re slightly mad, inconsistent in your peaceful reaction to ‘undeserved mockery’, then here’s your answer: go the UNHRC. They’re the boys for you. And of course if you add to the mix the threat that those who don’t believe in said fairies or two-headed aliens are to be wiped out because it says so in the Garden Fairies/Uranus handbook, then your case is markedly stronger.

After all – we’ll defend to the death … etcetera etcetera …

Be aware of the incremental conquest going on as such as the Archbishop of Canterbury THANKS Muslims for their contribution to the ‘debate’ on religion. Odd that I remember NO debate until Islamists started killing on instruction from *God*.

And THIS we WELCOME?

THIS shrill voice too must be noted. Downing Street to Islam? Uranus!

History: The Human Rights Council as presently constituted was shunned by the USA, Israel and others:

WELL DONE YOU!

Since it is no more than an advisory body we can only expect, and urge if necessary, the UN as a whole to treat this recommendation with the disdain it deserves.

Excerpt:

“With the addition of Montenegro on 28 June 2006, there are currently 192 United Nations member states, including all fully recognized independent states^[17] apart from Vatican City, which has observer status.^[18]

“The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations System. The UNHRC is the successor to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (CHR), and is a subsidiary body of the United Nations General Assembly. Based in Geneva, the UNHRC’s main purpose is to make recommendations to the General Assembly about situations in which human rights are violated.^[1] The UNHRC has no authority except to make recommendations to the General Assembly. The General Assembly has no authority except to advise the Security Council.

The General Assembly established the UNHRC by adopting a resolution (A/RES/60/251) on 15 March 2006. The United States, the Marshall Islands, Palau, and Israel voted against the resolution. The United States said the UNHRC did not have adequate provision to keep states which abused human rights from being on the Council. Belarus, Iran, and Venezuela abstained from voting. Venezuela said that the resolution had some troubling provisions, including the implicit permission to states to intervene in the internal affairs of other states.^[2]

On 18 June 2007, one year after holding its first meeting, the UNHRC adopted its Institution-building package, which provides elements to guide it in its future work. Among the elements was the Universal Periodic Review. The Review will assess the human rights situations in all 192 UN Member States. Another element is an Advisory Committee, which serves as the UNHRC’s think tank, and provides it with expertise and advice on thematic human rights issues, that is, issues which pertain to all parts of the world. Another element is a Complaints Procedure, which allows individuals and organizations to bring complaints about human rights violations to the attention of the Council.

The UNHRC works closely with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and engages the United Nations’ Special Procedures.”

This is the official document with votes from the UN’s Fuman Rights Council (read pdf here)

Human Rights Council
Resolution 7/19. Combating defamation of religions
The Human Rights Council,
Recalling the 2005 World Summit Outcome adopted by the General Assembly
in its resolution 60/1 of 24 October 2005, in which the Assembly emphasized the
responsibilities of all States, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, to
respect human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any
kind as to race, colour, sex, language or religion, political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth or other status, and acknowledged the importance of
respect and understanding for religious and cultural diversity throughout the world,
Recalling also the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by
the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and
Related Intolerance in September 2001 (A/CONF.189/12 and Corr.1, chap. I),
Recalling further the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, proclaimed by the
General Assembly in its resolution 36/55 of 25 November 1981,
Recognizing the valuable contribution of all religions to modern civilization
and the contribution that dialogue among civilizations can make to an improved
awareness and understanding of the common values shared by all humankind,
Noting the Declaration adopted by the Islamic Conference of Foreign
Ministers at its thirty-fourth session in Islamabad, in May 2007, which condemned the
growing trend of Islamophobia and systematic discrimination against the adherents of
Islam and emphasized the need to take effective measures to combat defamation of
religions,
Noting also the final communiqué adopted by the Organization of the Islamic
Conference at its eleventh summit, in Dakar, in March 2008, in which the
Organization expressed concern at the systematically negative stereotyping of
Muslims and Islam and other divine religions, and denounced the overall rise in
intolerance and discrimination against Muslim minorities, which constitute an affront
to human dignity and run counter to the international human rights instruments,
Recalling the joint statement of the Organization of the Islamic Conference,
the European Union and the Secretary-General of 7 February 2006, in which they
recognized the need, in all societies, to show sensitivity and responsibility in treating
issues of special significance for the adherents of any particular faith, even by those
who do not share the belief in question,
Reaffirming the call made by the President of the General Assembly in his
statement of 15 March 2006 that, in the wake of existing mistrust and tensions, there
is a need for dialogue and understanding among civilizations, cultures and religions to
commit to working together to prevent provocative or regrettable incidents and to
develop better ways of promoting tolerance, respect for and freedom of religion and
belief,
Welcoming all international and regional initiatives to promote cross-cultural
and interfaith harmony, including the Alliance of Civilizations and the International
Dialogue on Interfaith Cooperation and their valuable efforts towards the promotion
of a culture of peace and dialogue at all levels,
Welcoming also the report by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms
of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance on the situation of
Muslims and Arabs in various parts of the world (E/CN.4/2006/17),
Welcoming further the reports of the Special Rapporteur submitted to the
Council at its fourth and sixth sessions (A/HRC/4/19 and A/HRC/6/6), in which he
draws the attention of Member States to the serious nature of the defamation of all
religions and to the promotion of the fight against these phenomena by strengthening
the role of interreligious and intercultural dialogue and promoting reciprocal
understanding and joint action to meet the fundamental challenges of development,
peace and the protection and promotion of human rights, as well as the need to
complement legal strategies,
Reiterating the call made by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of
racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to Member States to
wage a systematic campaign against incitement to racial and religious hatred by
maintaining a careful balance between the defence of secularism and respect for
freedom of religion and by acknowledging and respecting the complementarity of all
the freedoms embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Emphasizing that States, non-governmental organizations, religious bodies and
the media have an important role to play in promoting tolerance and freedom of
religion and belief through education,
Noting with concern that defamation of religions is among the causes of social
disharmony and instability, at the national and international levels, and leads to
violations of human rights,
Noting with deep concern the increasing trend in recent years of statements
attacking religions, including Islam and Muslims, in human rights forums,
1. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of all religions
and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief;
2. Also expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with
terrorism, violence and human rights violations and emphasizes that equating any
religion with terrorism should be rejected and combated by all at all levels;
3. Further expresses deep concern at the intensification of the campaign
of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities
in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;
4. Expresses its grave concern at the recent serious instances of deliberate
stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media and by
political parties and groups in some societies, and at the associated provocation and
political exploitation;
5. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism,
defamation of religions becomes an aggravating factor that contributes to the denial of
fundamental rights and freedoms of target groups and their economic and social
exclusion;
6. Expresses concern at laws or administrative measures that have been
specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing
them and legitimizing the discrimination that they experience;
7. Strongly deplores physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural
centres and places of worship of all religions and targeting of religious symbols;
8. Urges States to take actions to prohibit the dissemination, including
through political institutions and organizations, of racist and xenophobic ideas and
material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and
religious hatred, hostility or violence;
9. Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and
constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination,
intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion, to take all
possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value
systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to
combat religious hatred and intolerance;
10. Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt
is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion;
11. Urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including members
of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of
their official duties, respect all religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against
persons on the grounds of their religion or belief, and that all necessary and
appropriate education or training is provided;
12. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law,
everyone has the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of this right
carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and may therefore be subject to
certain restrictions, but only those provided by law and necessary for the respect of
the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of
public order, or of public health or morals;
13. Reaffirms that general comment No. 15 of the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which the Committee stipulates that the
prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is
compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the
question of incitement to religious hatred;
14. Deplores the use of printed, audio-visual and electronic media,
including the Internet, and of any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia
or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any religion;
15. Invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to continue to report on all
manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications
of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights to the Council at its ninth session;
16. Requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report on the
implementation of the present resolution and to submit a study compiling relevant
existing legislations and jurisprudence concerning defamation of and contempt for
religions to the Council at its ninth session.
40th meeting
27 March 2008
Adopted by a recorded vote of 21 to 10, with 14 abstentions. The voting was as follows:
In favour: Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia,
Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar,
Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka.
Against: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia,
Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Abstaining: Bolivia, Brazil, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Japan, Madagascar,
Mauritius, Mexico, Peru, Republic of Korea, Uruguay, Zambia.

---

RELATED

• Whoring for Islam?
• It’s blasphemy, or heresy, or something
• But it’s all right – “Britain is getting tougher on radical Islam” – WARNING – Don’t hold your breath!
  
• In LONDON, Islamic Development Bank urges G20 to assess Sharia Finance

OK, done that.

Next?

---

---

Tony Blair: The Prophet Outwith … Without … His Own Land

• Home
• Tony Blair Faith Foundation – Eastern Perspectives on Faith and Globalisation. Read excerpt of report on Mr Blair’s “major speech” at National University of Singapore, (here, below)

Comment at end

[Key: The Previous = Tony Blair, former PM]

28th March, 2009

Yes, I’m still here. Yes, I’m still hooked. You’ll know if and when I’ve had enough … no up-to-date posts.

Regardless of my recent doubts and DEFINITELY regardless of such as the hubristic Dr Death … er …Owen, on his book relaunch (Guardian today), it’s hard to let go (Watch Blair farewell speech to conference, Sep 2006)

Today David Owen has another go at explaining how just about any worthwhile and successful politician, (especially Tony Blair, nothing personal mind you) is mentally ill.

(Aside -  what makes Owen think THIS diagnosis of Cabinet government on Brown is accurate? Not from what I hear! Apart from that it is laughable that Owen would ever had allowed, had he ever been in the hot-seat, other voices to be heard in opposition to his. Some of us recall Dr Owen’s self -importance and grandstanding at first hand.)

Andrew Rawnsley wrote a particularly accurate sketch at the time of the dramatic merger of the SDP with the Liberals, when Owen refused to go with his party and the other three members of the SDP’s “Gang of Four” into that merger. Referring to Owen as the “jumped-up leader”, this sketch was one of Rawnsley’s best. HUBRIS writ large. Sadly reference to this is untraceable online, but Rawnsley will recall it. Perhaps he will be able to find it and e-mail it to me at “blairsupporter AT hotmail DOT co.uk”?  Another airing may even help to relaunch his credibility as a political analyst now that he too seems to have lost the place on understanding REAL leadership.

See – Iraqi thanks Tony Blair (video)

In fact, to anyone with any grasp on reality, Blair is the People’s Psychoanalyst. He doesn’t just press the right buttons – he sews them on in the first place. Sickening, I realise, for such as Owen.

Brown’s ‘interlude’ of Cabinet Government (below)

BLAIR – THE POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGIST

The Previous has been visiting the Philippines and Singapore in the last week. I have reported on his Philippines visit here at the blog.

---

• Blair questioned in Manila, Philippines
• My guy Tony – “I’m in love” (No, not me!)

---

Today’s report from Singapore – starting with the phrase -  “There’s Something About Tony” – again puts the spotlight on Blair & The Reasons for Blair.

“If there’s ever going to be a movie on Tony Blair, it may well be a romantic comedy called ‘There’s Something About Tony’.

PICTURE: AP

Speaking at the National University of Singapore (NUS) yesterday, the former British prime minister was decidedly different from the man who saw out controversy-ridden last days at 10 Downing Street two years ago.

He had a glow about him, a spring in his step, and energy that could at times almost pass as exuberance.

Change – and it has been quite a change – is doing him good.

His course is on faith and globalisation, the same topic he spoke about yesterday to a 600-strong audience comprising NUS students and staff.

God and economics.

Someone else may have put the audience to sleep. But not Tony.

In an hour-long session that flew by in the blink of an eye, Mr Blair charmed the men and probably set a few female hearts aflutter.“

Of course Owen will see all this hero-worship of this particularly healthy and age-defying man as confirming his accusations of hubris, even though it seems to happen without direction from The Man himself.  It’s hard for such as Owen to recognise true leadership.

Far from being psychologically flawed as the good doctor insists, (failed SDP leader, failed would-be leader of the Labour Party) Blair is far more in touch with the “People’s Psychology” than any other politician presently inhaling.

While the British press only mention The Previous with various amounts of disparagement, on the world’s stage he seems to be at his 1994/97 era in Britain.

Owen and his ilk CAN”T stop his rise … (almost said “second coming”!) They should give up trying.

Pity the British press (I don’t accept that the voters feel the same) seem to be so parochial in their understanding of worldwide politics. Thus the prophet in his own land has found a larger stage upon which to strut his inspirational stuff.  In my humble opinion, WE in Britain are the losers.

And it seems there’s just not enough of this man to go round: Filipino Palace “STOLE ” Tony Blair

He is, to coin a phrase, THE PEOPLE’S POLITICIAN.

---

DON’T TRUST ME, I’M A (POLITICALLY HUBRISTICALLY DISAPPOINTED) DOCTOR

David Owen on ‘hubris’:

‘There’s no drug treatment, but cabinet government should block messianic tendencies. Unfortunately, he says, “we haven’t had cabinet government now since 1997″ apart from an interlude when Brown first took over. Democracy is the best treatment, says Owen. The four prime ministers he says had hubris syndrome were brought down by backbench pressure.’

“Apart from an interlude when Brown first took over”!? I suppose that lasted about a fortnight. We have to hand it to Blair, he tried to get sensible consensual, cohesive cabinet decision-making for far longer than that.  Lack of quality colleague input was suggested as Blair’s reason for depending to an extent on “sofa government”.  Couldn’t possibly comment.

But GUESS-WHO kept distantly doodling away through such meetings, miserably glaring like an “adolescent son” in disgruntled disapproval of the adult behaviour around him?  You got it  – the soon-to-be failed Prime Minister of a presently discredited economic policy, fair or unfair.

I wondered on first reading about this “interlude” if Owen was referring to the day and a half when Blair was out of it for his routine heart operation in 2004.  John Prescott stood in for the anaesthetised and recovering PM, not Brown. Yes, there were murmurings that he, Brown, should have grabbed this opportunity, “just in case”.  That would have been seen for what it would have been, opportunistic, if not a little premature.  As it happened he had his own plans for his friend’s demise.

Perhaps David Owen should turn his attention to the ‘psychologically flawed’ rumours which cabinet ministers, but NOT Blair, are said to have thrown in Brown’s direction.

An alternative explanation for this “brief interlude” slip? Not the last 20 months? Surely not?

---

Excerpts from Tony Blair Faith Foundation website – Singapore visit

“In a major speech at the National University of Singapore today, Mr Blair welcomed the university’s decision to initiate an academic course on faith and globalisation.

Tony Blair speaking at The National University of Singapore, 26th March 2009

The Faith and Globalisation initiative is one of the Faith Foundation’s main projects. It seeks to highlight the pivotal role that faith has to play in our globalised world, where different spheres are increasingly interconnected. It is the Foundation’s belief that intelligent and sustained reflection on the crucial issues of faith and globalization can lead to the deeper understanding and the kind of reconciliation and peaceful coexistence, that will be vital in the 21st century.

Mr Blair stressed how a strong sense of values could help shape globalisation, so that globalisation did not push humankind down a path they did not wish to travel, but would ensure globalisation helped humankind in the ways they wished to go.

Mr Blair warmly praised the NUS for its work and reputation. He welcomed the way in which the university’s proposed course was focusing on some key issues and some very practical ones in terms of the relationships between faiths and the modern world, including faith and violence, faith and gender and faith and technology.

The Foundation is honoured that Yale and The National University of Singapore are now both taking part in the Faith and Globalisation course and we look forward to this course being taken up by similarly high calibre institutions across the world in the future.”

BLAIR – GOD’S POLITICIAN?

While in the Philippines De la Salle University conferred on Blair the Sign of Merit (Signum Meriti) medal and plaque for his work on international conflict resolution, with the DLSU president, Br. Armin Luistro FSC, describing Blair’s work as “based on God’s holy will.”

I’m sure that remark itself will add to Owen’s argument.  HUBRISTIC AND GOD’S MESSENGER AND RIGHT-HAND MAN!

But at least Blair didn’t say it himself. Even if he thinks it.

OK. Got to the end of the post, and I’m still here …

It can be tough being a religiously agnostic Blair follower at times.  I don’t ask or expect him or any politician to do “God’s Holy will”.

I only ask him to work for the people.

But, I’m still here.

---

SOME OF MY EARLIER POSTS ON THE ANTI-BLAIR COUP/BROWN THEFT OF THE LEADERSHIP & THUS PRIME MINISTER’S JOB

• Abdication or political assassination?
• Coup against Blair, 10th September 2006
• How to kill the leader without anyone getting blamed, 24th May 2007
• Blair’s successor – Leadership, 16th August 2007

---

---

That (holocaust) number on your arm … is it to remind you? No …

Home

Comment at end

27th March, 2009

Received this e-mail in my inbox tonight from a fellow Brit. Who says we’re all asleep in these islands?!

Thought you might like to see it, and perhaps even use it.

It is now more than 60 years after the Second World  War in Europe ended. This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain in memory of the six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated with the German and Russian Peoples looking the other way!

Now, more than ever, with Iraq, Iran and others claiming the holocaust to be ‘a myth,’ it’s imperative to make sure the world never forgets, because there are others who would like to do it again.

This  e-mail is intended to reach 40 million people worldwide!

Join us and be a link in the  memorial chain and help us distribute it around  the world.

Please send this e-mail to 10  people you know and ask them to continue  the memorial  chain.

Please  don’t just delete it.

It will only take  you a minute to pass this  along

Thanks!

---

---

The UN’s Human Rights Council Goes Bananas

Home

Comment at end

UPDATED 28th March: DEFAMATION OF RELIGION VOTE. Adopted by a recorded vote of 21 to 10, with 14 abstentions. The voting was as follows:

In favour: Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia,
Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar,
Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka.
Against: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia,
Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Abstaining: Bolivia, Brazil, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Japan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Peru, Republic of Korea, Uruguay, Zambia.

Russia, China and South Africa were in favour? Check WHICH countries were ineligible to vote.  This is clearly NOT the entire list. Read UNHR report here

26th March, 2009

UNITED NATIONS HR BODY PASSES ANTI-RELIGION (aka ISLAM) BAN

This Reuters report says that 200 secular, religious and media groups from around the world on Wednesday urged the United Nations Human Rights Council to reject a call from Islamic countries for a global fight against “defamation of religion.”

It goes on – “The groups, including some Muslim bodies, issued their appeal in a statement on the eve of a vote in the Council in Geneva on a resolution proposed by the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

But here Frank Jordans says that the UN body OKs call to curb religious criticism. So is that it?

Article:

GENEVA (AP) — The U.N.’s top human-rights body approved a proposal backed by Muslims nations Thursday urging the passage of laws around the world protecting religion from criticism.

The proposal by Pakistan had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies.

A simple majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution. Eleven mostly Western nations opposed it and 13 countries abstained.

The resolution urges states to provide “protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.”

“It is individuals who have rights and not religions,” said Canadian diplomat Terry Cormier. Canada’s criticism was echoed by European Union countries, all of which voted against the proposal.

The council is dominated by Muslim and African countries. Muslim nations have argued that religions, in particular Islam, must be shielded from criticism in the media and other areas of public life. They cited cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as an example of unacceptable free speech.

“Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism,” the resolution said.

A coalition of more than 100 secular and faith groups had called on governments to oppose the resolution, warning that it could lead to accusations of defamation among different faiths.

The United States did not vote on the resolution because it is not a member of the council. The Bush administration announced it was virtually giving up on the body and would participate in debates only if absolutely necessary because of the council’s anti-Israel statements and its failure to act on abuses in Sudan and elsewhere.

India, which normally votes along with the council’s majority of developing nations, abstained in protest at the fact that Islam was the only religion specifically named as deserving protection.

India’s Ambassador Gopinathan Achamkulangare said the resolution “inappropriately” linked religious criticism to racism.

---

Filipino Muslims protest outside the Danish Embassy over the Danish cartoons, Feb 15th 2006

A religion is not a HUMAN

Nor is criticising a religion racism AGAINST a human!

If this report HAS been passed, and if you are persuaded that there is an agenda which has nothing to do with race, little to do with religion, but EVERYTHING to do with Worldwide domination, you’re probably right.

Some of us, including me, have been warning about this for months as the motion was being put forward at successive meetings of the Human Rights Council.

But we were told we were all scaremongering.

So it’s here. You have few choices now.

REVOLT and insist that the UN Human Rights Council – if not the United Nations itself – is replaced by a body/bodies that understands the limits of its powers and the meaning of HUMAN Rights.

NO religion, or belief system HAS any right to “human rights”

---

More information on the UN & the Durban Review Conference, April 2009

DURBAN REVIEW CONFERENCE

The Durban Review Conference, to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, 20-24 April 2009, will evaluate progress towards the goals set by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa, in 2001.

The Review Conference will serve as a catalyst to fulfilling the promises of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action agreed at the 2001 World Conference through reinvigorated actions, initiatives and practical solutions, illuminating the way toward equality for every individual and group in all regions and countries of the world.

UN FREEDOM OF SPEECH VIDEO

Thanks to beer n sandwiches for this video, which can be viewed with many others at this YouTube channel “victimlesscriminal”

Israel envoy still concerned by UN racism draft

Bush administration denounced this law in September, 2008 What does Obama think?

Becket Fund for Religious Liberty issues brief to the UN Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights, June 2008

World Net Daily – UN to make criticising Islam illegal

And on the other hand this is what we are dealing with. Do you like how the commenter there says: ‘OIC? dunno when it starts to act. i am speechless what has happened with the Muslim nation now.’ WHAT? “the Muslim nation?” WHICH one? ALL OF IT?

American pastor says: Don’t vote for HR 256 and HR 262

Hate Law Jihad: Criminalizing Islam’s Critics – Rev. Ted Pike (7min30)

Visit http://www.HateLawsExposed.org

UN panel says world should ditch dollar as its reserve currency

Why is democracy the least worst option?

---

---

Blair questioned in Manila, Philippines

Home

Comment at end

26th March, 2009

The Philippines’ Business Mirror had a 20 minute interview with Tony Blair while he was in Manila on Tuesday. Asked ablut Iraq, Mindanao, MILF, Middle East peace, Netanyahu, Brown’s accountability for economic plight of Britain and his economic plans, Doha, Nafta, Hillary Clinton in Japan & China, Abu Ghraib & torture.

Reproduced here in its entirety:

FORMER Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair was in Manila on March 23 to talk about “The Leader as Principled Negotiator,” the second part in a Leadership Conference Series staged by Campaigns and Grey, and copresented by Smart Infinity, PLDT Smart Foundation and De La Salle University.

After his speech, he sat down with a select group from the print and broadcast media, including BusinessMirror’s Ma. Stella F. Arnaldo, to discuss various issues—foremost of which was his decision to involve the UK in the war in Iraq, the ongoing recession in his country, lessons from the failed Doha Round trade negotiations, and his possible role as adviser in the Philippines peace negotiations with the Mindanao separatist groups. This is the transcript of the group’s interview.

Q: Could you say that Iraq may have been the biggest mistake of your political career? How would you assess the way former President Bush handled it and what lessons have you learned from it?

A: Well, I think the basic issue when you look at Iraq today—and actually there is progress now being made—[is that] they’ve just had successful local elections and you come back to the same issue which is, if Saddam Hussein were running Iraq, would the world be safer? My answer to that is no. I think people will carry on making a judgement about it for a very long time, but it’s interesting if you talk to people who’ve just come back from Iraq now and they see the change and its progress; and in the end it’s been tough because the same forces we’re fighting everywhere are the same people we’re fighting in Afghanistan who want terror, who want violence, to stop countries having the right to elect their government. And I think when those types of people are engaged in terrorism we should stand up firmly against them and say, “you’re not going to succeed. We’re going to fight for the future.” And so, I think no doubt it will be a controversial decision for a long time to come but it’s necessary I believe.

Q: So would you do it again? Was there no other way?

A: There is no other way to remove Saddam Hussein other than to remove him. When the people think about this, they would like to think there was some easy way of having got rid of him, there wasn’t. Which is why they forget history. There was a time in the 1980s, when the West decided to support Saddam and arm him as a brake on Iran. But the consequence was Iran got war, one billion casualties, then he invaded Kuwait then we had years and years of international dispute. So there are no easy answers in this situation; but when I look at the Middle East and I see those countries, many of them now struggling to find a way into the modern world and engage in the modern world, [I wonder]: Would that be easier with Saddam there? No, I don’t think so.

Q: Mr. Blair, you met with the President earlier today, could you share with us the substance of your talk?

A: Yes, obviously we talked about the current economic situation in the world. We talked about various issues to do with geopolitics and of course, my experiences in Northern Ireland and issues obviously with Mindanao, and we also talked bilateral relations between our two countries. I should just say to you though, I’ve been absolutely thrilled to be in the Philippines and this is my very first visit here, and I’ve absolutely been struck by one of the amazing countries and what extraordinary potential it’s got.

Q: Did the President ask for your help as far as Mindanao is concerned?

A: Let me make it clear, it’s entirely up to the Philippine government, the Filipino people, to decide how to proceed with this. Obviously, we talked about Mindanao because [of my experience] with the Northern Ireland peace process and what I do now with the Middle East peace process; but if there’s anything for me to do in any capacity, that’s really a matter for the government to decide. You got a process with Malaysia and so on, and so that’s a decision for you guys, not for me.

Q: How confident are you of the Middle East peace plan or the success of any peace plan with Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu as Israeli prime minister?

A: I think, however, the Israeli government and the Israeli people decide the outcome of their elections, whatever Israeli is formed, we need three things in the Middle East, and we need them urgently: First of all we need a credible political negotiation to determine the two states and in particular the issues to do with the creation of the state of Palestine. Secondly, on the West Bank, where majority of the Palestinians live which is by far the largest part of the territory of the Palestinian state, we need major change to allow the Palestinians to take more control of their own life and lift the weight of occupation. And the third thing is, we need a different and better approach to Gaza, so that we help the people there in isolating the extremists. Not helping extremists in isolating the people. And frankly, whatever government we get in Israel, we need those three things. And I was with Mr. Netanyahu two-three days back; I believe it’s important if he does become the Israeli Prime Minister that we work with him and make sure we can move forward.

Q: Jumping back to the UK, the bank bailouts there are costing about 20 percent of the country’s GDP (gross domestic product). Prime Minister Gordon Brown was your Chancellor of the Exchequer when you were Prime Minister. Do you hold him accountable at all for the lack of regulatory frameworks in the banking system? Do you feel responsible?

A: The thing is, this is a global economic crisis. And no doubt for the future, there would be a different regulatory system, but here’s the most important thing about it, that it’s globally coordinated. That is what this economic crisis has brought home to us—the globally integrated nature of the world economy. And my very strong view is that [fixing the financial sector] is the most important thing in the immediate term, which I know my successor is focusing on. If you don’t fix the financial sector, nothing else will succeed, so that’s the key and there will be a big debate, no doubt about the right regulatory framework going forward, but the most important thing is that regulatory framework is globally coordinated. Another thing is, we also got to make sure we are regulating not for the last crisis but for the future.

Q: What kind of support do you think he [Mr. Brown] will be getting for his global stimulus plan, because Germany has already said it wouldn’t support it?

A: Well, actually I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding about this. Germany, for example, itself got a major stimulus package and countries will decide different methods of stimulating their economy through fiscal means. What I’m saying to you though, is that fiscal stimulus would be far less effective unless [there are] measures first to fix the financial sector: that is the absolute crux of this. For this is a crisis that has become a crisis of confidence, that confidence is in the financial architecture. If you do not resolve the crisis of confidence in the financial architecture, it’s very difficult for the other measures to work. That’s why I think my successor is right to focus on those issues to deal with the banks, the capitalization and so on.

Q: During your term you constantly worked to revive the Doha Round. Now that it’s stalled again, what do you think developing countries and developed countries could do to break the deadlock?

A: Understand that greater trade is one of the best ways of reviving the world economy. The worst thing we could do is repeat the mistakes of the past and go into protectionism. So my view is, I would have liked to conclude the Doha Round while still in office. I mean I’m actually very disappointed. Two years after I’ve left I’m still talking about including the Doha Round. This is a huge importance for the world. The reason we ended up in the 1930s which such severe depression was the people started with….they put up trade barriers and so on, that is the worst thing we can do at the moment. And actually, if world leaders want to give a real boost to the world economy now, a revival of the Doha Round would be one way of doing it. And it would also signal to the developing world that we were acting in concert with them, rather than trying to push their goods out of their country as a way of surviving, ‘cause that won’t work.

Q: Also during your term you worked to bring [to reality] Nafta (North American Free Trade Agreement) and the EU (European Union); now that we have negotiations for the EU and the Asean (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), what lessons can we bring to make the negotiations successful?

A: I think again it has very much to do with looking at the big picture here. When there is greater trade between countries, there will always be one section of industry for one group of people affected who say, “these people are taking my jobs.” And you can always identify in a very particular way the people who are at risk. What is harder to identify is the general good that comes from increased trade. And my view of this is, look at the EU and learn from that lesson. The European single market brought greater prosperity but it is amazing how at every step of the way, when we integrated European trade, there were doomsayers out there saying, “we’re going to lose all these jobs and everything,” it didn’t. And so my view is, the greater freedom of trade there is, the greater the boost to creativity, to enterprise, and so on. We need rules and how to course what we do. But that’s the purpose of having these trade agreements or the WTO (World Trade Organization). Particularly, in an era of globalization, if we put up barriers, it’s going to have a very negative effect.

Q: The United Kingdom is usually the first country the US Secretaries of State visit, but Secretary Hillary Clinton chose to visit Japan, how do you look at this? Is this a reflection of change in priorities?

A: I think it’s an indication in a way of the importance now of the strategic relationship between America and China. I think this is one of the most important things, I talked about with the new administration, [when] the new (US) President was in London a few months back. My view as I said then and as I say now is, the American relationship with China is one major part of making the modern world work. So I think it’s good that Hillary, the Secretary of State, went there. And I think if you look at the world economy and climate change, the environment, the issues that have to do with scarcity of resources, none of these problems can be dealt with, unless China is part of the solution; and I’m a strong believer in a strong relationship not just between America and China but I would say Europe and China too. I would regard the European relationship with China, as also important. You know power is shifting East and is shifting past, and we in the West have got to come to terms with that, understand it, and you know as I was saying in my speech earlier, today that is also a great opportunity for countries like the Philippines ‘cause you are part of this whole Eastern region.

Q: Do you have any advice to President Arroyo on how to handle the problem with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, and other separatist groups in the country?

A: You know I don’t presume to give advice in that way and I know, was a leader for 10 years, the last thing you’d wanted is somebody who’s not a leader to go into a country telling you what to do. I’ve discussed with her certain lessons that I’ve learned in Northern Ireland. All these disputes are always different. But some lessons can be learned in common and I mentioned some of those earlier today. But really, it’s for her and the Philippine government to determine that way forward, and I’m sure that they would do so without me presuming to handle it for them.

Q: You mentioned it’s up to the Philippine government what it wants to do with the peace process in Mindanao, but if you were asked by the Philippine government, would you be willing and able to take part in the peace process?

A: Look, I’m always happy to help in any way I can if people want me to, but it really is a matter for them and also of course, I’ve got the Middle East peace process. We had a discussion about it, it’s really up to the Philippine government now to decide what it wants to do. As you know, people have been involved in the process to come over and talk and so on. And of course, Malaysia has got a very special position in this, no doubt they’d want to be in discussions with Malaysia, too. For the moment it’s probably better not to say more than that.

Q: Would you accept the challenge if hurled at you?

A: I think it’s really, the ball is in the court of the Philippine government. Of course I wish you well in this process and would help in any way I could, but really it’s you guys have to decide how to proceed.

Q: Were you aware that torture was going in the Abu Ghraib prison Iraq, and if you weren’t in the beginning, when did you find out?

A: Let me make it clear that I’ve always totally disagreed with torture. As an instrument of policy it’s completely unacceptable, and in sorts of circumstances, and that has always been the position of the British government. It’s my position as well. I believe very strongly. And when there have been abuses, they should probably be investigated and dealt with. But I always say to people that again, that the vast majority of the British men and women serving in our armed forces both in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and I had the occasion to visit them in Kosovo and in Sierra Leone, and they do a magnificent job, they’ve been brave and dedicated people. If there have been people that have done things that are wrong, that of course should be dealt with. But it shouldn’t affect the reputations of the vast majority who have been dedicated in service for others and for the world.

Q: Were you aware of what was going on in Abu Ghraib?

A: No of course not. The first time I was aware was when the issue was raised.

---

---

My guy Tony – “I’m in love” (No, not me!)

• Home
• See – Tory MEP Daniel Hannan lambasts Brown in the EU Parliament
• Stella Arnaldo’s website with reference to Mr Blair’s visit

BREAKING: Blair to teach Religion Course in Singapore, in association with the Yale ‘Faith & Globalisation’ course. Does he EVER sleep? Or only on planes? Watch video here

Comment at end

26th March, 2009

[Key: "The Previous"  & "The Presence" = Tony Blair]

My guy Tony – “I’m in love” (with a wonderful guy)

“But can you blame me? Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is hot! And I mean, dropdead gorgeous!”

This article was heart-warming for those of us in Britain who still miss The Previous, even if we’re not quite “in love” with him.  Well, we’re British, y’know – stiff upper lip and all that! It’s from a journalist in the Philippines reporting on how she and so many others were “awestruck” by The Presence in the Philippines a few days ago. Obama, eat your heart out.

Of course, this lady is NOT the only one. The British Conservative MP Michael Gove, admitted the same thing: (“I can’t fight my feelings any more: I love Tony”) (February 2003.)

So, Gove didn’t mention “hot”!  That makes it better still. His heart isn’t ruling his head. And from what I’ve seen of Gove’s interviews and policy stances since (same as Blair’s) for him the shine still hasn’t rubbed off The Presence/Previous.  I wonder if he’d love Tony to run the Tories?!  THEN what might happen to their poll numbers? Yes, I wonder.

I’ll fill Stella in on what she got wrong in the “but” department at the end, though it might make her feel even more deeply “in love”. (See her article here)

Watch my Tony Blair videos on ‘Everlasting Words’ here at the end of the page – specially for you, Stella

---

I WAS in awe, I was starstruck, I am in love!

There was no other time in my long years as a journalist, until last Monday, that I let my professional guard down and went visibly gaga over a VIP.

But can you blame me? Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is hot! And I mean, dropdead gorgeous! Gasp! Move over George Clooney! Okay, I take that back, maybe not George Clooney. Daniel Craig, yes.

SITTING 6 feet across from this supreme specimen of the Scottish gene pool, I am excited to no end. PHOTO BY ROY DOMINGO

You see, my guy Tony would soon qualify for a free movie pass and birthday cake in Makati—if he were living in the Philippines, that is—and yet he still sizzled as much as he did when he was 43 and had just moved into 10 Downing Street.

I had known for sometime that he was coming to town for a talk on leadership at Hotel Sofitel Philippine Plaza. All I wished for was I’d get to attend this conference. Geez, who could afford the P25,000 ticket to hear him talk anyway? (Of course, I was wrong. Economic crisis or not, there were apparently still quite a number who would buy such a pricey ticket. I spied Ambassador Alfonso Yuchengco, Alberto Lim of the Makati Business Club, former Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. and many others within whispering distance of the ex-British PM/newly minted Middle East envoy of the UN, US, EU and Russia.)

Mercifully, there are advantages to being connected to a very interesting and award-winning newspaper. Not only was I able to get a good seat and hear his speech, but I also got a slot among the local journalists interviewing him afterward. Whoopee! Someone up there really loves me! (Of course, that can only be my editor in chief Chuchay Fernandez.)

So you can just imagine how excited I was days before the interview! After all, before there was a Barack Obama, there was Tony Blair, the original rock-star politico. In my generation, it was my guy Tony who made it cool for heads of state to be young and oh-so-handsome, and to be treated like celebrities much like actors and musicians. (Of course, before him was John F. Kennedy, but I had yet to be a glimmer in my parents’ future back then to appreciate the latter’s charms.)

Nothwithstanding the uncomfortable muggy temperature inside the supposedly air-conditioned Harbour Tent of the Softitel, everyone patiently waited for him to arrive. (He was having lunch at Malacañang with you-know-who.) But as soon as my guy made his entrance, our sapped spirits were lifted, the searing heat in the venue momentarily forgotten. Immediately we were drawn to his disarming smile, the fine lines at the corners of his eyes that crinkle, and never mind the double eyebags because he just looked oh-so-perfect in his dark gray suit! And, yes, there is something about that British accent that makes any old Englishman just sound sexy, never mind if he’s only saying, “Your tea, madam.”

More than the accent and his good looks, my guy Tony has other pluses that make him still quite the celebrity despite the rather regrettable business of Iraq. He has an endearing populist quality about him which he knew just how to use to his advantage. He gamely donned an ill-fitting La Salle sports jacket after receiving an award from the university, meriting wild clapping and cheering from De La Salle alumni like myself who were present. Thanking the university later, he said, “If I eat any more adobo and sinigang, I might not be able to fit in it.” More cheers around the room.

FORMER UK Prime Minister Tony Blair gamely sports a La Salle sports jacket, much to the delight of the alumni present to hear him talk on leadership at Hotel Sofitel Philippine Plaza. PHOTO COURTESY CAMPAIGNS AND GREY

Of course, some alumni like my batchmate Nerissa were not amused. Seeing the photo of Blair in the La Salle jacket, she commented she was ashamed that her alma mater was “hosting a war criminal” who caused the death of 650,000 Iraqis. If she could, she would’ve probably reached through the computer and bitch-slap me for posting the photo. (Wait ’til she sees my photo with him!) Seriously, until the war on Iraq, the British people thought Blair was a good leader and supported his policies, leading him to an unprecendented three terms as their PM. And until he came along, Northern Ireland was just a bloody mess. But as they say, all good things must come to an end. Learning from this experience, he acknowledged, “Every leader has his day, then you move on.”

I wasn’t the only one who was tickled pink by my guy Tony. I lost count of how many women in the audience took out their camera phones and digicams to unashamedly photograph him as he worked his speech. Even onstage, he exuded a lot of sex appeal, and with his self-deprecating humor, he delighted even the men. Not many people may know it, but my guy wanted to be a rock star and had actually played in a band called Ugly Rumours. But as he told the Sofitel audience last Tuesday, a close friend told him that “I could be a great singer…if only I had the voice. That’s how I ended up in politics instead.” (Trivia: He once dated Mary Harron, future director of I Shot Andy Warhol, American Psycho and The Notorious Bettie Page, the latter currently making the round of HBO.)

Later, sitting about 6 feet away from this supreme specimen of the Scottish gene pool, I was excited to no end. Thank God, I still had enough sense in me to use a tape recorder for the interview. Because if you take a look at my notebook, it’s almost empty except for a few scribbles, which means that I was probably staring at him for the most part of the 20 minutes we were allowed to be with him. Sure, I managed to get in a few serious questions about prospects for the Middle East and the current UK recession, but as soon as someone said that we had time to take a photo with him, I was the first by his side! Now was that frigging unprofessional, or was that frigging unprofessional?!

(Levity aside, Blair is the consummate politician. He knew exactly how to answer our questions without actually answering them. Who knows, if we had more than 20 minutes with him, perhaps we would’ve gotten more than his famous admission to Sir David Frost that Iraq was “a disaster.”)

While waiting for the photographers to whip out their cameras, I snuck in some idle chit-chat with my guy and asked him what he missed most about Downing Street. (“The people,” he answered. “Ang PR naman ng sagot nito,” I thought.) I asked if he didn’t miss the chef’s cooking, to which he answered that they actually didn’t have a chef at the PM’s residence and the food was mostly “brought in.” (Ah, yes, Jamie Oliver, I remember your 15’s dinner for the PM and Mrs. Blair’s party quite well.) After more small talk about the country’s 7,100 islands and Maria Ressa encouraging him to stay longer than 24 hours to visit some of them, my guy thanked us and took his leave. It was then I realized that I had forgotten to even introduce myself! Well, slap my forehead and talk about the world’s stupidest fan behavior! Boba!

Having tucked in about 15 years in the journalism profession, I thought nothing and no one fazed me anymore. In the course of my work and having spoken with so many local and foreign VIPs, I thought I’d be immune to celebrities like my guy Tony. Well, next time I shall strive to behave more professionally. Although thanks to him, I’ve had some practice. Next time, I know what to do to suppress my inner fan or at least not make it obvious how much I’m reeling inside. (No.1: remember my name.)

Okay, Bono, I’ll be ready for you next week.

---

TO STELLA: (my thoughts in blue)
“REGRETTABLE BUSINESS OF IRAQ”

1. ‘Your guy Tony’ was referring to the mess in Iraq at that time, when he was interviewed by Frost, not the fact that the invasion was “a disaster”. The press, especially the anti-Blair, anti-Bush, anti-Iraq-war British, as is their wont, leapt on this as a confession that he had got the decision to go to war wrong.  He does not, even to this day, think that he got it wrong. Neither do I, if that is if any interest to you. The ‘disaster’ was in reference to the fact that there were many still being killed when it should all have been on its way to democracy. At least three reasons for that, imho.
a) Other countries did not realise the importance of this Iraq venture for the civilised world. Or pretended they didn’t and let America, Britain and others get on with it. They still like to do that leaving it to others business (Obama referred to this hands-off [cowardly and non-leadership?] approach the other day by saying that some countries should not leave it to a few to make the right decisions for the world’s economy.)
b) The Iraq after-invasion processes had not been worked through properly; insufficient planning, perhaps even understanding of the insurgencies’ complexities. Mainly, though Blair himself does not lay blame, America’s responsibility.
c) Insufficient troops from the UN after they took over the oversight (ongoing since one month from the invasion.) This shortage linked, for reasons or excuses, to (a) above.

2. Your friend on – “hosting a war criminal who caused the death of 650,000 Iraqis”.

Blair is not a ‘war criminal’. This facile remark, cast at him and Bush constantly by the anti-press has NO support in international law. It really needs to stop. It is an insult and a betrayal of democracy. The oft-quoted number of dead is from possibly unreliable sources and is not associated to a time-frame. If it were, the UN too would be able  to be held responsible and accountable as THEY have been in control since May 2003. But which anti-Iraq war know-all calls the UN “war criminals?  NONE.  It is personal – towards Blair & Bush.

Also, most of the deaths were by imported (Iran & Syrian) suicide bombers and resident militants. NOT under the direction of BLAIR.  I am sick of people comparing Blair (and Bush) to REAL war criminals. THEY are the heroes of Baghdad.

3. And … “until the war on Iraq, the British people thought Blair was a good leader and supported his policies”

And many still did think so, after Iraq. There are no reliable numbers, just opinion polls launched, usually, in response to a particularly difficult occasion. Numbers often fluctuated according to how bad a press there was on soldiers’ and innocent civilians’ deaths. There was and still is an agenda here to discredit the good intent and even integrity of Blair and Bush. It still goes on to this day. But such people are wrong, and, imho, THEY are the Enemy Within.

When Blair first went into Iraq he had over 63% of British people with him. The ensuing and unfair discrediting of the WMD business muddied the waters, and was the main plank of the campaign against Blair. Now they think they are about to “get him” on this, as the Foreign Secretary has mentioned a new Iraq Inquiry (only the FIFTH!) They wont get him if and when such an inquiry is held, as he will be proved innocent of “lying” and of “misleading Parliament”.

But they will still NEVER accept it. They are, on the whole, a pretty unbalanced lot, imho.

4. And … “until he came along, Northern Ireland was just a bloody mess.

Absolutely right. But many in my country’s press still like to make out that Blair was only a bit-player in this settlement. To me he was central. Without him it would NOT have happened. Simple.  History will prove his opponents wrong.

Again they will still never admit this.

5. And … ‘But as they say, all good things must come to an end. Learning from this experience, he acknowledged, “Every leader has his day, then you move on.”’

REMEMBER THIS, Stella. Blair was NOT voted out by the country. His party of Little People gave him no alternative but to stand down. WHY?  Because they thought Gordon Brown would give them a better chance of winning the next election. WHAT a JOKE! His political “killing” was less to do with Iraq than it was to do with the press perception and thus with winning next time round. (Laughable to think they could win 4 times without Blair. They had never even won 3 times in a row until HE came along!)

And Brown? For 10 years he funded, as Blair’s chancellor, New Labour’s/Blair’s policies, including the Iraq war. He continues Blair’s policies in Iraq. As the Americans say “go figure”.

I really do not think Tony Blair would have been voted out by the voters in a fourth election. Next to him Brown, Cameron, their parties and the anti-Iraq war Lib Dems are all political pygmies. As well as charmless dolts. And charm and charisma DO matter it today’s politics, as you are witness to.

I even venture to suggest that if he came back now to Britain as party/country leader, the British would welcome him AND vote him back in But why should he bother? He’s already colllecting enough plus points for being the World’s Premier Statesman , thus the double bags, I guess. Why come back here to be lambasted by The Littlies?

Btw … “George Clooney”? Come on…Stella!

I put some videos together to remind people of what we once had. And of what a REAL communicator is.

Tony Blair – Everlasting Words Part 1

More Tony Blair Words  (Part 2)

‘True Leadership’:  a report on Blair’s Philippines visit

---

---

Iran’s Bloggers face Death Sentence (YouTube Video)

• Home
• Young Iranian blogger dies in prison

Comment at end

26th March, 2009

[KEY: *MeDjihadNaa = Ahmadinejad]

Iran mulls death penalty for offensive blogs – 24 Mar 09

In Iran – I mean … the Islamic Republic of Iran … (apologies, Mr MeDjihadNaa*) … bloggers may soon be executed for blogging. By the way, I’m not Iranian. So kindly keep your clenched fist to yourself.  Here in Britain, we can still upset, disparage, insult whoever we like.

It seems the number of state-sanctioned executions in Iran almost doubled last year.

And this is the country to whom Obama extends a trusting hand?

He needs to write about this offensive transgression against humanity on his blog, and e-mail it through to AhMadMan.

A report by Amnesty International shows Iran, Saudi Arabia and China as being responsible for 90 per cent of all executions in 2008. Now Iran is proposing a new law that could see the death sentence imposed on internet bloggers who post offensive material on the web.

From Huffington Post – Links from around the web on this story:

Think Progress » Iran considering the death penalty for ‘offensive …

Digg – Iran considering the death penalty for ‘offensive’ bloggers.

LiveLeak.com – Iran considering the death penalty for ‘offensive …

Iran considering the death penalty for ‘offensive’ bloggers …

Twitter / DizzyDezzi: Iran considering the death …

Iran Mulls Death Penalty For Offensive Bloggers (VIDEO) | WOPULAR

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran’s bloggers thrive despite blocks

Blogs by Iranians – English weblogs by Iranians, inside and …

Blogging in Iran – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran blogger dies in Evin prison

BBC NEWS | Technology | Iran jails blogger for 14 years

Bloggers of Iran

Will Obama Listen to Iran’s Bloggers?

Iran blogger jailed for Khamenei insult dies: lawyer

Rights groups: Iranian blogger dies in prison

Blogging in Iran: A Dangerous Prospect

---

---

Arrest Super-Jihadist Anjem Choudary (Part 2)

• Home
• 13th Sep 2008 – Choudary “Next 9/11 will be in the UK” – and – “Have more babies so we can take over Britain from within”
• 9th Sep 2008 – Choudary two weeks after 7/7/2005 – HARDTALK interview (video and transcript)
• This British Muslim is an EXAMPLE to you, Choudary

Comment at end

25th March, 2009

WANTED – OUT OF THIS COUNTRY

My first such request to the Home Secretary was here on 16th March, 2009

Today THE SUN TOO, HAS CALLED FOR CHOUDARY’S ARREST

(The Sun article includes video of Choudary, Omar Bakri & Jalal Ahmed – a Luton airport worker suspended from work following his participation in the disgraceful demo at the Royal Anglian regiment’s homecoming.) See excerpt of Sun article here, below.

Not that I’m suggesting I am the only one who has called for this. But I ran a poll here a couple of weeks ago.

Question: What Should Britain Do with Anjem Choudary & his ilk?

The results so far are:

Responses to options below:
1.Deport him – ANYWHERE!  77%
2.Nothing – Ignore him. He is powerless.  0%
3.Put him in front of a Sharia Court for sedition and/or treachery.  0%
4. Arrest & try him under English Law – then the EU (when, of course, he will be released)  8%
5. Just sort him out. Get rid of him.  8%

You can still vote in this poll here at end of page

Not one person voting at my poll thinks we should ignore him. And no-one reckons we should put him up in front of a Sharia court. Probably because we only have dry-run practise-type ones here in Britain at present.

Of course if  he were to be charged with sedition in, for instance Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Libya, Ghana, Algeria, China, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Syria, UAE – to name but some where sedition/treason is punishable by the death penalty, he’d be getting  just what HIS form of Sharia demands. So at least he could die happy.

Most people, understandably, want this man deported

The bad news? We can’t.  He is a British citizen. THIS, sadly for us, is his home although he has “no allegiance to Britain”.

As the ‘man’ says: “If you were born in a barn it doesn’t make you a horse.” [more of this excerpt here below]

This individual is strangely fond of animal analogies. He used another one tonight on the SKY NEWS programme on Pakistan & British Pakistani/Muslim terrorism. See here for the Sky three day series on Pakistan.

The only way we can have him deported is if he renounces his British passport, which of course he won’t.  He needs it to get into Pakistan and other terror hotspots.

And it looks like the present investigation by the Police didn’t stop him appearing on Sky tonight. Still, the more people see of this ranter’s ravings, the better.

---

 

The Sun article – excerpt:

So what DOES he have to do to get arrested?

HIS group of Muslim extremists was behind the vile demo against Our Boys at a homecoming parade.

Now hate preacher Anjem Choudary has urged his brainwashed followers to undergo military training abroad.

His sick order comes just days after he advocated that Business Secretary Lord Mandelson be stoned to death — for being gay.

And it follows years of rants which have sickened the nation, yet gone unpunished by the authorities.

So today The Sun calls on police chiefs to stop dithering and charge former lawyer Choudary, 41, before he poisons more young minds.

Last night we handed officers at the Met’s London HQ, New Scotland Yard, a damning dossier calling for his arrest and prosecution.

‘ Any kind of attack on Mohammed’s honour carries the death penalty ’

SEPT 2008

It highlights his most heinous outbursts — which a Sun investigation revealed breached British laws. And it details those exact laws. If found guilty the firebrand cleric could face as much as life imprisonment.

Overthrow

In his new outburst — a recording posted on a password-protected Al-Qaeda website — he said: You do not neglect any of our duties…

If many of our Muslim lands are under occupation then of course jihad — you are going to be talking about jihad. You are going to be recruiting for the Mujahideen. 

You’re going to be working to overthrow, sorry, liberate, Muslim lands. Because you’re living in a situation where there’s lots of Muslim lands under occupation.

Quoting from Islamic text, Choudary added:  ‘You cannot accomplish this until you train… train for jihad.’ What kind of training is he talking about? He’s talking about military training.

British-born Choudary — who claims state handouts — caused outrage on the first anniversary of the July 7 London bombings in 2005.

More from THE SUN here

---

EXCERPT OF CHOUDARY’S INTERVIEW ON HARDTALK 2 WEEKS AFTER 7/7 (2005)

Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: You were born in this country. You are British. Did it not cause you any personal pain when those bombs went off, when those people were killed?

Anjem Choudary: Stephen, first of all if you are born somewhere that doesn’t make you have any kind of allegiance. If you were born in a barn it doesn’t make you a horse. I was born in Britain. I believe the whole of the world belongs to God. I believe that the law of Allah must be prevalent on the earth. So yes I’m … Great Britain …

Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: You have no allegiance to Great Britain?

Anjem Choudary: No, I have no allegiance to Great Britain whatsoever. I have no allegiance to the queen, I have no allegiance to the prime minister. As a muslim when you say “La ilaha illa-llah“ , you say that ‘I obey, I serve, I submit, I follow no-one except for Allah”.

Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Do you … do you hate Britain? The country which has raised you, which has educated you?

Anjem Choudary: No, this is not … it’s not right that the country raised me. The fact is I was raised by my parents and I learnt my Islam from scholars qualified in Islamic law.

Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: When … when did you adopt the positions you have now? I mean you went to school here, you went to university in this country. When did you decide that you had absolutely no allegiance to Britain, that you would pursue a course which in many ways is absolutely antipathetic to Britain?

Anjem Choudary: It’s not to Britain … you see you need to make a distinction between the … the country, the trees and … and the … and the er… the livestock here. We have nothing against the er … the country as far as Britain is concerned …

Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Never mind the trees and the livestock, you certainly have something against the people.

Anjem Choudary: No but wait a second, wait a second … but as far as the authority is concerned and as far as the people who support the authority yes, certainly we have something against them. As muslims we must do because they are the people who are supporting the genocide in Muslim countries.  As far as my own Islam is concerned yes I mean I met er … Sheikh Omah Bakri Mohammed, I studied at the sharia … er at the London School of Sharia.  I learnt a lot of the things that I believe today from him and … er … he …  he … not because he himself has his own personal opinions but because everything he says is based upon the koran and the traditions of the [messenger(?)] Mohammed.

More of this HardTalk interview here

---

VOTE HERE ON WHAT TO DO WITH CHOUDARY

---

 

---