U.N. scheme to make Christians criminals

[Karen]

Perhaps some of the lawyers on this forum might consider joining in with the ACLJ against this?



Sharia-following Islamic nations
demanding anti-'defamation' law

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=69163



Dozens of nations dominated by Islam are pressing the United Nations to adopt an anti-"defamation" plan that would make Christians criminals under international law, according to a United States organization that has launched a campaign to defend freedom of religion worldwide.

"Around the world, Christians are being increasingly targeted, and even persecuted, for their religious beliefs. Now, one of the largest organizations in the United Nations is pushing to make a bad situation even worse by promoting anti-Christian bigotry," the American Center for Law & Justice said yesterday in announcing its petition drive.

The discrimination is "wrapped in the guise of a U.N. resolution called 'Combating Defamation of Religions,'" the announcement said. "We must put an immediate end to this most recent, dangerous attack on faith that attempts to criminalize Christianity."



The "anti-defamation" plan has been submitted to the U.N. repeatedly since about 1999, starting out as a plan to ban "defamation" of Islam and later changed to refer to "religions," officials said. It is being pushed by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference nations, which has adopted the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, "which states that all rights are subject to sharia law, and makes sharia law the only source of reference for human rights."

The ACLJ petition, which is to be delivered to the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, already had collected more than 23,000 names in just a brief online existence.

The ACLJ's European division, the European Center for Law & Justice, also has launched its work on the issue. It submitted arguments last month to the U.N. in opposition to the proposal to institute sharia-based standards around the globe.

"The position of the ECLJ in regards to the issue of 'defamation of religion' resolutions, as they have been introduced at the U.N. Human Rights Council and General Assembly, is that they are in direct violation of international law concerning the rights to freedom of religion and expression," the organization's brief said.

"The 'defamation of religion' resolutions establish as the primary focus and concern the protection of ideas and religions generally, rather than protecting the rights of individuals to practice their religion, which is the chief purpose of international religious freedom law."

"Furthermore, 'defamation of religion' replaces the existing objective criterion of limitations on speech where there is an intent to incite hatred or violence against religious believers with a subjective criterion that considers whether the religion or its believers feel offended by the speech," the group continued.

Interestingly, in nations following Islam, the present practice is to use such laws to protect Islam and to attack religious minorities with penalties up to and including execution, the brief noted.

"What should be most disconcerting to the international community is that laws based on the concept of 'defamation of religion' actually help to create a climate of violence," the argument explained.

For example, just two months ago an Afghanistan court following Islam sentenced to death a 23-year-old apprentice journalist who had downloaded an article from an Iranian website and brought it to his class, the ECLJ said. Other instances include:

Award-winning author Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two Canadian Human Rights Commissions of vague allegations of "subject[ing] Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt" for comments in his book, "America Alone," the group said.


In Pakistan, 15 people were accused of blasphemy against Islam during the first four months of 2008, the organization said.


Another Pakistani man sentenced to life in prison for desecrating the Quran was jailed for six years before being acquitted of the charge.


In Saudi Arabia a teacher was sentenced to three years in prison plus 300 lashes "for expressing his views in a classroom."


In the United Kingdom, police announced plans to arrest a blogger for "anti-Muslim" statements.

In the United States, a plaintiff sued his Internet service provider for refusing "to prevent participants in an online chat room from posting or submitting harassing comments that blasphemed and defamed plaintiff's Islamic religion."
The ECLJ said, "The implementation of domestic laws to combat defamation of religion in many OIC countries reveals a selective and arbitrary enforcement toward religious minorities, who are often Christians. Those violations are frequently punishable by the death penalty."

The newest "anti-defamation" plan was submitted in March. It specifically cites a declaration "adopted by the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers" at a meeting in Islamabad "which condemned the growing trend of Islamophobia and systematic discrimination against adherents of Islam."

It also cites the dictates from the OIC meeting in Dakar, "in which the Organization expressed concern at the systematically negative stereotyping of Muslims and Islam and other divine religions."

It goes on to cite a wide range of other practices that "target" Islam, but does not mention any other religions, and urges all nations to provide "adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion."

According to published reports, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights' 53 members voted to adopt the resolution earlier this year, with opposition from the United States and the European Union.

At the time, Cuba's delegate, Rodolfo Reyes Rodriguez, said: "Islam has been the subject of very deep campaign of defamation."

"They're attempting to pass a sinister resolution that is nothing more than blatant religious bigotry," the ACLJ said in its promotion of its petition. "This is very important to understand. This radical proposal would outlaw Christianity … it would make the proclamation of your faith an international crime."

"In his recent dissent on the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanamo Bay, Justice Scalia said, 'America is at war with radical Islamists.' Never has this rung more true than today. Never have Christians been more targeted for their religious beliefs. And never have we faced a more dangerous threat than the one posed by the OIC," the ACLJ said.

On the Grizzly Groundswell blog, the author described the situation as, "The United Nations: 160 cannibals and 17 civilized people taking a majority vote on what to have for dinner."

The U.S. State Department also has found the proposal unpalatable.

"This resolution is incomplete inasmuch as it fails to address the situation of all religions," said the statement from Leonard Leo. "We believe that such inclusive language would have furthered the objective of promoting religious freedom. We also believe that any resolution on this topic must include mention of the need to change educational systems that promote hatred of other religions, as well as the problem of state-sponsored media that negatively targets any one religion."

[dolfan]

I agree, Karen, that this proposal is ludicrous and should be resisted with full aggression. I agree that the ACLJ is capable of carrying the torch; they're quite good. But, lawyers don't "support" the ACLJ unless they give money to the ACLJ. That's all the ACLJ wants from lawyers that do not work for them directly, and they will hound you to death about it, too. To get on any list of theirs for attorneys who help them means you write a check. If you write one, you wind up getting dunned for more and more and more. Every case is a pretext for a plea for money. I finally just had to say "quit calling me." It just got ridiculous.

[Karen]

I agree, Karen, that this proposal is ludicrous and should be resisted with full aggression. I agree that the ACLJ is capable of carrying the torch; they're quite good. But, lawyers don't "support" the ACLJ unless they give money to the ACLJ. That's all the ACLJ wants from lawyers that do not work for them directly, and they will hound you to death about it, too. To get on any list of theirs for attorneys who help them means you write a check. If you write one, you wind up getting dunned for more and more and more. Every case is a pretext for a plea for money. I finally just had to say "quit calling me." It just got ridiculous.

I am sure that you are right. I have not had personal dealings with them and I am sure that they can only hire just so many lawyers and the best way for others to help is to supply monies for their efforts as it is with most ministries. They are doing a great service and deserve the support of christians. They are fighting for all of us.

Question:
You obviously have delt with them. Is there no way that christian lawyers that do not work for them directly for pay could do pro bono research for them on the side simply to assist them?

[dolfan]

That's not how they work. They are a law firm. They are a very good law firm. They don't need volunteer lawyers and reasearchers. These guys are on the cutting edge of constitutional law. They are law review editors and appellate advocacy experts, many of them, before they went to work for ACLJ. These cases are not usually disputed heavily on the facts. The brainpower involved is really in trying to get trial courts to make favorable rulings, then holding that ground at the appellate level and, in the process, hopefully making favorable precedent. Where the question is close enough and initially is ruled upon adversely, the goal is to preserve the question for appeal with a strong factual and legal argument in trial court, and to get an appellate court to reverse the lower court holding , and in the process hopefully make favorable precedent.

They are selective with the cases they take, ones that provide the greatest chances of advancing the law in favor of First Amendment rights and ones that provide a larger visibility for the ACLJ. That's not a bad thing, by the way. I'm not aware of any front line trial lawyers who contract with them, but they (at one time, if not now) have a network of local attorneys for referral on matters that are not cases that they'd normally take. These cases are not that frequent, to be honest. Not to say that violations of rights, etc., don't happen frequently, but people don't turn to lawyers and courts over them most of the time (same way with most any kind of matter).

The Christian Law Association is probably more involved on front line issues on a volunteer basis. They do have a referral network for such reasons. I have done a little work with them, but even that has been rare.
Very good group at what they do; their mission is not quite the same in scope as ACLJ. More practical stuff on their level.

[Karen]

That's not how they work. They are a law firm. They are a very good law firm. They don't need volunteer lawyers and reasearchers. These guys are on the cutting edge of constitutional law. They are law review editors and appellate advocacy experts, many of them, before they went to work for ACLJ. These cases are not usually disputed heavily on the facts. The brainpower involved is really in trying to get trial courts to make favorable rulings, then holding that ground at the appellate level and, in the process, hopefully making favorable precedent. Where the question is close enough and initially is ruled upon adversely, the goal is to preserve the question for appeal with a strong factual and legal argument in trial court, and to get an appellate court to reverse the lower court holding , and in the process hopefully make favorable precedent.

They are selective with the cases they take, ones that provide the greatest chances of advancing the law in favor of First Amendment rights and ones that provide a larger visibility for the ACLJ. That's not a bad thing, by the way. I'm not aware of any front line trial lawyers who contract with them, but they (at one time, if not now) have a network of local attorneys for referral on matters that are not cases that they'd normally take. These cases are not that frequent, to be honest. Not to say that violations of rights, etc., don't happen frequently, but people don't turn to lawyers and courts over them most of the time (same way with most any kind of matter).

The Christian Law Association is probably more involved on front line issues on a volunteer basis. They do have a referral network for such reasons. I have done a little work with them, but even that has been rare.
Very good group at what they do; their mission is not quite the same in scope as ACLJ. More practical stuff on their level.

Thank you for your explaination which brings me to another thought. Perhaps if all christian denominations could get together and make it one of their ministries to support, a greater change could be brought about as it would allow the ACLJ to hire more lawyers and take on more cases that affect all christians.