The Obama and the OIC: The Anti-Free Speech Coalition

by Joseph Puder, FPM

Reacting to the murderous rioting against the U.S. throughout the Arab and Muslim world and especially in Libya, where U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was murdered, and in Egypt, President Obama, who authorized millions in aid to Libya, said on September 12th: “Since our founding the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others…Already, many Libyan have joined us…and this attack will not break the bonds between the U.S. and Libya[.]”

Obama and his administration officials have vehemently attacked the anti-Muslim video produced by a private American citizen, and yet they conveniently ignore the fact that the Obama administration supported the people who are now expressing visceral hate for America, in spite of Obama’s four-year record of appeasing Islam and Muslim countries. An example of which was obvious in the statement issued by the Embassy of Cairo: “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.”

The Obama administration has yet to make the correlation between the killing of an American ambassador and the torching of U.S. embassies (which represent sovereign American territories) on the anniversary of September 11, and the rise to power of anti-American Islamists in Egypt and Libya, as well as elsewhere in the Arab Middle East.

Something else far more notorious has been occurring since March of last year. The Obama administration has been giving the 56-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the most powerful bloc of nations inside the U.N., a platform on which to stifle free speech in America under the guise of fighting Islamophobia.

In March of 2011, U.S. diplomats helped push for the adoption of Human Right Council Resolution 16/18, which expresses concern about religious “stereotyping” and negative profiling. It was a modification of an OIC resolution against the “defamation of religions” (ostensibly Islam), which would have protected religious institutions instead of individual freedoms. In July 2011, the Obama administration went back to Resolution 16/18 and used it as a springboard to “greatly invigorate the international effort to criminalize speech against Islam.”

The April 12, 2011 Resolution provides, inter alia, that
everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief, which shall include freedom to have or adopt a religious or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching, Reaffirming the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in strengthening democracy and combating religious intolerance, Deeply concerned about incidents of intolerance, discrimination and violence against persons based on their religion or belief in all regions of the world[.]

Ironically, it is in the Muslim world alone where intolerance towards other religions exists, which violates both the letter and spirit of the above document, yet the Obama administration is collaborating with OIC to enforce restrictions against anti-Muslim expressions.

Back in December 2005, the heads of state and governments of the OIC held an extraordinary summit in Mecca and adopted a “Ten Year Program of Action.” An observatory taskforce on Islamophobia was to be established to monitor Islamophobia and defamation of Islam. Its goals were to get the U.N. to adopt an international resolution on Islamophobia, and call on all states to enact laws to counter Islamophobia, including deterrent punishments.

The OIC’s anti-defamation resolutions passed in both the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the U.N. General Assembly, and were adopted in December 2007 by a vote of 108 in favor to 51 against, with 25 abstentions.

The Observatory Report on Islamophobia declared that in order to have peace the OIC-approved version of Islam’s history must be understood, accepted, and promoted, and anything contrary is baseless Islamophobia and inciteful defamation of Islam, and responsible for the violent, destructive and punitive reaction of Muslims. Naturally, Islamic violence against the Danish cartoons was not irrational or criminal as far as the OIC is concerned.

According to the OIC, they regard the current situation (the riots against the U.S. embassies in Benghazi, Libya that killed Ambassador Stevens and the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on September 11, 2012) as justified due to the “inciteful defamation” of Islam by an American citizen.

The Observatory Report argued that Islamophobia exists in part because there is no legal instrument to combat it, therefore “a binding legal instrument must be created to fight the menace of Islamophobia.

Clare Lopez wrote on December 8, 2011 in Family Security Matters:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due to host OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Washington, DC in mid-December 2011 to discuss how the United States can implement the OIC agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam. Cloaked in sanctimonious language of “Resolution 16/18,” that was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in April 2011, the Washington, DC three-day experts meeting is billed as a working session to discuss legal mechanisms to combat religious discrimination (ostensibly against Islam only). The UN human Rights Council, which includes such bastions of human rights as China, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, introduced Resolution 16/18 to the UN General Assembly, where it was passed in March 2011.

Complying with OIC attempts to implement its agenda to impose censorship on what they regard as anti-Muslim expressions is not enough for the Obama administration it seems. Breitbart reported on July 30, 2012, that “the FBI has taken another giant step down a very dangerous path with FBI Director Robert Mueller’s secret meeting with radical Islamic organizations and effectively allowing them to ‘edit‘ the FBI’s training manuals.”

A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was filed which is seeking access to records detailing a February 8, 2012 meeting between FBI Director Robert Mueller and Muslim organizations. Judicial Watch is also investigating the FBI’s subsequent controversial decision to purge the agency’s training curricula of material deemed “offensive” to Muslims.

On March 7, 2012, Judicial Watch submitted FOIA requests to the FBI and the DOJ seeking access to records regarding the meeting. We’re after “any and all records setting criteria or guidelines for FBI curricula on Islam or records identifying potentially offensive material within the FBI curricula on Islam,” and any directives to “withdraw FBI presentations and curricula on Islam.”

While the mainstream media was thrilled to regale Americans with coverage of the shenanigans committed by GOP candidates for the presidency, it has done little to expose the Obama administration’s flirtation with the OIC. The general support given by the Obama administration to the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi (with whom Obama invited to meet, while refusing to meet with Israel’s PM Netanyahu), reveals an administration committed to appeasing America’s enemies and abandoning America’s friends.

Moreover, the latest bout of anti-American riots testifies to the bankruptcy of the Obama administration charm offensive in the Muslim world.

October 2, 2012 | 1 Comment »

Leave a Reply

1 Comment / 1 Comment

  1. The Observatory Report argued that Islamophobia exists in part because there is no legal instrument to combat it, therefore “a binding legal instrument must be created to fight the menace of Islamophobia.

    The dictionary definition of a “phobia” is an irrational fear disproportional to the actual danger posed. Is then fear or apprehension of a resurgent 7th century ideology that is at the root of most bloody conflicts in the world today, that has no room for individual liberties, that beheads offenders and tolerates no other religion, that reacts with extreme violence at the least perceived provocation – “irrational or disproportionate to the actual danger posed”?

    I submit that there is no such thing as “Islamophobia” and the very term is a ploy to silence dissent in the service of Sharia world domination.