cnjournal

See this Financial Times article for an excellent update on the birthing of this UN Council to replace the old Geneva Human Rights Commission <a

Cartoons

Last Sept the UN Leaders meetings in NYC agreed on an urgent need to fix the Geneva based Human Rights Commission and replace it with a new UN Human Rights Council.

The United States sees the creation of a new council, to replace the widely discredited Human Rights Commission in Geneva, as a priority.

Just how and where do the L. Arbour /UN HR Committee fit in all of this?

Try this. When the totally discredited Geneva HR Commission was busy having a makeover of its mandate, as per the priority leaders wish from last Sept, along came the OIC to demand this:

“The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has called for the insertion of language requiring the new council to “prevent instances of intolerance, discrimination, incitement of hatred and violence” arising from “any actions against religions, Prophets and beliefs”.

Remember the OIC is the group of Muslim countries, who in Dec 2005 met in Mecca and in the OIC Final Communiqué, took aim at the Danish cartoons, as having caused hurt feelings.

This same OIC, at the Dec 2005 Mecca meeting, convinced the UN HR Committee Chair L. Arbour to admonish the Danish paper by official letter.

My post on Thurs 9 Feb suggested lines of investigation to uncover how the “Cartoon Outrage” got such strong influence in high places and results such as this with the UN HR Committee, without any of us knowing.

In light of the current push by Islamists for a global ban against what they define as blasphemy, I am certainly not reassured when I read this next threat coming, believe it or not, from the Amb from Yemen, that hotbed of free speech! :

“Abdullah Alsaidi, the ambassador of Yemen which chairs the OIC, insisted: “I don’t want to curtail the freedom of speech, but I want freedom of speech to be attended with responsibilities.”

Right, as I’ll cut your head off if you paint Big Mo?

He added, “When you put the prophet of Islam in the guise of a terrorist, by implication you say all Muslims are terrorists. This is incitement.”

Frankly this is not incitement.

His statement on the other hand, is incitement.

Suicide bombers and terrorist acts that kill innocents is incitement

Don’t know about you, but I am not prepared to accept that my life and freedom is to be circumscribed by a religious claim from a religion I do not believe in.

The good news is that the opponents of reform (the usual human rights abuser nations such as, Yemen) will likely agree to a name change - from Commission to Council - but to little else.

The bad news is the abusers will continue to control the Human Rights file at the UN. 

Amazing.

cn

In light of the cartoon firestorm let us reflect for a moment on who knew what and particularly, when.

Many MSM writers (Amir Taheri and Peter Goodspeed in The National Post(Canada)) today and blogs, (Michele Malkin), are now picking up on the manufactured nature of this cartoon-like “spontaneous combustion” by the Muslim Street

Many are opening the archives to peer into the documentary trail from last Sept that implicates one of the leading Danish Imams, Abu Laban.

What we have just seen is not spontaneous. The first test of the human emotional bomb (HEB) was the series of Paris youth riots.

In creating this second emotional bomb test, the Imam is now showing us the strength of the pan-Islamist movement and its functional chain of command. The working model, HEB Mark ll.

The aim is to show how easily the HEB can be sort of harnessed to terrorize Western societies.

My original post (copied below) was put up 9 Dec 05. It was prompted by a same day reading of media reports that the UN HR Committee, Mme L. Arbour, (Chair) had quickly and without prior warning, written to remonstrate with the Danish paper.

Now, we are quite aware that the whole story did not get much traction when first the cartoons were published in Sept 2005.

We now know that the Danish Imam, Abu Laban (a Saudi agent), was on a Saudi sponsored trip to the ME in Dec 2005.

We now know that he finally got the attention he wanted on the ME trip in early December: the delegation of Danish Muslims flew to Cairo, where they met with the grand mufti, Muhammad Sayid Tantawy, Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit and Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League.

The rest as we say is history.

We know that the Organization of the Islamic Conference met in Mecca in Dec 2005.

We know that the Egyptian FM Aboul Gheit had the glossy file (with the three false cartoons included) with him and he passed it around at the summit.

We need to know who caused the Cartoon Issue to be inserted in the OIC Final Communiqué.

Did the same OIC person get the same file to Mme Arbour and the Committee?

My questions to her are these:

Was she officially made aware of this issue before or after the Mecca summit?

Which UN member nations are on the HR Committee that she chairs?

How many of these member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference sit on the Committee?

What role did each HR Committee members' Government play before, during and now with respect to (WRT) the violent riots over the cartoons?

Was there any debate at Committee?

How did the Committee decide which cartoons, amongst those submitted in the glossy brochure, were within its Committee mandate or authority to examine? By what rules of evidence?

Was the issue of Freedom of Speech discussed by the Committee?

At the time she or the Committee agreed to sign the official UN HR Committee letter, which cartoon images had they seen and when had they seen them?

Had she or they been exposed, directly or by description, to any of the bogus ugly cartoons inserted by the Danish Imam?

By what means did her Committee become seized of this, “pressing” issue? Who or what organization presented the documentation to the Committee for its review?

To whom did the official Committee send its reply? There is certainly no doubt that a “letter indicating action taken” was sent to someone. At the UN there must be normal administrative steps to follow as part of the transparency process.

So, now it is up to the blogosphere to crank up the research engines and expose those who have subverted the UN to their own ends.

Flash: Please see this story in the International Herald Tribune, Thurs, 9 Feb for answers to many of these questions.

cn

Here is my Post from 9 Dec

"Here is the text of a letter sent today, Fri 9 Dec 05 to the Prime Minister, Canada, to express my total disgust with the position of our UN Human Rights champ at the UN, Louise Arbour.

I hope many of you have already seen the insane statement by Mme Arbour in which she admonishes the Danish newspaper for running the cartoons with 'images' of the Prophet Muhammad - depictions of the big M are of course verboten in the Islamist world.

Course, Islamists everywhere are free to spew whatever vile hatred they wish against Jews in particular and infidels in general. However, not a peep do we hear from Arbour over for example, the recent ranting of the President of Iran.

Here is the letter."


"Dear Mr. Martin.

As a … and a proud Canadian from Montreal, I am compelled to write to you today to express my disgust with the position of Louise Arbour at the UN in support of chastising the Danes for some political cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

As you are in the midst of an election campaign, you are, I am sure, not aware of this latest insanity from the UN. In brief, a Danish newspaper recently asked for artists to submit political cartoons using the 'image' of the Prophet. You may be aware that this is a "no no' in Islam. As an aside, it is of course all right for Islamists to spew all sorts of vile threats and anti-Semitic remarks every day of the week. Witness the latest from the President of Iran: for these we hear not a word from Mme Arbour.

Unbelievably, she has decided to call the newspaper to account, as the cartoons may lead Muslins to feel badly!

In the context of today’s international situation - and I mean the War on Terror and the fundamental clash with the radical Islamist elements that have hijacked traditional Islam - this position brings disgrace upon the UN and upon Canada.

I call upon you to immediately distance yourself and the government from this reprehensible position and to begin the process of recalling her from the UN Human Rights post.

She is a disgrace to all Canadians"

cn

In this entirely comedic affair, where irony abounds, this is the absolute best I have seen so far.

In today’s Ottawa Citizen, Egyptian President H. Mubarak is quoted as follows (I did not make this up...)

He warned of, "the near and long-term repercussions of the campaign of insults", which could lead to "radicalism and terrorism."

In the same article, H. Nazrallah, Shiite leader in Lebanon said that if Muslims had killed S. Rushdie back in '89, then, " this rabble who insult our Prophet Muhammad...would not have dared to do so."

It is difficult to find any words that can do justice to these lines.

Seems to me pretty clear that the original idea held by the Danish paper in deciding to publish these cartoons - to test the use of free speech -was just what was needed to wake up the Western world to the fact that the religion of Islam is a dangerous and persistent threat to the freedoms we in the West have fought and died for over the past centuries.

This will be seen by historians at the classic "turning point".

The following quote is taken from the blog; Brussels Journal from an article on the narrow defeat of a government bill in the UK titled “Racial and Religious Hatred Bill”.

“On the occasion of the House of Commons vote, familiar maxims on liberty were aptly invoked in various debates, e.g. against the British Government’s plea that the bill was “necessary” to make multicultural coexistence possible (an argument invoked by governments across Europe to impose similar censorship laws). William Pitt the Younger was quoted:

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

Regarding the argument that this curtailment of freedom of speech is only a small concession to an acute societal need, Edmund Burke’s words were repeated:

“The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away for expedience and by parts.”

We would do well to remember that some of the basics of free and democratic societies that we take for granted, are mostly unknown to the estimated 1.2 billion world wide followers of Muhammad.

George Orwell’s observation applies:

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

cn

Dear CBC

I am totally outraged at the flacking for the Liberals just done by reporter Julie Van Dusen.

The subject under discussion on Newsworld, on Thursday, at 2:20pm was essentially this: how to interpret the comments made on Tues/Wed by Mr. Harper when he noted some plain facts about the realities of governing: the Senate is majority Liberal, the Supreme court is composed virtually entirely of judges appointed by Liberal governments and finally that the senior ranks of the PS are, as well, predominantly appointments made by the Liberals.

In spite of how many times the host, Dave Gray asked her (she was in Toronto) to explain just what Harper said - as opposed to what his political opponents accused him of saying - she repeatedly spun out the distortions propagated by the Liberal party and by the PM himself.

You know the stuff, the fear agenda.

Not once did she even attempt to "set the record straight" to assist rather than spin the listener.

It is one thing to report on what the Liberals are making the Harper comment out to be; it is quite another to fail to put out a disclaimer that the version she was spouting is pure political spin from the Liberals and the NDP and that this spin extrapolates what he actually said and meant beyond all recognition

The plain words were not hard to understand unless of course you have a personal agenda to put forward. Viewers should know for example that her family connections reach long and deep inside the Liberal structure.

Van Dusen clearly has bought into the distorted Liberal view of - to borrow from Apocalypse Now - "the horror, the horror" of a Conservative win.

What a travesty of reporting!!

Though I do not have much time for him W. Kinsella had it right today in the National Post: "...the national broadcaster's Ottawa English TV news bureau has become so effusively Martinite it should have been declared a leadership campaign expense."

She has got to go.

Respectfully

Colin Nelson

The following is the text of an email sent today to the CBC Morning Program.

It was sent in the hope that the CBC listener will be better served in the future.

"Hi. On Fri, about 8:40 the film review of Munich aired.

I was astounded to listen to the entire review and not hear a single thought about the film's central issue that virtually all critics raise.

The problem with the film is that it presents a seeming moral equivalence between the killers of the Israeli athletes and these who, in the name of the State, avenged the murders.

The slightly opaque position Spielberg portrays (he is a master propagandist after all) is simply wrong but it is nevertheless the logical continuation of the current fallacy that "your terrorist is my freedom fighter".

The Russian dissident Sharansky has decried this as the loss of our "moral compass".

Remember, the world is not benign; there are those who really want to eliminate the State of Israel.

I recommend this particular article at this link to your reviewer.

The validation of Jewish anti-Zionism by Isi Leibler - January 12, 2006


A follow up review reassessing his original review would then be appropriate.

By the way, the hostess of the show is off the hook here as I do not think she has even the remotest clue about this black episode in our human history.

A second review would allow him to either explain himself or express his regret over his unfortunate lack of understanding.

As a member of three Canadian Winter Olympic teams I can tell you first hand, there is no moral equivalence: the State of Israel had and has every right to protect by whatever means, its citizens from those who would destroy it.

To do less is to abrogate the single most important role a State has.

It is my astonishment over this gap, that Tom either missed or somehow decided to ignore, that has prompted this letter.

On the other hand it is perhaps not surprising that this critical aspect of the film was ignored - it is the inevitable legacy of our past thirty years of uber-Canadian tolerance where all moral and ethical judgments have been put on ice."

cn