Hillary, the Instanbul Process and UN 16/18
As reported and edited by the Huffington Post, another source with more and critical details of Story No. 2.
Josef Kuhn of the Religion News Service reported on Dec. 14, 2011, that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held a summit of international leaders whose specificity was to combat intolerance, discrimination and violence based on religion or belief. (Sounds good so far).
The meeting was closed door and Andrea Lafferty, president of the Traditional Values Coalition said her group was denied entrance to not only the meetings but even the hotels due to the fear of "incitement to violence". (They have, of course, never incited violence - were there violence, it would undoubtedly be started by Muslims if we are to go by prior instances).
The meeting was part of an ongoing series called "The Istanbul Process." While Lafferty's group was not allowed, 30 countries were including Egypt, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. (All Muslim and more on this later).
Clinton's closing remarks included two freedoms they were after, the right to practice one's religion freely and the right to express one's opinion without fear. (Still sounds good).
For 10 years, the UN had pushed restricting the defamation of religions, which got nowhere, but more recently, UN Resolution 16/18 pushed for concrete, positive measures to combat religious intolerance.
Story Two: U.S. Meets With Muslim Countries That Want to Ban Free Speech in America. Amanda Winkler, Christian Post Reporter, Dec. 13, 2011
The U.S. Department of State began a three day meeting Monday with government officials from the multinational Organisation for Islamic Cooperation in an effort to combat religious intolerance.
(First story - Huffpo reporting, international group of leaders, Christian Post - only officials from Organisation for Islamic Cooperation).
Entitled the Istanbul Process and announced by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last July as a "move to implement UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 on 'combating religious intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization,'" according to National Review Online.
For 12 years, the OIC has lobbied to curb the freedom of speech in America in regards to Islam. OIC has consistently argued that criticism of Islamic ideas be treated as illegal defamation. (This part was completely left out of Huffpo - no wonder liberals never know all the news).
OIC countries include Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Important: These countries adopted the Cairo Declaration of 1990, which rejected primary principals of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Cairo Declaration said that free speech, along with other rights, should be protected AS LONG AS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH ISLAMIC LAW. Any expressions critical of any part of Islam would not be protected under law.
Hannah Roenthal, U.S. Special Rep to Muslim Communities told The Daily Caller the meeting was a great success and the OIC had dropped their demand that criticism of Islamic ideas be treated as illegal defamation in exchange for "technical assistance to build institutions to ensure there will be religious freedom" in their countries.
No one knows what that even means. Obviously, whatever it is, we will pay and share. As always. David French, senior counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice told the Christian Post, "after 12 years, they are just dropping their No. 1 demand?" We, of course, have no clue because the meetings were closed - as are most things in this administration.
He added, even making fun of someone's religion still does not take away their freedom to worship, well, at least in America. Make fun of anything Islamic in an Islamic country and you will be killed. Be a Christian in that country and you will probably be killed anyway.
Andrea Lafferty pointed out that Hillary had said the prior July that the U.S. Government would "use some old fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don't feel they have the support to do what we abhor."
We would like to think Hillary is speaking of all religions but we all know she is not. She is speaking of using pressure against anyone critical of Islam. What "we abhor" in Hillary's language will always be on the side of Islam.
Why do I think this? Because of what has been done in America in the years with Hillary as secretary of state. Every vestige of terrorism, Islamic radicals, jihadists, etc has been wiped out. The war in the Mid-east has been called something else. The Ft. Hood shootings are now referred to as "workplace violence," denying those killed and injured from receiving Purple Hearts and much needed funds for ongoing therapy as they try to recover from their wounds. The trial should be interesting when Hasan defends himself and says he killed them for Allah. How is that going to square with "workplace violence?"
Benghazi was blamed by Clinton and Obama on a six-minute You Tube trailer no one ever heard of until they brought it up in spite of facts showing they knew instantly it was Islamic terrorists, many of them al-Qaida connected.
Incidentally, the man making the trailer never even got the story written, just the trailer. He is still in jail until next October at least for, well, actually nothing. Picked up on a couple of two bit misdemeanors, this administration is still having him held. To let him out means a conservative journalist might question him and find out the truth. This is unconscionable in the United States of America. And incidentally, he is fearful of speaking out. When questioned in jail, he has stated the POTUS knows more than him. Does this sound like America to you? Holding a man for nothing by the most powerful man in the world and this man afraid to even speak up?
This is what is done in totalitarian countries. But now, under this POTUS, done in America also.
So Hillary and Obama have already started the Istanbul Process, making sure nothing bad is said about Islam. And there is so much more on this story.