Fri 6 Mar 2009
From The UN´s multicultural temple in Geneva. This “cave” is the plenary meeting room where “Durban II” is to be held – the decorations were paid by Spain.
On April 20-24, 2009, in Geneva, Switzerland, the United Nations will host the “Durban Review Conference,” – a follow-up to the 2001 UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance (WCAR).
Video with CNN´s Lou Dobbs showing how we are being highjacked by the UN.
This time Islam is trying to forbid the whole world to critisize Islam – and to introduce binding punishment for it!! Which the EU has already done (EU Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophoba – Geert Wilders). Durban I in 2001 ended with Israel and the US leaving the conference because of anti-Israeli manifestations and use of language.
Also, this time Israel and The US will stay away – and EU countries are considering to possibly to also stay away.
But this is by no means the first time the UN tries to stifle our freedom of speech in the name of Religion, i.e. Islam.
On March 15, 2002, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Mary Robinson addressed the OIC Conference Symposium. In her official, circulated text, she stated, inter alia, under the heading "A greater need for an understanding of Islam":
“No one can deny that at its core Islam is entirely consonant with the principles of fundamental human rights, including human dignity, tolerance, solidarity and quality. Numerous passages from the Qur'an and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad will testify to this. No one can deny, from a historic perspective, the revolutionary force that is Islam, which bestowed rights upon women and children long before similar recognition was afforded in other civilisations. And no one can deny the acceptance of the universality of human rights by Islamic States."
According to David Littman´s Link Islam in der UN means: "Sharia".
At the back of the room where she spoke could be found various written statements by the participants, as well as copies of the 1990 "Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam" placing the Sharia above anything else) — but not the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, normally available there in five languages.
On April 12, 2005 the UN exchanged its Human rights for protection of Islam – and other not mentioned religions – certainly not Christianity: “Human Rights Resolution 2005/3
Expresses deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism; Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any other religion Urges States to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination through political institutions and organizations of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers.”
Resolution 62/154. Combating defamation of religions UN´s 76th plenary meeting 18 December 2007
5. Also expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;
6. Notes with deep concern 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;
8. Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against Islam or any other religion, as well as targeting of religious symbols;
9. Stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular
10. Emphasizes that everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of these rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations …in respect for religions and beliefs;
14. Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through education and awareness-raising;
Who is behind this rubbish?
Here is a video showing where the victimization of the Muslim conquerors of the world comes from – Islam – which Allah has promised the lands and houses of the Christians (sura 33:27) and commanded to conquer the world: ss. 2:193, 2:216–18, 3:195, 4:91, 4:97, 4: 100, 8:39, 8:65, 9:1–5, 9:20, 9:29, 9:123. For the infidels are criminals (s 3:82). Now that the Pharisees have been so successful in making us fsubmit because we feel so guilty for the Holocaust – why should Islam not also try the same easy way to bring us to submission: utilize our totally unfounded, manipulated, brainwashed feeling of guilt – which must consist in stupidly nourishing snakes in our bosoms?
Resolution 62/154: Welcoming the launch of the Alliance of Civilizations´ initiative, ….in order to promote mutual respect and understanding among different cultures and societies, and the appointment in this regard of the United Nations High Representative for the Alliance of Civilizations,
…welcoming in this regard the Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the Ministerial Meeting on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Tehran on 3 and 4 September 2007
The Conference in Apr. 2009 is initiated by Islam (OIC) after a meeting in Teheran and by the New World Order organisation, the “Alliance of Civilizatons” founded and run by the Secretary General of the UN, Spains Prime Minister, Zapatero, and Turkey´s Prime Minister, Tayyip Erdogan, who stated: “The term moderate Islam is offensive. There is no moderate Islam. Islam is Islam. And that´s it!”.
Christopher Hitchens: In the same weeks that this resolution comes up for its annual renewal at the United Nations, its chief sponsor-government (Pakistan) makes an agreement with the local Taliban to close girls' schools in the Swat Valley region (a mere 100 miles or so from the capital in Islamabad) and subject the inhabitants to Sharia law.
This capitulation comes in direct response to a campaign of horrific violence and intimidation, including public beheadings. Yet the religion of those who carry out this campaign is not to be mentioned, lest it "associate" the faith with human rights violations or terrorism.
In Paragraph 6, an obvious attempt is being made to confuse ethnicity with confessional allegiance.
If religion and race can be run together, then the condemnations that racism axiomatically attracts can be surreptitiously extended to religion, too. This is clumsy, but it works: The useless and meaningless term Islamophobia, now widely used as a bludgeon of moral blackmail, is testimony to its success.
The U.N. resolution seeks to extend the whole area of denial from its existing homeland in the Islamic world into the heartland of post-Enlightenment democracy where it is still individuals who have rights, not religions.
But what about the term "Antisemitism"?
Here we have a the world government, the UN showing its real face: Promoting an attack on free speech to promote its dictatorial one-world-state and government. Knowing it is impossible to achieve this by democratic means, the UN allies itself with an undemocratic ideology, Islam, which is also working for the one-world-state, the world Caliphate.
Just how was the Hegelian tactics of the New World Order (see videos on right margin here)? 1. Thesis: create a problem 2. Antithesis: eliminate the problem by confronting the thesis 3. Syntehsis: Solution which is to become a new thesis. Or 1. Make Israel the stronger in the Israeli – Arab conflict 2. Stengthen Islam in the whole world 3. The whole world against an isolated Israel – even US Hilllary Clinton accusing Israel of barring attempts to make peace!!
Why did the Rothschilds construct the state of Israel in the first place – knowing it had to be dismantled for them to achieve the goal of the Rothschilds´: The world state without national states and borders?
I think we are soon going to see the antithesis to the above synthesis/thesis - and I believe that Durban II is just a staged show to promote the corporate dictatorial world government - its religion is "Islam or die." The multinational companies feel just fine with the authoritarian Muslims - as do the rich oil Sheiks. Can Rockefeller, Rothschild, Soros, etc. find a better world for the super rich?
Will they perhaps take more account of the ordinary Jewish man in Israel than they did in World War II, when they financed the Holocaust? Hardly.
But what will be achieved at "Durban II"? Nothing, as long as the Pharisees in Israel and the United States are not included.
Balder Blog has more on this topic