No Hijab? That’s Violence Against Women!

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/11/no-hijab-thats-violence-against-women.html#readfurther

by Baron Bodissey

One of the debating techniques commonly employed by the Left is to take a worthwhile principle and exaggerate it or invert it to create absurd distortions of moral arguments and force its opponents into a swamp of rhetorical excess, false analogies, and categorical errors.

Three examples should suffice as illustrations:

1.		Holocaust equivalence   If you are a leftist, virtually anything you disagree with is just like the Holocaust. Control the borders? Holocaust Redux! Deny homosexuals the right to marry? It’s the Gay Holocaust! One of the most notorious examples of the genre was the famous assertion back in the 1990s that reforming the welfare system was the moral equivalent of genocide against African Americans. Any cuts in social spending are routinely depicted as a modern Auschwitz for poor people.
2.		The McCarthyism bogeyman   Whenever a liberal politician is confronted with his dubious past policies and votes, the “specter of McCarthyism” is spotted hovering over the political battlefield. If a conservative points out a leftist commentator’s foolish and discredited paper trail, Joe McCarthy is said to be alive and well, conducting a modern version of the witch hunt for Communists. Hollywood types are particularly famous for their McCarthy sightings. They consider themselves constantly on the verge of being blacklisted by the right-wing establishment, forgetting that they themselves are now the establishment. The Tinseltown Bolsheviks have been in the ascendant for so long that they fail to notice that they are the ones screaming “you’ll never work in this town again!” whenever a Hollywood conservative is foolish enough to out himself
3.		Crying “Censorship!”   If an artist who smears dung on crucifixes is denied NEA funding, it is termed “censorship”. If a liberal talking head is interrupted on a TV news program, that’s “censorship”. Deleting a leftist’s obscene blog comment is considered “censorship”. Anytime a conservative viewpoint is expressed without giving equal or greater time to liberal arguments, then “censorship” has occurred. Not allowing leftist ideas to dominate public discourse “has a chilling effect on free speech.”

So much for the Left. What about Islam?

For the last eighty years or so radical Muslims have studied, absorbed, and adapted the ideas and techniques of the Socialist Left. As I have pointed out previously, the turgid prose of radical Islamic theorists is all but indistinguishable from that of orthodox Marxists, once certain key words and phrases have been substituted.

So it’s no surprise that Islamists have borrowed the rhetorical techniques of the Left. They are particularly adept at taking a well-known Western political principle, twisting it out of all recognition, and then reversing it to use against the infidel.

Once again, three examples:

1.		Freedom of speech   As CNN noted last week, radical Muslims utilize their First Amendment rights to proclaim their hatred of non-Muslims, to applaud the killing of infidels, to celebrate the coming destruction of Israel, and to support all manner of violent action against anyone who opposes the expansion of Dar al-Islam. They repeatedly approach the line between free speech and incitement, but carefully avoid crossing it. The “flying imams”, in their legal action against the airline and airport authorities, were at pains to point out that everything they did was protected by the Constitution. British Muslims who carry placards exhorting their fellows to “kill those who insult the Prophet” loudly insist, without any apparent sense of irony, that they have a right to free speech when they do so. But any speech that criticizes Islam is entirely another matter, and so we come to:
2.		Freedom of religion   A Muslim’s freedom of religion trumps the right to free expression of anyone who expresses a negative opinion of Islam. Such “insults” show disrespect, express “racism”, and are forms of “hate speech”. The OIC has carefully constructed a well-funded initiative to criminalize criticism of Islam under the banner of human rights, using the principle of freedom of religion to insist on the rights of Muslims everywhere not to be offended. Freedom of religion also requires that non-Muslims institute halal menus, install footbaths, allow the separation of the sexes, and supply all the other accoutrements that Muslims demand for the unhindered practice of their faith. For Muslims, freedom of religion doesn’t mean being left alone to practice their faith as they see fit. It means an active accommodation by non-Muslims to whatever conditions Islam insists are necessary.
3.		The rights of women   Islam draws from the lexicon of Western feminists to codify the restrictions it places on women, according to both scripture and Muslim tradition. The wearing of the headscarf then becomes a “right”, which just happens to be something that Muslim women want to do. The fact that women who dare to go unveiled are routinely beaten or killed — and that an awareness of this prospect helps women focus their minds on claiming their “right” — is ignored. The strictures of sharia as they apply to women — whether they concern the veil, marriage, divorce, child custody, or ownership of property — are recast as the “rights” of women. Pliant Muslim spokeswomen routinely assert their right to be treated as inferiors by custom and under the law.

The last of these items is demonstrated by the gradual evolution of a woman’s “right” to wear the hijab. The boiling of this particular frog begins with innocuous assertions of freedom of choice.

Then, after the infidel’s resistance has been worn down over a period of time, accusations of violent intentions on the part of non-Muslims are thrown into the mix. The Investigative Project reports on a confrontation between Congressman Keith Ellison and Zuhdi Jasser:
- – - - – - – - -

Responding to Jasser’s call for reform, [Rep. Keith] Ellison launched into a tirade. “I think you give people license for bigotry,” Ellison told [Zuhdi] Jasser. “I think people who want to engage in nothing less than Muslim-hating really love you a lot because you give them freedom to do that. You say, ‘yeah, go get after them.’“

[…]

Muslims must “stand against” extremist members of their faith, Ellison said. But he seemed more threatened by Jasser. “Now is somebody going to snatch my 13-year-old daughter’s hijab off, call her a horrible name, spit on her because of something that you said, Dr. Jasser, I worry about that,” he added.

Opposition to the veil is thus conflated with intended violence. And it’s true that real anti-hijab altercations have occurred. Back in 2004 CAIR complained to the authorities about an incident in Florida:

The Florida office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-FL) today called on law enforcement authorities to investigate an assault on a Muslim woman at a shopping mall in that state as a hate crime.

The victim, the owner of a jewelry kiosk at Westshore Mall in Tampa who wears an Islamic head scarf, says she was verbally and physically assaulted on Tuesday by three people who told her to “get out of (America)” and said her religion is “hateful and violent.” The assailants allegedly blamed the woman for the recent Madrid train bombings.

During the assault, one of the attackers allegedly grabbed the victim’s throat and attempted to remove her head scarf. The perpetrators fled when the victim ran to find mall security officers. Police are currently investigating the incident as a case of simple battery.

Islamists now frame the wearing of the hijab as a human rights issue, or even a feminist cause, so that the denial of the right to veil is made equivalent to traditional Leftist issues of gender inequality.

Yvonne Ridley, a convert to Islam, accused human rights organizations of ignoring the “harassment of women who wear the hijab”:

On an almost daily basis there are horrific stories pouring out of Tunisia about how the state police are ripping off the hijabs of women living there.

Some of these women, who are merely fulfilling their religious obligation to wear a hijab, have been assaulted, sexually abused and even locked up in prison by the authorities.

[…]

…I would ask them to read the harrowing report below before bellyaching to more journalists about their rights to parade around like Diana-look-a-likes.

It was written by an imam from Tunisia who had it smuggled out and given to me because he wants the world to know exactly what is happening to the women in his country.

Here is a snippet: “The police will randomly make their way into markets and rip the hijabs from women’s heads as well as take away any fabrics being sold to make hijabs…”

[…]

My appeal goes out to feminists of all faiths and no faith but please don’t think Muslim women are weak because the reality is that Islamic feminism can be just as radical as western feminism.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff reported here on Tuesday about her Counterjihad efforts at the OSCE Human Dimension Roundtable in Vienna. The topic of the meeting was “gender equality, with a special focus on combating violence against women”, and Elisabeth and her colleagues used the opportunity to raise the issue of violence against women under Islam.

Representatives from various Muslim NGOs were unhappy with this “hate speech”, and protested the interventions put forward by Pax Europa and Wiener Akademikerbund.

One of the protesting NGOs was COJEP (Conseil de la Jeunesse Pluriculturelle, Council of Multicultural Youth), an organization that has its roots in Millî Görüs, a militant Turkish Islamic movement that is popular among European Turks. COJEP responded with an intervention of its own, which was very revealing:

The second point: I am being victimized because I wear a headscarf. [The] Headscarf ban in some participant [sic] States is a form of Islamophobia and is felt as violence against Muslim women by most of them. Forbidding women to exercise their basic rights or barring entrance to public places unless they take off their headscarves is clearly a form of violence. […]

Discrimination against women wearing headscarf decreases their ability to become a part of society, hinders their personal development, prevents them from advancing their cultural knowledge, restricts them from obtaining financial independence, and puts a major obstacle in the way of their empowerment and advancement. [emphasis added]

The frog has now been completely boiled. Not only is the wearing of the hijab a woman’s right, but the denial of that right is a form of violence against women.

This is a shrewd move on the part of radical Islam. At one stroke they have co-opted the trendy rhetoric of domestic violence against women, whilst taking off the table any possible discussion of the real meaning the hijab.

Because the hijab means two things:

In the Muslim world, it signifies the inferior status of women under sharia, and the proprietary interest that men have in their women.

However, in a Western context the hijab has an additional meaning. Like the mosque and the call to prayer, it serves as a territorial marker. Veiled women walking with their men are the human equivalent of minarets. They are claiming the surrounding territory for the Ummah.

And Islam has now adroitly turned the hijab into a feminist issue, thereby ruling any counter-arguments off the turf. Western feminists are bizarrely eager to remain silent about — or even embrace — the inferior status of women under Islam, as symbolized by the veil.

Welcome to the brave new world of Feminislam.

Report on the OSCE Supplementary Human Rights Dimension Meeting November 2009

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/11/report-on-osce-supplementary-human.html#readfurther

Report on the OSCE Supplementary Human Rights Dimension Meeting

by Baron Bodissey

As we have reported previously (see the bottom of this post for links to previous articles), several representatives of the International Civil Liberties Alliance, Pax Europa, Mission Europa, and Wiener Akademikerbund attended last week’s Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting in Vienna of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The meeting’s theme was “Gender equality, with a special focus on combating violence against women”.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff represented Pax Europa and ICLA at the meeting. For those who missed it the first time, here is a video of her intervention concerning violence against women under Islam:

Report on the Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting
Focusing on Gender Equality

Vienna, November 5th and 6th, 2009

by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

As I prepared for the OSCE meeting, I was fully aware that we would encounter strong opposition from most participants. However, the amount that we as a group were able to achieve took me by surprise — it was so much more than we would ever have thought possible.

That we were not applauded is obvious. Yet there were many in the room who covertly (or sometimes even overtly) agreed with us. We opened doors, doors that were previously shut and bolted. No one ever put the topic of Islam on the table, most likely out of fear and for the sake of political correctness. The OSCE is, after all, closely associated with the EU Fundamental Rights Agency and the Council of Europe. The former is responsible for some very restrictive laws that stifle freedom of opinion within the EU.

The events at the meeting can best be described by using the format of a drama in several acts.

Introduction:

The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), based in Warsaw, organizes three annual supplementary human dimension meetings. (For an explanation of the term “human dimension”, consult my earlier reports about the OSCE, which include a historical overview.) These meetings always take place in Vienna, whereas the annual conference is held in Warsaw.

The third and last meeting this year focused on the topic of gender equality, with a special focus on combating violence against women. A worthy topic, about which there is much to be said from our perspective.

The characters in this drama are numerous: First, the officials from ODIHR. They were in charge of accepting the submission of official papers with interventions and recommendations. We will return to them later.

Second, the moderators of the Civil Society Round Table and the Sessions, as well as the introducers who set the stage for each session by providing examples of good practices.

Third, the representatives of the participating States and associated States as well as international organizations.

And fourth, we, the representatives of the various more or less non-governmental organizations. It is worth mentioning that the OSCE is the only international organization where the representatives of civil society can discuss their issues on equal terms with participating States.

Act I — Rising action

November 5, 2009

The first event of the first day concerned civil society. The ODIHR organized a Civil Society Roundtable in order “to present the purpose and scope of the meeting; to discuss in more detail the role and contributions that civil society can make to the event; to give civil society representatives the opportunity to network and better coordinate their interventions and recommendations.”

The roundtable included a thorough presentation of the purpose, protocol, and good practices of roundtables and the contributions that NGOs can make, as well as participant introduction. The CSO (civil society) representatives then met in “three groups divided along the key themes of the meeting (Protection of Victims of Gender-based Violence; Investigation and Prosecution of Perpetrators of Violence against Women; and Prevention of Violence against Women) to discuss and share thoughts on their potential contributions.” I acted as rapporteur for the meeting on prevention of violence against women and was thus able to steer the talk in the right direction.

The three dominant topics of the discussion were education, family, and Islam. The key to raising awareness of violence against women is to start young, i.e. in schools. In addition, healthy families are able to teach children from childhood about how parents treat each other.

We added that Christian values are reflected in our secular laws, while violence stems from some religious groups. Mission Europa added that secular laws must be reflected in religious practices. A representative of a Kyrgyz NGO weighed in, saying that religion has the potential to be a positive force and that no religion promotes violence. There are, according to the Kyrgyz, some religions that show a large division between men and women.
- – - - – - – - -
A recommendation to the OSCE was put forward: There need to be clear wording in laws. Religion must never be an excuse for violence.

The Kyrgyz representative told the group about the difficulties they face when trying to connect with religious leaders. Kyrgyzstan is a predominantly Muslim country, where the main problem lies with the religious leaders, whose cooperation is urgently needed. Since 2008, religious leaders have been issuing marriage certificates which are not accepted by the secular government. The representative added also that civil marriage grants equal rights to both the husband and the wife, while the religious marriage does not. Rather, it focuses on and empowers men, as only men can declare divorce. The Kyrgyz representative’s recommendation to the OSCE: Civil law must supersede religious law.

The discussion was helpful for our cause because we were able to table the word Islam for the first time. Up until then, we had always shied away from using the I-word. It was always about “certain religious groups”. Mission Europa boldly asked the Kyrgyz representative what religion we were talking about, and — boom! — there it was. The I-word!

At the end of the civil society roundtable the three rapporteurs delivered their statements summing up the discussion. A delegate of a Bosnian NGO, Sabiha Husić, as well as a delegate from Kyrgyzstan took the floor and said: “We are against Islam being seen as the main source for violence, as Islam cherishes human values.” CARE Austria weighed in that we should not mix the perpetrator’s background with the act of violence itself. In their experience with migrants there is no religious background in violence.

Act 2 — Conflict

For Session I we submitted two papers.

The supplementary meeting was officially in session with the start of Session I focusing on the protection and assistance for victims of violence against women. The keynote address was delivered by Cheryl A. Thomas, Women’s Programme Director, Advocates for Human Rights, United States of America. Her speech was a long one, but mercifully contained points I was able to allude to during my first intervention:

Thank you for your very interesting speech. You mentioned the gap in procedures that a husband to kill his wife.

There is a similar case currently baffling authorities in the United States. Rifqa Bary, a convert from Islam to Christianity, had a long history of enduring systematic violence by her father, which is accepted as shariah-compliant. She managed to escape to Florida to live with foster parents. She was then ordered by the court to be returned to her violent parents. (I mentioned also that she is in child protection right now). If we are to protect women from this kind of violence, courts need to understand the threat emanating from religious laws, in particular the use of capital punishment for apostasy.

There was no reaction to my statement, but no need either.

Mission Europa took the floor with the following two recommendations to the Austrian government:

Mission Europe calls on the Austrian Government to take the necessary measures that Austrian laws prevail above religious principles. Contradictions to these laws reflected in Islam must not be allowed, as foreseen in the respective laws.

Mission Europe calls on the Austrian Government to establish the conditions for economic security in order to make gender equality a reality.

Thus ended Day 1. The stage was set.

November 6, 2009

Again, we submitted a paper in advance.

The introducer for Session II, which focused on the prosecution of perpetrators of violence against women, was Sonia Chirinos, Judge, General Council of the Judiciary, Spain. She spoke of her experiences in the judiciary, especially the problems regarding battered migrant women who withdraw their complaints against their abusive husbands.

These words provided an opportunity for Astrid Meyer-Schubert, representing the Wiener Akademikerbund, to present her intervention:

Regarding the basic questions of western civilization and its rule of law with special focus on the view of gender in religious communities, we recommend that participating States look into the practices of religious communities and whether their views of human rights and gender equality are constitutional.

For instance:

a)		What views of women’s rights is Female Genital Mutilation based on?
b)		What does the religious ruling on headscarves tell us about men and their views?
c)		What is the definition of female gender if it is not considered a legal person or its testimony in court counts only as half of that of a man?

These fundamental questions need to be asked. In order to successfully integrate religious communities into western civilization a very basic discussion on gender matters needs to take place.

In addition, religious communities should be required to indicate to what extent their image of women fits in with western civilization.

The judge replied: Her experience with religious communities as well as Roma and Sinti groups shows that Muslim women either withdraw their complaints or do not even bring their plight to the attention of the authorities.

Wiener Akademikerbund had yet another question in this regard:

If the state — in capacity of you as a judge for gender-specific violence — already intrudes into the family, like you have just described, it seems to me that the state should also concentrate on Roma and Sinti as well as the Muslim religious group. Women from those religious groups can only be helped if these religious groups are willing to cooperate with the state. The state should put more legal pressure on these patriarchally-oriented religious groups.

The representative of Morocco replied:

We should generalize these matters and we vigorously condemn this statement equating violence with Islamic religion.

Act 3 — Climax

The last session focused on prevention of violence against women. Mr. Vladimir Korotenko, NGO Social Technologies Agency, Kyrgyzstan, was the introducer of this session, reporting on good practices from his country and thereby unwittingly providing the perfect argument for me to take the floor. I was one of the first speakers on this topic and my intervention was explosive:

Thank you for a very powerful presentation. You mentioned the strain of migration in your report. Here in Europe we also face a huge influx of migrants, including many of the Muslim faith.

One issue that has been left out until now, it seems to me, is violence against women that is backed by principles of the Muslim faith. I do not have to tell you about the honor killings in Germany, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, among other countries; as well as forced marriages, in addition to the Koranic verse 4:34, which says — and I quote -:

You have rights over your wives and they have rights over you. You have the right that they should not defile your bed and that they should not behave with open unseemliness. If they do, God allows you to put them in separate rooms and to beat them but not with severity. If they refrain from these things, they have the right to their food and clothing with kindness. Lay injunctions on women kindly, for they are prisoners with you having no control of their own persons. (Guillaume’s translation, p. 651) (Ibn Ishaq)

Why are not discussing this issue here and at other occasions in a depth that does justice to this problem?

I therefore recommend that ODIHR urgently start a working group on violence against women in Islam in order to find out how to best approach this in the context of the OSCE human dimension.

It was out on the table. Let’s deal with the problem right here, right now. No more pussy-footing.

Mission Europa upped the ante by adding this:

I would like to refer to the statement I made yesterday in order to clarify that fundamental human rights must be the supreme norm for a peaceful coexistence both in the public and the private sphere. In this regard, the participating States must ensure that contradictory Islamic norms are not acceptable, which would then result in peaceful coexistence.

There were very few pleased faces in the plenary, though I did notice the introducer nodding a few times during my intervention. The Azerbaijani parliamentary delegate next to me was fuming, seething, about to explode.

Mr. Korotenko, the introducer, replied that I addressed an important area and supported the idea of setting up a working group. However, he added that marriage has noting to do with religion, but rather whose rights are being infringed when there is religious marriage only.

The German OSCE representative pointed to the universality of human rights. She was unhappy about this discussion as this venue was not the right place to discuss religion.

The moderator, Ms. Jamila Seftaoui, Senior Advisor on Gender Issues, OSCE Secretariat, snubbed my statement: “I am unhappy with the interventions as the monocausality [of blaming Islam for violence against women] does not do justice to the problem.”

Since we were realistic about our chances of replying to this, we drafted the following response for the OSCE’s official records:

By mentioning religion as being a source of violence against women, we did not mean to single out Islam as being a monocausality for violence against women. However, we see Islam as one of the causes of violence against women, which has to be investigated in line with fundamental human rights and in accordance with the respective convention of the Council of Europe.

In this line, Mission Europa supports the recommendation by Pax Europa for the institution of a working group investigating violence against women in Islam.

Mission Europa wants to clarify that none of the NGOs as indicated by COJEP ever asked for an oath to be sworn by Muslims not to be terrorists.

Later on, Mrs. Basibuyuk Zeyneb, representing COJEP, weighed in:

I would like to make two points. I deplore the hate speech against Islam which should not take place and which is not surprising since this so-called NGO in July proposed that Muslims sign the Charter of Muslim Understanding, asking us to distance ourselves from certain suras of the Quran and accusing Muslims of being terrorists.

The second point: I am being victimized because I wear a headscarf. [The] Headscarf ban in some participant [sic] States is a form of Islamophobia and is felt as violence against Muslim women by most of them. Forbidding women to exercise their basic rights or barring entrance to public places unless they take off their headscarves is clearly a form of violence. […]

Discrimination against women wearing headscarf decreases their ability to become a part of society, hinders their personal development, prevents them from advancing their cultural knowledge, restricts them from obtaining financial independence, and puts a major obstacle in the way of their empowerment and advancement. […]

Session III finished after more interventions which no longer concerned us. A staring contest between the COJEP representative and myself made the rest of the session more interesting. The lady was not pleased and left immediately following the closing of Session III.

I was stopped during the short break between Session III and the closing session by Ms. Anna-Lena Svensson-McCarthy who represented the World Organization Against Torture. Ms. Svensson-McCarthy was visibly upset: “I just have to tell you how offended I was by your words attacking the Muslims. I am a Christian and we should not forget about the many children who are abused by the priests.” I told her that I am offended by the Islamic teachings every day. In any case, priests abusing children do not find the command to do so in the Bible, but abuse them despite the teachings of the Bible. Muslim perpetrators commit violence because they are commanded to do so by their religious teachings. We continued our discussion for a while, particularly about the 84 shariah courts in the UK, and at the end she told me, “I can see where you’re coming from.” I can only hope she took something with her from our talk.

Final scene: Conclusion

The closing session included reports from the working session moderators as well as comments from the floor.

While the moderators from the first and second sessions included some of our remarks and interventions in their report, Ms. Jamila Seftaoui, the moderator of Session III, painfully ignored the discussion about the religious aspect of violence against women. One would have thought it never took place. What do I make of that? Simple: The OSCE is also heavily infused by political correctness, perhaps less than other forums, but it’s there. The reactions from other participants were as I had expected.

The closing comments from floor, however, were most interesting. While some representatives from international organizations like IOM (International Organization for Migration) denied that FGM has anything to do with Islam, for which she was applauded by the plenary, the Austrian representative surprisingly backed the Counterjihad:

I object to a certain debate culture which is employed more and more often by a certain group of participants. Disagreement with someone else’s opinion is immediately denounced as hate speech. The accusation of hate speech is a serious one. We have been dealing intensively with this phenomenon in these human dimension meetings for many years. We take part in these human dimension meetings precisely because we need to find solutions to the current grave problems. The localization and identification of the problems and their implications are an important prerequisite to finding a solution.

Now if a certain negative social behavior — and here I am alluding to this meeting’s topic — like FGM and forced marriages, is manifested only in very specific religious and ethnic migrant groups, it must be possible to identify this group. This is not stereotyping, but a fact, and definitely not hate speech.

To conclude, educating female milk farmers in [the Austrian state of] Styria on the dangers of FGM will not be helpful.

[The Ambassador was alluding to the frequent call for education in order to combat violence against women.]

These clear and politically incorrect words were, in turn, applauded by our small group and some of the Catholic representatives. It was interesting to note that, in general, the Catholic bloc is slowly starting to support us.

The meeting was then adjourned. I suppose there was also a collective sigh of relief that the Counterjihad group was finally silenced.

I must mention that I was informed off the record that our written interventions and recommendations were close to not being accepted by ODIHR.

Censorship?

To sum up: this last supplementary meeting in 2009 was a successful one from our point of view, as was the entire year. We took part in three OSCE conferences and were able either to steer the debate in our direction or prevent certain poisonous statements from becoming consensus. Our groups have become visible in the international arena, and we are now no longer marginalized, but a (small) force to contend with.

Statement by Pax Europa at Session III of Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting November 2009

Buergerbewegung Pax Europa

In cooperation with and endorsed by

International Civil Liberties Alliance, Mission Europa, Wiener Akademikerbund

Intervention and Recommendation

Session 3

 

“Gender Equality and The Threat From Religious Law”

One issue that has been left out until now, it seems to me, is violence against women that is backed by principles of the Muslim faith. I do not have to tell you about the honor killings in Germany, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, among other countries; as well as forced marriages, in addition to the Koranic verse 4:34, which says – and I quote -:

You have rights over your wives and they have rights over you. You have the right that they should not defile your bed and that they should not behave with open unseemliness. If they do, God allows you to put them in separate rooms and to beat them but not with severity. If they refrain from these things, they have the right to their food and clothing with kindness. Lay injunctions on women kindly, for they are prisoners with you having no control of their own persons. (Guillaume’s translation, p. 651) (Ibn Ishaq)

Why are not discussing this issue here and at other occasions in a depth that does justice to this problem?

Statement by Wiener Akademikerbund at Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting November 6, 2009

Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting:

Gender equality, with a special focus on combating violence against women

5 November 2009–6 November 2009, Vienna

Wiener Akademikerbund

In cooperation with and endorsed by

International Civil Liberties Alliance, Mission Europa, Pax Europa

Regarding the basic questions of western civilization and its rule of law with special focus on the view of gender in religious communities, we recommend that participating States look into the practices of religious communities whether their views of human rights and gender equality are constitutional.

For instance:

1. What views of women’s rights is Female Genital Mutilation based on?
2. What does the religious ruling on headscarves tell us about men and their views?
3. What is the definition of female gender if it is not considered a legal person or its testimony in court counts only as half of that of a man?

These fundamental questions need to be asked. In order to successfully integrate religious communities into western civilization a very basic discussion on gender matters needs to take place.

In addition, religious communities should be required to what extent their image of women fits in with western civilization.

Statement by Pax Europa for ICLA at Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting November 2009

Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting:

Gender equality, with a special focus on combating violence against women

5 November 2009–6 November 2009, Vienna

 

Buergerbewegung Pax Europa

In cooperation with and endorsed by

International Civil Liberties Alliance, Mission Europa, Wiener Akademikerbund

Countering abuse and ‘honor’ killings in immigrant/Muslim families.

 

Distinguished delegates,

 

It is a key aim of the OSCE that men and women in OSCE participating states enjoy equal opportunities in society. This includes various forms of self-determination, including the right to choose an education, the right to choose partners in marriage, and the right to change faith. These rights are taken for granted in Western societies, which has led to great freedom and mutual respect between the sexes. Equal opportunities bring out the best in everyone, and are a laudable goal.

 

Violence against women takes various forms and can occur in the private sphere (i.e., intimate partner abuse, family violence, underage and forced marriage, dowry-related violence and the murder of women in the name of family honor).

 

Unfortunately, immigration has brought with it notions of honor that are opposed to Western legal principles and ideals, in particular the notion that one can uphold family ‘honor’ by killing female members of the family for not behaving as the family desires. This is a particular problem for teenagers in immigrant families, where their families may try to force them into an undesired marriage, while the society they live in permits women to choose their partners freely.

 

A high profile case of this kind was the killing of 18-year Ghazala Khan in Slagelse, Denmark. As a reaction to her freely chosen marriage to Emal Khan, her family plotted for her assassination, which was executed on September 23^rd 2005 by her older brother. Setting a good example, the Danish authorities persecuted her family to the full extent possible under the law, and convicted nine family members a total of 120 years in prison for this first degree murder of their family member.

 

 

A current case involves the 17-year old Rifqa Bary, currently a dependent of the state in Ohio, USA. Her family wants her to return to their guardianship. Bary’s lawyers instead are arguing that she must be declared a dependent of the state, in need of services and protection by the state – APART from her parents. She has experienced a long history of systematic violence by her father, violence that was accepted as Shariah-compliant and legitimate within her orthodox Islamic community, with the result that no one within that community protected her or helped her escape a life-threatening situation. She did manage to escape – with her life – by leaving for Florida on her own, after her parents’ mosque, the Noor Islamic Cultural Center, had notified her father that she had become an apostate from Islam, an act that by way of Islamic tradition is punishable by death. She went to live with Christian foster parents in Florida. Recently, the court in Orlando, Florida, ordered that she should be returned to Ohio custody – currently with the state – in spite of the track record of violence and risk for her life. The November 16 hearing will hear arguments from her lawyers for continuing having the state be her guardian, so she can remain in secured foster care until she turns 18. If we are to protect women from this kind of repression, courts need to understand the threat of authoritative Shariah much better as a criminal system, and in particular the use of capital punishment for apostasy.

 

Domestic violence represents the same problem on a lesser scale. The frequency of domestic violence in immigrant families appears to be alarmingly high, though most cases are not reported to relevant authorities. This was recently discovered in a Danish school Rådmandsgades Skole, where most of the children reported that violence was the norm in their families, and is reflected at women’s shelters, where very disproportionate numbers of immigrant/Muslim women seek refuge, seeking a life free of domestic violence. More research is needed in this area to develop better laws and institutions to protect Muslim women and children, and also protect non-Muslims who provide them sanctuary.

 

The use of ‘honour’ killings (which should really be termed ‘family execution’) against female family member is a tool of fear and intimidation with the purpose of keeping other women under the control of family tradition. The message of such a killing is clear: “Obey the will of the family, or risk being killed by your family.” This tradition of repression needs to be broken.

 

Family executions take place most frequently, though not exclusively, in Muslim families. Thus, it has been debated if this is an Islamic custom or not. While Islamic scripture at places endorse beating or starving disobedient wives, no direct endorsement of killing is found. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the custom is not Islamic in itself, and that Islamic scholars thus are free to speak out against the custom. Ideally, the tradition should be declared downright anti-Islamic, and that anybody participating in planning or executing such killings are to be considered apostates. Alternatively, Islamic leaders have the option of accepting these killings as a true Islamic custom. That would, however, set them in direct conflict with Western legal systems, as the judicial systems, not religious leaders, are the proper authorities for convicting and meting out punishments.

 

ICLA therefore recommends:

• That the frequency of domestic violence in immigrant/Muslim families be researched to ascertain the extent of the problem, and what measures can be taken to counter it.
• That ‘honor’ killings be treated as the message crimes they are, and that all participating in planning and executing such crimes be persecuted to the full extent possible under the law.
• That authorities in OSCE participating states take threats from family members seriously and act decisively to protect family members from abuse and the risk of ‘honor’ killings.
• That greater efforts be taken to protect immigrant women from abuse, including allocating adequate resources to womens’ shelters, as well as safe houses at undisclosed locations.
• That family members at risk be given the benefit of doubt, in order that the tradition of repression within families be broken, and equal rights for women become an effective fact for all, also in immigrant/Muslim families.

 

 

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/08/rifqa-bary-before-her-escape-beatings-brutality-subjugation.html

 

 

 

Additional information on this case

By Robert Spencer

Rifqa Bary is a 17-year-old girl who was raised a Muslim in Sri Lanka and then in Ohio after her parents immigrated to the United States. By Rifqa’s account, her father and mother are “radical Muslims,” and this is borne out by the fact that they bypassed several mosques closer to their home in Columbus, Ohio, in order to join the farther-away Noor Islamic Center, a mosque with anti-Semitic associations and links to the internationally renowned Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has endorsed the death penalty for apostates from Islam, suicide bombings, and called for genocide against Jews.

 

Rifqa became a Christian around 2005, but kept that fact concealed from her parents out of fear for how they might react. However, she was relatively open about her faith on a Facebook that was discovered by members of the Noor Islamic Center in 2009 and reported to her parents. Rifqa says that she then had a confrontation with her father: “In a fit of anger that I had never seen before in my life, he picked up my lap top, waved it over my head as if to strike me with it and said, ‘If you have this Jesus in your heart, you are dead to me! You are no longer my daughter.’ I continued to remain silent and then he said to me, even more angry then before, ‘I will kill you! Tell me the truth!” Then later “my mother confronted me about another Christian book she discovered that I hid in my bedroom. She had just spoken with my father was on the phone who was out of town. She was very upset, in tears, and almost grieving and told me I was going to have to be sent back to Sri Lanka to be dealt with.”

 

In Sri Lanka, Rifqa said, she feared she would be killed or institutionalized by Muslims carrying out the traditional death penalty for apostasy, or taking it as far as they believed they could go. So she fled. She made her way from Ohio to Florida, where she took refuge at the home of a Christian pastor and his wife, and was ultimately placed in foster care.

 

After that Rifqa Bary became the center of a custody battle, as her Muslim parents took their case to the Council on American-Islamic Relations and to the media in a bid to get their daughter back home. Mohamed Bary denied ever threatening his daughter, and the lack of a threat was borne out by investigators from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. However, there was a good deal of question about the reliability and lack of bias of this investigation, particularly since the FDLE’s interview with Mohamed Bary and his wife had been supervised by a representative of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group that has been named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case, and which has had several of its officials arrested and convicted on various terror-related charges.

 

Now Rifqa has been sent back to Ohio. She is in foster care, but is in imminent danger of being returned to her family. Judge Daniel Dawson in Florida had said that he would not send Rifqa back to Ohio until he received her family’s immigration documents. Mohamed Bary was in danger of being held in contempt of court for failing to produce these documents. Eventually his attorney made an agreement with Rifqa’s guardian ad litem, offering to keep Rifqa in foster care until she was 18 — which would mean she was free from the father she fears so much — in exchange for dropping questions about the immigration status. But once the contempt of court charge over the immigration issue was dropped, Mohamed Bary’s attorney reneged, leaving Rifqa back in Ohio and in imminent danger of being sent home to her family.

 

From there, of course, once media attention died down, it would not be difficult to have her sent back to Sri Lanka to be killed or institutionalized — and even in Ohio she would be subjected to relentless, unstinting pressure to renounce Christianity and proclaim Islam publicly.

 

What’s more, Rifqa, unlike thousands of children in foster care in the U.S., has been forbidden to use the phone or Internet. She has been effectively isolated from the outside world.

 

This is a human rights issue that should interest everyone who believes in the freedom of conscience and the freedom of religion. Although the American media has glided over the fact or denied it outright. Will this girl be exposed to mortal danger or allowed to exercise her freedom of conscience in the United States of America? Will Sharia provisions — calling for the indefinite imprisonment and isolation of the female apostate — be allowed to prevail in this country? Why is Rifqa, alone among the thousands of minors in foster care, be cut off from the outside world entirely, deprived of phone and Internet use? The phone or Internet could save her life. And saving her life seems to be what malevolent forces in the U.S. are doing their best to make impossible.

 

 

 

Statement by Pax Europa at Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting November 2009

Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting:

Gender equality, with a special focus on combating violence against women

5 November 2009–6 November 2009, Vienna

Buergerbewegung Pax Europa

In cooperation with and endorsed by

International Civil Liberties Alliance, Mission Europa, Wiener Akademikerbund

“Gender Equality and The Threat From Religious Law”

 

“The peace and welfare of the world require maximum participation of women on equal terms with men in all fields.” United Nations General Assembly resolution 34/180 of 18 December 1979

 

OSCE has recognized that comprehensive security in its participating states depends on “The full and equal exercise by women of their human rights [as being] essential to achiev[ing] a more peaceful, prosperous and democratic OSCE area.” In many participating gender equality is indeed a fact, even if only by law. However, much more needs to be done.

 

For many women, violence is a part of their daily lives. Violence can manifest itself in many forms, but it is domestic violence against women that calls for elimination. The OSCE and its Action Plan for the Promotion of Gender Equality (2004) can actively contribute to the elimination of domestic violence. Since gender quality contributes to comprehensive security, the participating states are called upon to ensure that women and men are granted equal status before the law. Unfortunately, there are more and more cases in the OSCE in which religious law is taken into consideration by both the state and the religious groups and accepted as equal to secular law. This is especially harmful for women as they are particularly discriminated against by these religious laws, practices, and courts. Permitting sharia courts to operate, like we see it happening in the United Kingdom, are by definition a violation of the principle of gender equality, due to the literalist scripture interpretation employed by these religious courts.

 

One case in point are the religious sharia courts in the United Kingdom, which have been sanctioned by the government. Eighty-four courts are currently operating, with more being planned. And it is in these courts that women are not treated as being equal before the law. The cases are tried according to the sharia, and not secular law, with the rulings endorsed by the British government.

 

The following are selected cases from the OSCE area:

“Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

 

Four out of 10 women in Turkey are beaten by their husbands, according to the recent study entitled “Domestic Violence against Women in Turkey,” which has collected the first official statistics on this topic in Turkey. Even more disturbing, the study reveals that a significant number of abused women, almost 90 percent, do not seek help from any organization.

 

A woman in a studio audience stands up and, with the spotlight highlighting her covered head, announces to the crowd that her husband abuses her but that she doesn’t know how to react and still be a good Muslim. The host of this popular Turkish TV show, “Islam in Our Life,” Professor Faruk Beser, is — from his trimmed mustache to his tailored suit — the image of a modern, successful Turkish man. But as he approaches the woman, his answer is far from progressive. Looking her in the eye, Beser urges the woman to “carry this pain within you and keep living with your husband,” prescribing constant prayer over divorce, and reminding the woman of the rewards she will receive in heaven for her suffering.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/turkey/090219/turkeys-shocking-domestic-violence-statistics

 

Third of Turkish women report abuse: A total of 34 percent of married women participating in a survey said they were victims of domestic violence while 88.6 percent of married male respondents said they had never engaged in physical violence with their spouse.

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/11839861.asp?gid=243

 

The European Court of Human Rights, or ECHR, ruled Turkey had denied a citizen her “right to life” by failing to prevent her murder by her son-in-law and ordered it to pay damages. It was the first time the court ruled against a state for failing to protect a citizen against domestic violence, Turkish broadcasters reported. Turkey was also found to have violated the convention on human rights which prohibits torture, inhumane treatment and discrimination in Opuz vs. Turkey. It was ordered to pay 36,500 euros ($50,670) to the applicant, whose ex-husband killed her mother, according to a ruling on the ECHR’s website. “The general and discriminatory judicial passivity in Turkey created a climate that was conducive to domestic violence,” the court said in the statement. As many as half of Turkish women face violence in the home, Amnesty International has said, and dozens of women are killed in so-called “honor killings” each year.

http://www.ansamed.info/en/news/ME01.@AM53888.html

 

In light of these and so many other cases of violence against women, and in acknowledging that it is the responsibility of the participating states to promote equality between women and men, Pax Europa and its allied organizations International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA), Mission Europa and Wiener Akademikerbund submit the following recommendations:

 

• Participating States must point out to all religious groups that men and women enjoy quality before the law. In addition, participating states should punish violations according to the law.

 

• Participating states should particularly focus on the following:

1. Inheritance laws must be enforced equally for men and women.
2. Testimony from a woman must be considered equal to that of a man.
3. Corporal punishments inflicted from men on women must be strictly prohibited and, if prohibited by law, the law must be enforced and perpetrator be brought to justice.

• The practice of polygamy must be punished under the law.
• In order to make gender equality a reality, it is necessary that participating states establish the basic conditions for a minimum of economic security.

 

Identity Crisis: Can European Civilization Survive?

March 13 – 14, 2008, European University of Rome, Italy

by ESW

The European Freedom Alliance was established during the conference “Identity Crisis: Can European Civilization Survive?”, which was held in Rome. The Alliance is headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland, and will develop and administer new programs and activities which advance and defend the cause of freedom and liberty in Europe. It will also administer a legal networking project and a scholarly and research institute that will conduct academic investigation into EU policies and actions.

The European Freedom Alliance is an organization which unites individuals and communities around the world who share a concern about the threats to freedom and liberty in Europe- the hub of Western civilization. The Alliance’s programs, publications, conferences and websites develop tools and strategies to counter the growing influence of ideologies and movements that threaten freedom and deny the sanctity of the personal conscience.

According to Avi Davis, the Alliance senior fellow and executive director, “Since September 11, we have witnessed an unprecedented demand in Europe and North America for minority rights and autonomy. As a result, a virtual code of silence has descended on Europe to address such issues as female genital mutilation, honor killings and the oppression of women within Muslim enclaves, for fear of offending Muslim sensitivities. Yet, the absence of any true outrage will have catastrophic consequences for the future of Western civilization and values. Such unquestioning moral relativism [was] one of the principle issues examined by the conference.”

The conference featured distinguished speakers such as Bat Ye’or, David Littman, Melanie Phillips, and Douglas Murray, among many others.

In his introductory speech, Avi Davis said, “Europe has become a continent wracked by internal contradictions. Convince of their status as avatars of genuine liberal democracy, European leaders are yet unwilling to confront or even recognize the successful rise of a supremacist ideology within their own borders; Having disavowed organized religion, Europeans nevertheless encourage– both wittingly and unwittingly– the spread of a religious dogma which challenges some of the basic liberties upon which their own civilization is founded; Eschewing any notion of value in American culture, the continent remains the United States’ most steadfast trading partner in cultural exchange, gobbling up American movies, television and music with a voraciousness that shows little sign of abating; Having enshrined welfare, health care and job tenure as universal rights, it has yet to realize that the institutional paralysis imposed by these programs will make it almost impossible for the continent to compete with the rising economies of China and India over the next fifty years.” He continued, “One has to wonder then whether Europe’s post-modern intellectual now views the Enlightenment as little more than one set of cultural prejudices, no better nor worse than any other, and inspiring no particular moral preference. Could it be that three thousand years of moral and intellectual development has exhausted itself in a miasma of doubt, intellectual inertia and self loathing? The collapse of a civilization begins when its denizens lose faith in their own future. Has that happened to Europe? If so, why has it happened and where does this leave its sister civilization in the United States? If Europe’s lamps are not yet extinguished, they are at risk of eclipse. In order to keep them lit, we require the courage and determination to ask hard questions about ourselves and the societies in which we live. Such commitment begins, in the Western enlightened tradition, with dialogue and debate.”

First Morning Panel: European conflicts and the threat to Western Civilization

Marcello Pera, an Italian politician and philosopher and former president of the Italian senate, Pera has become a leading opponent of post-modernism and cultural relativism and on this subject he resonates with religious thinkers, despite being an atheist himself. He sees European conflicts as being a threat to Western civilization. There are two risks and threats in Europe today:

1. External: Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism

2. Internal: Immigration and lack of integration,

all leading to a weakening of our tradition. We cannot fight without proclaiming our identity. Principles and values are the basics of our tradition. Political and intellectual Europe does not understand the risk properly. As a result, Europe responds as follows:

1. • with passivity and appeasement

   • with multiculturalism

   • by concealing traditions, denying or even opposing them

   • by having a guilt complex that Europe is responsible for all the aggression and we deserve what we are currently undergoing.

Liberalism, according to Pera, means individuals are endowed with basic freedoms, self-evident truths, and personal rights. Today, though, because of democracy, we are voting on things that are non-negotiable, thereby placing doubt on these things. Democracy, equality of all people, is also weakened because doubt is cast by the government and aggressive minorities (such as feminists, gays, lesbians, etc.) on non-negotiable values. Pressure groups have become stronger. As a result, courts have become locomotives. Decisions are made in court, then parliament decides, and only then come customs, where it should be the other way around. Today, all values are equal and negotiable. Nothing is sacred. We can decide everything.

Referring to the Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and The UN Charter on Human Rights, which guarantee that “The Republic recognizes the fundamental rights of Man”, Pera adds that today these fundamental rights are at risk.

Talking about tradition, he defended the Judeo-Christian tradition: Individuals, before belonging to a state, must be respected as humans. No one can deny the values of Judeo-Christian civilizations.

[Background information: Judeo-Christian is a term used to describe the body of concepts and values which are thought to be held in common by Judaism and adapted by Christianity, and typically considered by some (sometimes along with classical Greco-Roman civilization) a fundamental basis for Western legal codes and moral values. It implies a common set of values present in the modern Western World. The term has been criticized by some for suggesting more commonality than may actually exist. Adapted from Wikipedia]

Bat Ye’or responded by saying that Europe has entered the world of Jihad. However, we do have tools to combat this:

• We must refuse blame

• We must rediscover our identity

• We must realize that there were crimes, but we are not the only ones who committed crimes.

Bat Ye’or sees the problem lying not only in the lack of faith , but also in our duty to help the young. It takes generations to fight this problem, but this is not yet clear to them. We must realize that this is their future and it is our duty to give them weapons to fight the problem.

In responding to Marcello Pera, Baroness Caroline Cox described three main conflicts in the UK today (although this is adaptable to the rest of Europe):

1. Ideological conflict

   • There is no national identity

   • Muslims have no need to assimilate

   • If we have no vision, we perish

   • Young converts are looking for a coherent ideology = Islam

   • There is a spiritual and moral vacuum

1. Political conflict:

   • Sharia law is already present, in its own form

   • Sharia courts present to provide for marriage

   • Rise in honor-related violence; police are compliant by sending girls who have run away back to their parents, sometimes up to ten times.

1. Economic conflict:

   • State funding of military conflicts

   • Sharia-compliance in financial transactions

Second Morning Panel: Geo-Strategies of the Muslim World

Bat Ye’or described what she calls Soft Jihad.

Consists of propaganda, corruption, and the use of petrodollars. Soft Jihad operates through the lack of information from the media, induces feelings of guilt. While it developed in the last thirty years, it is related to strong migration with the threat of terrorist attacks when there is resistance. The OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) does not recognize countries and thus Europe’s right to its own laws. Our governments obey all requests from OIC.

Baroness Caroline Cox added in her response that European politicans are not thinking strategically.

Muslims have an ideological agenda. They undermine confidence in our heritage. Even the BBC is now pro-Islam and anti-Christian.

They also have an economic agenda. There are large-scale investments in developing countries, which means Islam is thinking economic: jobs are created, micro-credits are provided if you convert. There is investment in schools and healthcare if you convert. Orphanages are funded in Sudan if Christian children convert.

The political agenda happens through conversion. Politicians convert and thus attract the Muslim vote.

The military agenda takes place in Sudan with the military takeover; in Nigeria with churches being burned; and in Ambon, Indonesia (sectarian violence, against Christians, in 1999).

What can we do?, asks Baroness Cox.

• We should build brigdes where it is worth it.

• We should think strategically.

• We should think culturally: build schools, do training, to study Western curricula.

• We should think economically: use Western capital to invest.

• We should think politically: We have to strengthen politicans.

Above all: We must raise awareness!

First afternoon panel: Internal threats to European survival: Multiculturalism and the impact of cultural and moral relativism upon European identity.

Multiculturalism: A powerful force, it is the opposite of liberalism, means putting on blinds. The muliticulturalist sees himself as the enemy of racism. Multiculturalism is the guarding faith of teachers in schools and journalists and it forbids honest thinking because it preaches that we have no right to judge anyone and anything.

Douglas Murray is a British neo-conservative freelance journalist and political writer from Lewis, Scotland. He is currently the Director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, a right-wing think-tank which focuses solely on Islamic extremism in the UK. He spoke about multiculturalism being an anti-western ideology. It is opposed to the European people. Westerners are born into guilt, but everyone else is guilt-free. He believes the key issue to be freedom of speech.

Melanie Phillips, a British journalist, writes for the Daily Mail and the London Jewish Chronicle and published “Londonistan”, an analysis of the British failure to confront radical Islam.

The UK is the battleground of beliefs. Islamists are interested in strength and weaknesses and we are showing weakness. Britain was the first into the enlightenment, and it is the first out.

In her opinion, in multiculturalism all values are relative. This is the cause of the Islamists’ disdain. Multiculturalism is one of the most important weapons of the Islamists. It is illiberal and intolerant. As a result, the majority is seen as intolerant.

The effects are:

• Children are stranded in the desert without a map. There is no culture of national self-respect. Children of immigrants are stranded between two worlds: British lifestyle and unsophisticated parents and family.

• Multiculturalism forbids any discussion of forced marriages and cousin marriages.

• Propaganda: the majority’s self-defense is racism. Victim and victimizer have roles reversed.

The deal is: minorities are welcome but minorites need to understand our law. The majority makes the law!

Melanie Phillips added that the mainstream media demonizes and deligitimizes Israel. She also spoke portrayal of Israel in the UK media.

Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the Danish daily Jyllands Posten, in his speech said that tolerance was originally seen as the right to free speech. Today it is used to stifle free speech, by saying “we are intolerant if we publish cartoons.” Tolerance is not required for the one delivering, but for the one at the receiving end.

Shocker! Pax Europa Accused Of Racism At OSCE Conference!

Regular readers will be aware that I usually do not comment on anything I post here; comments can be found at the original sites. However, I was alerted to this piece below, which prompted me to reply. And swiftly at that.

http://www.icare.to/livereport/

hat tip aeneas

Blue stars, yellow stars

(opinion)

On the tables with information booklets outside the pelnary hall a leaflet appeared of the ‘Burgerbewegung Pax Europa’ (BPE). They call themselves a Human Rights organization for Freedom and Democracy. “The Citizens’ Movement Pax Europa clearly distances itself from all right-wing or left-wing extremists and all xenophobic movements” I always get suspicious when I read a disclaimer like that. Why would you put that in your flyer? There must be something in it that could perhaps make the reader think your either an extremist, a racist or both.

“The Citizens’ Movement Pax Europa is open to all those who want to join and support the association’s objectives: Democracy, rule of law, and human rights according to the ‘UN Declaration of Human Rights’ ” Apparently the UN charter doesn’t apply to migrants, ehh Muslims, ehh Turkish Muslims in Germany in particular. “About 1 million Muslims – 700.000 Turkish – have been granted German citizenship” So? You would think the BPE would be happy that so many wish to become German citizen and fulfill all requirements that come with it. No, BPE is not, they are outraged that there are some 2600 Islamic prayer houses and on top of that 163 traditional mosques “with minarets and dome” Eeeks, minarets and dome, that’s scary…. Since 34% of Germans are Protestant and another 34% Roman Catholic how many churches (with bells and tower) would there be? The migration rate of 2.19 migrants/1,000 population (2009 est.) puts Germany on place number 40 of the world migration rate, countries like the Netherlands (34) Denmark (33) and Portugal (29) above them.

The entire leaflet is riddled with so-called arguments why Muslims/Turks (being Turkish = Muslim apparently) should not be allowed to become citizen of Germany or any European country. Turkey should, as an Asian – Muslim country, never be allowed to join the EU. It also lists demands for migrants to be allowed into an European country, it all comes down to assimilate or ship out. It is rather curious, to put it mildly, to see this odious piece of racist propaganda appear during the HDIM, an event where people gather to exchange thoughts on human rights, certainly not always agreeing, but at least trying to debate issues on bases of arguments and most of the time in a respectful manner. The BPE has reversed the EU logo colors, they have a yellow background with blue stars. Folks, the EU yellow stars only have 5 points, no problem there….

Suzette
I CARE News team

**************************************************************************************

Pax Europa has made the effort to engage in a process – now there are people implying that it should not be bothering and should shut itself off to all other ideas.

This opinion piece is “riddled” with idiocies.  But I will address them step by step.

1. Apparently the UN charter doesn’t apply to migrants, ehh Muslims, ehh Turkish Muslims in Germany in particular.

Of course, it does. The leaflet does not, and will never, deny the fact that there is a UN Charter (I take it the author meant the UN Charter on Human Rights). Pax Europa deeply respects the Charter and will continue to do so. However, one must be aware that there is also a parallel set of human rights which is endorsed by the United Nations: The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (1990). No such thing as “universal rights” if there is another set of human rights, is there?

Whereas the Universal declaration states

‘Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.’

CDHRI does not guarantee equal rights, but merely equal dignity: Article 6 (a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage. (b) The husband is responsible for the support and welfare of the family.

‘All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion, political affiliation, social status or other considerations.’

In particular, CDHRI has been criticised for failing to guarantee freedom of religion.

Here, I rest my case.

2. You would think the BPE would be happy that so many wish to become German citizen and fulfill all requirements that come with it.

BPE would be very happy about many becoming German citizen (sic!), if they only abide by the law. Many become German citizens without giving up their original citizenship, which makes one wonder why they bother at all. Could it be that some have other motives? No, that couldn’t be it because there are no bad and sinister asylum seekers and migrants; it the host societies’ fault that migrants are not feeling welcome. (Sarcasm off)

3. “…they are outraged that there are some 2600 Islamic prayer houses and on top of that 163 traditional mosques “with minarets and dome” Eeeks, minarets and dome, that’s scary.”

May I remind your readers of the following statement made by the current Turkish prime minister:

“Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.” Recep Tayyip Erdogan, President of Turkey, 1997.

Or perhaps this statement made by Erdogan in Cologne, Germany:

ANKARA – Turkish PM warns Germany’s leaders not to confuse assimilation with integration. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan urged Turks in Germany on Tuesday to reject assimilation, repeating comments that drew a furious response last weekend.

“I repeat… assimilation is a crime against humanity,” Erdogan said in a speech to parliament in Ankara.

Erdogan warned Germany’s leaders not to confuse assimilation with integration for the nearly three million people of Turkish origin living in the country.

“I explained over there (Germany) that they must differentiate very clearly between assimilation and integration. We can think differently from (Chancellor Angela) Merkel about this, but that is my opinion,” Erdogan said (…)

4. Turkey should, as an Asian – Muslim country, never be allowed to join the EU.

No, it should not. It does not need to join the EU. It already enjoys a privileged association status, which should suffice. See here for more information.

5. It is rather curious, to put it mildly, to see this odious piece of racist propaganda appear during the HDIM, an event where people gather to exchange thoughts on human rights, certainly not always agreeing, but at least trying to debate issues on bases of arguments and most of the time in a respectful manner.

Would you care to elaborate on the racism charge? Otherwise I will assume your are using the racism charge because you ran out of arguments and to stifle debate.

6. “… most of the time in a respectful manner…”

And would you also point out where Pax Europa and its colleagues departed from respectful manners?

****************************************************************************

Surely OSCE meetings are places where problems can be resolved rather than glossed over.  To dismiss a position via name calling does not make the world a better place because it makes people afraid to raise matters of public concern that fester as a result.

See also: http://www.libertiesalliance.org/2009/10/02/attempt-to-silence-debate-in-warsaw/

ICLA and allied organizations gather at OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting in Warsaw

ICLA and its allied organizations Pax Europa, Mission Europa and Wiener Akademikerbund attended today’s sessions on Fundamental Freedoms including Freedom of Thought, Conscience, Religion or Belief, as well as a follow-up to the Vienna Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting. The afternoon session included topics on Freedom of Assembly and Association and Freedom of Movement, among others.

In activities surrounding the meeting, ICLA and its allied organizations worked to contribute to the broader debate and attempted to foster understanding and mutual respect between the counterjihad and other interested parties and stakeholders in these important areas of concern. ICLA officially issued the following statement at the meeting:

Use of intimidation to curb civil liberties

Recent cases in the OSCE area

We are concerned about the increasing use of intimidation to curb the exercise of civil liberties in the OSCE area. This covers fundamental liberties such as freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and, not least, freedom of expression. Here we present recent cases on the matter, and our recommendations for political initiatives to counter this trend.

Modern, secular society was built with centuries of relevant criticism of religion, in particular by questioning religious authority. No form of intimidation can make us abandon our fundamental values of critical thinking and free speech. We expect our institutions and elected politicians to protect these, to take the relevant precautions as well as any risks involved in doing so.

Unfortunately, we are witnessing a slow but steady decline in the state of civil liberties. This decline is to a great extent due to intimidations, threats or even violence from non-state actors, aided and abetted by our police, courts and other authorities not standing up to the challenges. We need to identify the new challenges and adopt our approaches, so that we are able to counter repressive activity from non-state actors and loosely organized groups in order to preserve freedom and diversity.

Dr. Jussi Halla-aho convicted for ‘incitement to hatred’ at Finnish court

Dr.Jussi Halla-aho is a Helsinki city councilman, a linguist with a PhD in Slavic studies, and a web columnist who maintains a very popular (and controversial) blog called Scripta. He is best known for being a consistent critic of the problems created by mass immigration and multicultural policies in Finland. After his December 2008 election to the city council of Helsinki, he was accused of ‘racist writings’, due to an article he had written about the increasing number of rape cases by immigrants against Finnish women. The investigation was launched at the request of the Women’s organization of the Green Party, who filed a complaint concerning the last paragraph of text in a blog post of his, and sought the police to investigate to help determine whether the paragraph constitutes incitement to rape. This investigation was abolished on technical grouns, but later Jussi Halla-aho was convicted and fined for “breaching the sanctity of religion” and “inciting hatred against an ethnic group” due to his critical articles about Islam.

http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2009/09/23-minute-interview-with-jussi-halla-aho/

Disrupting peaceful demonstration I   Copenhagen January 10^th 2009

On January 10^th 2009, a legal and peaceful pro-Israel demonstration was held in the town square of Copenhagen, Denmark, in support of Israel against Hamas. Counter-demonstrators disrupted the demonstration with a siren, then assembled with shouts of “Heil Hitler”, “Kill the Jews ”, “Allah-hu Akbar” and more, accompanied by Hitler salutes. After the pro-Israel demonstration had ended, the pro-Palestine demonstration marched the square with shouts of “Khaybar Khaybar ya Yahoud, Jaish Muhammad sauf ya’ud “ (“Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, Muhammad’s army will return”), a reference to Muhammad’s violent assault on the Jewish settlement of Khaybar, Medina, and thus an implied threat of violence against Jews. Gülay Kocbay and Havva Kocbay participated in the counter-demonstration, using the siren and holding a speech. They were at the time members of the organisation Muslimer i Dialog (“Muslims in Dialogue”), but resigned due to the siren incident. The open display of anti-semitism was not mentioned in their resignation announcement. Danish authorities investigated the matter, but decided not to press charges of racism, citing difficulties identifying the participants.

http://www.uriasposten.net/?p=6471

www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024366.php

Disrupting peaceful demonstration II   Copenhagen, August 28^th 2009

In August 2009, SIOE organized a demonstration against plans for an Iranian-funded mosque in Copenhagen, Denmark, citing concerns that the mosque would be a front for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and that its real purpose was to enable the Iranian regime to keep track of dissidents and to radicalize Muslims in Denmark. The Danish authorities did not permit the demonstration at the desired location in Nørrebro, relegating it instead to be held in front of the Danish parliament. Here, left-wing radicals turned up in order to loudly disrupt the demonstration, and were successful in dissuading many from participating. When the SIOE organizers requested the police to call the counter-demonstration to order, the police officer cited “freedom of expression” as justification for not intervening against the disturbances.

http://sioe.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/attempts-to-destroy-the-sioe-demonstration/

Demonstration at Harrow mosque attacked by Muslims

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rightwing-protestors-target-harrow-mosque-1785797.html

Demonstration in Cologne obstructed by Antifa activits and Muslims

On 19 September 2008, an approved rally by citizens’ group Pro Köln to protest against the construction of a mosque complex to dwarf the cathedral of Cologne in Germany was brought to an abrupt end when the speaker system was pulled and the people who had managed to access the Heumarkt were besieged and surrounded by aggressive groups of black-clad Antifa activists.  Many others who had wished to join the protest were prevented from reaching the rally and blocked at railway stations, or even physically assaulted. The rally was repeated on May 9th 2009 but not allowed to take place in central Cologne.  Once again, the Pro-Köln supporters were subjected to harassment and abuse at the hands of Antifa activists and Muslims.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/04/pro-kolns-plan-b.html

Wilders barred from entering the UK for ’security reasons’

One of the most worrisome developments in the United Kingdom was the ban on entry for Dutch MP Geert Wilders, known for his short movie Fitna about Islam and terrorism. He was barred entry to the UK on grounds that his entry “would threaten community harmony and therefore public security”, even though Wilders has never advocated the use of violence or threatened anyone. On the other hand, Britain’s Muslim peer, Lord Nazir Ahmed, threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to protest Wilders’ appearance and the showing of Fitna in the British Parliament. Rather than reprimanding Lord Ahmed for this act of intimidation, the British government chose to ban Wilders from entering Britain, returning him at arrival to Heathrow Airport. This constitutes not only giving in to intimidation, but is also an abuse of the law to restrict freedom of movement within the European Union.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/world/europe/13britain.html?partner=MOREOVERNEWS&ei=5040

Libel tourism as an assault on freedom of press

Libel tourism is the exploitation of poorly written libel laws in one country to silence critical voices in others. The libel laws of Great Britain have been used extensively for this purpose, due to the fact that the burden of proof in British law is reversed compared to comparable law in other countries. Under British law, an author or journalist sued for libel will have to prove his statements true in order to avoid sentence. Using this approach, persons with deep pockets can silence critical voices. Such a lawsuit was filed in a British court by Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz against American author Rachel Ehrenfeld for her 2003 book ”Funding Evil”, even though the book was never published in Britain. Ms. Ehrenfeld was convicted a fine of $225,000 and destruction of her book. As a reaction, in order to protect freedom of press in the United States, US lawmakers passed legislation making the UK law unenforceable in the United States. This protects US authors, but not others. Relevant books, such as Alms for Jihad by Burr & Collins, have been withdrawn or even remained unpublished due to the fear of libel suits. Such books can be found published Samizdat-style on the Internet. The legal problem in Britain still exists, and publishers shy away from critical titles due to the risk of expensive lawsuits. In order to protect authors and journalists, and to live up to modern standards for freedom of press, British law needs to be amended.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/technology/20iht-libel21.1.9346664.html?_r=1

Oriana Fallaci sued for ‘Defaming Islam’

In 2002 in Switzerland the Islamic Center and the Somal Association of Geneva, SOS Racisme of Lausanne, along with a private citizen, sued Italian author Oriana Fallaci for the allegedly “racist” content of The Rage and The Pride. In May 2005, Adel Smith, president of the Union of Italian Muslims, launched a lawsuit against Fallaci charging that “some of the things she said in her book The Force of Reason are offensive to Islam.” Smith’s attorney cited 18 phrases, most notably a phrase that referred to Islam as “a pool that never purifies.” Consequently an Italian judge ordered Fallaci to stand trial set for June, 2006 in Bergamo on charges of “defaming Islam.” The preliminary trial began on 12 June in Bergamo and on 25 June Judge Beatrice Siccardi decided that Oriana Fallaci should indeed stand trial beginning on 18 December. Fallaci accused the judge of having disregarded the fact that Smith called for her murder and defamed Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriana_Fallaci

OIC seeks to censor art exhibition in Demmark

Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist behind the most famous of the 12 Muhammad cartoons in Danish daily Jyllands-Posten, has been living with around-the-clock police protection since a plot to assassinate him was uncovered on February 12^th, 2008. This threat has not caused him to repent or apologize for his drawings, and he now proceeds to talk for the freedom of speech, and keeps drawing as well. On August 29^th 2009, an exhibition of his latest drawings, including a reproduction of his famous Muhammad cartoon. The OIC spokesman said that the exhibition of the cartoon could incite hatred and intolerance and hurt the sentiments of Muslims worldwide, and wanted it removed. This, of course, is an implicit reference to the violent riots that took place in January/February 2006, a while after the original publication of the cartoons. Kurt Westergaard, who at the age of 74 states that he is too old to worry about getting killed, refused to give in to intimidation and the exhibition proceeded as planned.

http://www.oic-oci.org/topic_detail.asp?t_id=2650

More attempts to shut down ‘offensive’ art exhibitions are listed here: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/09/muslims-provoked-by-art.html

Policy recommendations

The International Civil Liberties Alliance sees quite a lot of work ahead before our civil liberties are again sufficiently secured. Governments need to be significantly more assertive and effective to ensure the liberties we have long taken for granted. To that end, we recommend the following:

-        Our civil liberties need to be defended using whatever resources are necessary. Lack of equipment or fear of hurting police personnel is not a sufficient reason to abandon the fundamental obligation of the police to protect demonstrators and the like.

-        Libel law in Britain is urgently in need of revision, reversing the burden of proof so as to prevent misuse of these laws against authors and journalists, who should be free to conduct and publish investigative work without fear of frivolous and costly court cases.

-        It should be made clear that truth is an absolute defence. No matter how offensive it may feel to some, speaking verifiable truth can never be made punishable.

-        Lawmakers and courts must make it clear that criticism of religion does not constitute racism, and thus is not subject to punishment under any form of hate speech law. Further, defamation applies only to individuals, not to religions or ideologies.

-        Dealing with conflict by banning expression of negative sentiment (‘hate speech’ laws) is legally problematic, in that such regulations constitute limitations to our fundamental liberties, and may serve to cover up conflicts rather than solve them. Such broad articles are subject to abuse, should authorities and courts come under pressure from various parties, as were similar laws in the Soviet Union Due to the inherent dangers such laws constitute, ICLA recommends that it is in the interest of our freedom to abolish such laws entirely.

In addition, statements were made by ICLA and Pax Europa during the plenary session of the working group on Fundamental Freedom.

ICLA:

Session 3 Freedom of Movement

The International Civil Liberties Alliance would like to raise the issue of Dutch MP Geert Wilders being denied entry into the United Kingdom earlier this year.

He was barred entry to the UK on grounds that his entry “would threaten community harmony and therefore public security”, even though he has never advocated the use of violence or threatened anyone. On the other hand, a member of the House of Lords, Lord Nazir Ahmed, threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to protest Mr Wilders’ appearance and the showing of his short film Fitna in the British Parliament. Rather than reprimanding Lord Ahmed for this act of intimidation, the British government chose to ban Mr Wilders from entering Britain, returning him to the Netherlands on his arrival at Heathrow Airport.

This constitutes not only giving in to intimidation, but is also in our opinion an abuse of the law to restrict freedom of movement within the European Union.

The International Civil Liberties Alliance therefore calls upon the OSCE to encourage Participating States to refrain from restricting movement on such whimsical and apparently politically motivated grounds.

Pax Europa:

Session 3 Freedom of Assembly

Pax Europa would like to draw attention to the OSCE guidelines to Freedom of Assembly which specifiy that “The state has a positive duty to actively protect peaceful assemblies.” Furthermore, the state is required to protect participants of a peaceful demonstration from any person or group that attempts to disrupt (…) it in any way.

These guidelines were not adhered to during the peaceful demonstrations that took place in Copenhagen in January and August 2009.

In January, a legal and peaceful demonstration in support of Israel was disrupted by counter-demonstrators shouting “Heil Hitler” and “Kill the Jews” as well as other references of that sort. Danish authorities investigated the matter, but decided not to press charges of racism, citing difficulties identifying the participants.

In August, a demonstration against an Iranian-funded mosque was loudly disrupted by left-wing radicals, who were also successful in dissuading many from participating in the demonstration. A request to the police to call the counter-demonstration to order was fruitless when the police officer cited “freedom of expression” as justification for not intervening against the disturbances.

We call on the OSCE Participating States to ensure that the OSCE guidelines pertaining to Freedom of Assembly are adhered to by the governments in all instances, thereby ensuring the continued right to the very freedoms that make up democracy.

ICLA and its allied organizations remain committed in engaging in the OSCE process, in particular in the area of the Human Dimension.

Die OSZE und der Counter-Jihad

Bericht vom „Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting on Freedom of Religion or Belief“ 9.-10. Juli 2009 in Wien .

Anfang des Monats Juli 2009 veranstaltete die „Organisation für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa“ (OSZE) in Wien einen Runden Tisch der „Human Dimension“ (ODIHR) zum Thema „Religions- und Glaubensfreiheit“. Die OSZE ist die Nachfolgeorganisation der KSZE (Konferenz für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa) und in Wien ansässig. Neben anderen NGOs (Non Government Organisations) entsandte auch die BÜRGERBEWEGUNG PAX EUROPA eine teilnehmende Delegation. . Die BPE gab dort vorab die folgende Empfehlung an die Teilnehmer ab: . Die “BÜRGERBEWEGUNG PAX EUROPA” (BPE) ist sowohl unabhängig wie überparteilich und versteht sich als europäische Bürgerrechtsbewegung und Menschenrechtsorganisation. Unser Ziel ist es, nicht nur für den Schutz des freien, demokratischen und säkularen Rechtsstaat in unserem Land zu kämpfen, sondern auch für die europäische Kultur auf der Grundlage der jüdisch-christlichen Traditionen und – besonders – auf den Werten der Aufklärung. Der Verein distanziert sich deutlich von allen rechten oder linken Extremisten sowie von fremdenfeindlichen Bestrebungen. . Die BPE begrüßt und unterstützt alle Bemühungen der OSZE/ODIHR und ihrer Mitglieder sowie NGOs in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart zum Schutz der individualen Menschenrechte wozu es auch gehört, „allein und in Gemeinschaft mit anderen, die eigene Religion oder Weltanschauung in Einklang dem eigenen Gewissen zu bekennen und zu praktizieren.“ . Die Freiheit der Religionsausübung nach europäischem Maßstab beschränkt sich auf die Riten der Religion und verzichtet auf jeden Versuch zur Umsetzung religiöser Vorschriften in den säkularen Staat. Alle religiösen Organisationen und Gruppierungen sind verpflichtet, die UN- Menschenrechtserklärung von 1948 einzuhalten und somit das Recht des Einzelnen zu garantieren, die Religion oder Weltanschauung frei zu wechseln oder auch keiner Religion anzugehören. . Gleiche Rechte für Frauen und Kinder werden in religiösen Gemeinschaften oftmals nicht anerkannt. Zwangsheirat und soziale Diskriminierung von „Ungläubigen“ sind in bestimmten religiös-kulturellen Gemeinschaften an der Tagesordnung. . Daher empfehlen wir: Keinerlei religiöse Gesetze aller Art in allen nationalen Gesetzgebungen. Religionskritik ist Teil der freien Meinungsäußerung. Alle Versuche, die freie Meinungsäußerung im Namen religiöser Interessen unter dem Vorwand der „Islamophobie“ oder des Rassismus einzuschränken, müssen verhindert werden. Bauvorhaben für religiöse Zwecke sollen nicht gegen den Widerstand der unmittelbar betroffenen Bevölkerung durchgesetzt werden. Die nationalen Regierungen sollen Maßnahmen ergreifen zum Schutz aller Personen, die wegen des Verlassens einer religiösen Gruppe bedroht werden. Keine religiöse Organisation soll durch öffentliche Mittel gefördert werden, wenn sie nicht in vollem Umfang die „Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte“ (UN 1948) respektiert. Wir fordern alle Delegierten auf, sich für diese vorgeschlagenen Maßnahmen zum Schutz der Religionsfreiheit einzusetzen, damit wir unseren Kindern und Enkeln eine friedliche Welt hinterlassen. BÜRGERBEWEGUNG PAX EUROPA (BPE) Willi Schwend, 1. Vorsitzender Conny Axel Meier, Bundesgeschäftsführer . Die BPE- Delegierte E.S.W. berichtet auf dem Weblog „Gates of Vienna“ über diese Zusammenkunft. Hier veröffentlichen wir die deutsche Übersetzung ihres ausführlichen Berichtes: Manch einer mag sich fragen, was der Counterjihad (Gegen-Dschihad) und eine Organisation wie die OSZE wohl miteinander zu tun haben. Bevor ich mich darauf einlasse, möchte ich einen kurzen Überblick über diese, speziell für Nichteuropäer trotz der Mitgliedschaft der USA und Kanadas, eher wenig bekannten Organisation verschaffen. Dabei werde ich auch auf die Arbeitsweise der OSZE eingehen. . Aus der Selbstdarstellung der OSZE: „Die OSZE ist für Frühwarnung, Konfliktvermeidung, Krisenbewältigung und Konfliktnachsorge zuständig. Die Organisation umfasst 56 Teilnehmerstaaten, die sich weltweit über drei Kontinente erstrecken – Nord-Amerika, Europa und Asien – und mehr als eine Milliarde Menschen umfassen.“ Die OSZE arbeitet mit dem ‘D’ -Wort: Dialog. Sie selbst nennt es ihren „genetischen Code, um die Sicherheit der gesamten Region aufrechtzuerhalten.“ Der Fairness halber muss man sagen, dass die OSZE mehr im Hintergrund, also „außerhalb der Schlagzeilen“ arbeitet, schon um so besser auf eventuelle Bedrohungen reagieren zu können. Das einzige Mal, wenn wir in den Medien etwas über die OSZE hören ist, wenn sie zu Wahlen Wahlbeobachter entsendet, wie zuletzt in Georgien. Die OSZE leistet auch in früheren Konflikt-Regionen ihren „Beitrag zur Stärkung der vertrauensbildenden und der Sicherheits-Maßnahmen.“ Diese Maßnahmen beinhalten unter anderem auch Initiativen zum Schutz der Rechte von Minderheiten, zu Gesetzesreformen und zum gesetzlichen Schutz von Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Pressefreiheit. Wie die EU ebenfalls, so verfolgt die OSZE das Konzept einer euro-mediterranen Partnerschaft, was auch Länder wie Marokko, Tunesien und Jordanien als Kooperationspartner mit einbezieht. Dennoch nimmt außer Israel regelmäßig keiner der Kooperationspartner an den Runden-Tisch-Veranstaltungen der OSZE teil. [redaktionelle Berichtigung: Im Juli 2009 nahm erstmals auch ein marokkanischer Delegierter teil] Die OSZE, bzw. deren Vorgängerorganisation KSZE, war eine der wichtigsten Akteure beim Niedergang des Kommunismus: Die Organisation fand ihren Ursprung in den frühen 1970er Jahren, aus der Schlussakte von Helsinki und der Schaffung der „Konferenz über Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa“ (KSZE), die auf dem Höhepunkt des Kalten Krieges als ein wichtiges multilaterales Forum für den Dialog und die Verhandlungen zwischen Ost und West diente. Der Fall der Berliner Mauer im Jahr 1989 und der Zusammenbruch der Sowjetunion im Jahr 1991 markierten den Beginn einer neuen Ära für ein „Freies und vereinigtes Europa“ und die beteiligten Staaten vertrauten darauf, dass die KSZE auch auf die Herausforderungen der Zukunft reagieren wird. Die KSZE bekam zuerst einmal permanente Strukturen, einschließlich einem Sekretariat und Institutionen sowie die ersten dauerhaften Missionen übertragen. Im Jahr 1994 wurde die der Name der KSZE, da nun ja mehr als eine Konferenz, in „Organisation für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa“ geändert. . Die Organisation sieht „Sicherheit als allumfassend an“ und geht auf drei „Dimensionen“ vor : auf der politisch-militärischen, der wirtschaftlich-ökologischen und der humanitären Dimension. Es ist gerade die dritte Dimension – die humanitäre Dimension – die den Niedergang des Kommunismus zur Folge hatte. Die Sowjets wurden durch ihre Teilnahme an der KSZE sanft in Richtung Akzeptanz der Menschenrechte, einschließlich der Religionsfreiheit, geführt: „… [Die] Aufnahme des humanitären Aspekts war ein Sieg für den Westen, einschließlich der neutralen Staaten …. Zu Beginn der Verhandlungen waren die Sowjets noch nicht einmal bereit, überhaupt den Begriff „Menschenrechte“ in den Verhandlungen über die Erklärung der Grundsätze für die Beziehungen zwischen den teilnehmenden Staaten zu verwenden; stattdessen wurde das Wort „Pinguin“ verwendet. Schließlich sahen sie sich gezwungen, den Aspekt der Menschenrechte auch auf ihrem Gebiet als „wesentlicher Faktor für Frieden, Wohlstand und Gerechtigkeit“ anzuerkennen. Zum Beispiel hatte das Einlenken der Sowjetunion direkte Auswirkungen auf deren Umgang mit Bürgern jüdischen Glaubens sowie mit anderen Minderheiten. Die Sowjetunion konnte nicht anders, als einige der inhaftierten und verfolgten Dissidenten freizulassen.[...] Wie der Vorsitzende der US- Delegation der Wiener KSZE-Folgekonferenz richtigerweise darauf hinwies, „gab es bemerkenswerte Ergebnisse.“ Von 1986 ab wurden die Störsender abgeschaltet, so dass die Bürger aller beteiligten Staaten die Sendungen ihrer Wahl empfangen konnten. Einer beträchtlichen Anzahl von Juden wurde gestattet aus der Sowjetunion zu emigrieren. Die Themen Zensur, Meinungs- und Pressefreiheit wurden konsequenterweise in der Folge auch thematisiert. In der gleichen Zeit wurden mehr als 600 politische Gefangene freigelassen, Dissidenten mehr Freiheit eingeräumt und Anhängern verschiedener Religionen mehr Toleranz entgegengebracht. Aber nicht nur die Bürger der Sowjetunion profitierten vom KSZE-Prozess; besonders die Bürger der beiden deutschen Staaten waren endlich in der Lage sich vermehrt zu besuchen (allerdings nur bis zu 30 Tage pro Jahr), das meiste waren Besuche bei Verwandten.“ (Quelle: University Paper by ESW, “The evolution of the CSCE to the OSCE. Did the Institutionalization of the CSCE increase its Effectiveness – evaluation of successes and failures with emphasis on human rights and national minorities. 2002) Ergänzend: . „Das Konzept der Freizügigkeit der Bürger, wie es in der Schlussakte von Helsinki formuliert ist, war es, was im Wesentlichen den Fall des Kommunismus erleichtert hat und markiert so den Anfang vom Ende der Zweiteilung Europas. Was in den frühen 1980er Jahren in Polen mit den Massenprotesten der Gewerkschaft Solidarnosc begann, die dann von der Regierung mit Gewalt beendet wurden, gipfelte erneut in Polen im Jahre 1988, als durch die massiven Streiks gegen die Regierung diese sich gezwungen sah, freie Wahlen abzuhalten, in denen die Kommunisten eindrucksvoll besiegt wurden. Diese Proteste breiteten sich rasch auf andere sowjetischen Satelliten-Staaten wie Ungarn, die DDR, die Tschechoslowakei, Bulgarien und Rumänien aus. Ende 1991 gab dann Gorbatschow auf und die Sowjetunion teilte sich in ihre verschiedenen Republiken auf. Der Kommunismus wurde nicht besiegt, er besiegte sich selbst.“ (Quelle: ebenda) Die OSZE ist „in mehrfacher Hinsicht einzigartig und innovativ. Erstens war das Konzept der souveränen und unabhängigen Staaten unter den Bedingungen der vollen Gleichberechtigung in der Zeit der gegnerischen Block-Konfrontation unbekannt. Zweitens: Während sich andere Verhandlungen eher mit Teilfragen zur Sicherheit befassten, bot die KSZE einen weit umfassenderen Überblick über die Gesamtlage. Drittens: Im Gegensatz zum Sicherheitsrat der Vereinten Nationen, auf dem Entscheidungen regelmäßig durch Vetos gestoppt werden, war auf der KSZE der angestrebte Konsens von Vorteil. Die KSZE bot keinem der beiden Blöcke eine Spielwiese für Machtpolitik. Statt der üblichen Mehrdeutigkeiten förderte der KSZE-Prozess Transparenz in allen Bereichen.“ (Quelle: ebenda) In der OSZE-Terminologie, wird der Begriff der „Human Dimension“ verwendet, um die Gesamtheit der Normen und Aktivitäten im Zusammenhang mit den Menschenrechten, der Demokratie und der Rechtsstaatlichkeit zu beschreiben, was im Rahmen der OSZE als einer der drei wesentlichen Sicherheitsaspekte gilt. Dieser Begriff weist auch darauf hin, dass die OSZE-Normen in diesem Bereich mehr als nur die traditionellen Menschenrechte umfassen. (Human Dimension, vol. 1, 2005) Gemäß dem Buch über die „Human Dimension, Vol. 1, 2005“ handelt es sich beim OSZE-Prozess im Wesentlichen um einen politischen Prozess, der keine rechtlich verbindlichen Normen oder Grundsätze schafft. Im Gegensatz zu vielen anderen Menschenrechtserklärungen seien die „OSZE-Human Dimension“- Verpflichtungen eher politischer Natur, also rechtlich nicht bindend. Dies sei der wesentliche Unterschied, da er die juristische Durchsetzbarkeit der OSZE-Standards nicht zulässt. In anderen Worten, die OSZE-Verpflichtungen können gerichtlich nicht vollstreckt werden. Das „OSZE-Büro für demokratische Institutionen und Menschenrechte“ (ODIHR), mit Sitz in Warschau, ist das wichtigste Organ der OSZE für die „Human Dimension“. Es organisiert die regelmäßigen Treffen, erstellt eine Bestandsaufnahme der OSZE-Verpflichtungen der „Human Dimension“, und gibt Empfehlungen für Folgekonferenzen. In all ihren Aktivitäten arbeitet die ODIHR mit einem Netzwerk von Partnern aus ähnlichen Bereichen zusammen, einschließlich internationaler und lokaler Nicht-Regierungs-Organisationen, die sich für die Menschenrechte einsetzen. ODIHR ist Organisator und Gastgeber für themenspezifische Gesprächsrunden, um ausgesuchten Vertretern der Gesellschaft die Möglichkeit zu geben, Empfehlungen an die OSZE und die Teilnehmerstaaten auszusprechen. Das OSZE-“Toleranz- und Anti-Diskriminierungs-Informationssystem“ (TANDIS) lohnt eines näheren Blickes, vor allem deren Broschüre über „hate crimes“ (Hassdelikte) Es ist der angesprochene Konsens, der uns so extrem hilfreich war bei der Eliminierung einiger „sehr giftiger“ (Henrik R. Clausen) Empfehlungen beim „roundtable“ im Juli 2009. Dies ist von entscheidendem Vorteil, denn wenn es keinen Konsens gibt, dann gilt die Empfehlung als nicht ausgesprochen und ist damit kein Thema mehr. Andererseits bedeutet dies aber auch, dass es nur eine sehr begrenzte Zahl der eingereichten Empfehlungen es schaffen, ins Protokoll aufgenommen zu werden. Folgende Empfehlungen fanden die Zustimmung aller Teilnehmer und wurden verabschiedet: 1. Religions- und Glaubensfreiheit sollen wesentliche Anliegen der ODIHR werden. 2. Die teilnehmenden Staaten werden aufgefordert, die bestehenden Verpflichtungen in Bezug auf die religiöse und weltanschauliche Freiheit in Übereinstimmung mit geltenden internationalen Menschenrechtsstandards zu gestalten. Die teilnehmenden Staaten sind aufgefordert, die Hilfe von ODIHR dabei in Anspruch zu nehmen. 3. Rechtsstaatlichkeit soll als eine wesentliche Voraussetzung für den vollständigen und angemessenen Genuss der Religions- oder Weltanschauungsfreiheit anerkannt sein. 4. Die Teilnehmer- Staaten sind aufgefordert, im öffentlichen Raum aktiv eine Atmosphäre herzustellen, in der die Religions- und Weltanschauungsfreiheit gedeihen kann und in der religiöse und weltanschauliche Glaubensgemeinschaften einen offenen und ergebnisreichen Dialog führen können. Dieser Raum sollte für alle offen sein, und die öffentlichen Medien könnten eine wichtige Rolle bei der Schaffung dieses Raumes bieten. Nachfolgend einige der „giftigen“ Empfehlungen: Cojep International (kein Link zu deren Presseerklärung verfügbar, da nur in Papierform im Umlauf gegeben) scheint eine äußerst gefährliche Organisation zu sein. Sie wurde durch ihren stellvertretenden Vorsitzenden, Veysel Filiz, vertreten, der nicht nur in einer offiziellen Erklärung in scharfen Worten die „Charter on Muslim Understanding“ attackierte, sondern sich auch über „die unzureichende Reaktion der Bundesregierung“ beschwerte, angesichts der besonderen „Art des Verbrechens“ (gemeint war eine niedergestochene Ägypterin in einem Dresdner Gerichtssaal) und die deutschen Behörden aufforderte, „den Angriff öffentlich zu verurteilen.“ Nun, warum nur sollten denn die deutschen Behörden gerade hierauf mit „Verurteilung“ reagieren? Hier die Erklärung von Henrik R. Clausen (ICLA) als Antwort: „Was den Mord in Dresden (betrifft): Wir haben vollstes Vertrauen in den deutschen Rechtsstaat, dass er diese Angelegenheit regelt, und wir betonen, dass keine derartigen Vorkommnisse, egal wie schlimm sie sein mögen, als Vorwand für einen Angriff auf die Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung oder die Umsetzung drakonischer Rechtsvorschriften benutzt (und missbraucht) werden dürfen.“ Es gilt anzumerken, dass in dieser Angelegenheit, vom offiziellen deutschen Regierungsvertreter bei der OSZE abgesehen, außer der ICLA, [unser dänischer Verbündeter, Red.] kein Vertreter der teilnehmenden Staaten und Organisationen das Wort ergriff. Cojep fordert ferner: „Die Regierungen sollten sicherstellen, dass die Strafverfolgungsbehörden speziell geschult werden, um auf anti-muslimische Verbrechen im Besonderen zu reagieren und diese gesondert untersuchen. Die öffentlichen Schulen sollten Anstrengungen unternehmen, um Toleranz und Vielfalt zu fördern sowie anti-muslimische Vorurteile abzubauen.“ Ein ähnlicher Antrag wurde während der „Civil Society Round-Table Meeting“ gestellt, und zwar zur Einführung von „Sensitivity Training“ in den Schulen, aber dies alles war dank der Interventionen von ICLA und BÜRGERBEWEGUNG PAX EUROPA schnell vom Tisch. In seinen Empfehlungen, behauptet Cojep „einen zunehmend starken Rückgang der Mittel für die Unterstützung der muslimischen NGOs, die aber erforderlich sind, um an Veranstaltungen der OSZE-Human Dimension teilzunehmen und deren Stimme Gehör zu verschaffen. Wir möchten betonen, dass, um eine ausgewogenere Beteiligung aller Gruppierungen in der OSZE-Region zu erreichen, ODIHR [OSZE-Büro für demokratische Institutionen und Menschenrechte] die Beteiligung von muslimischen NGOs vermehrt unterstützen sollte .“ Es dürfen keinerlei öffentlichen Mittel für die NGO-Gruppen bereitgestellt werden, da dies die Glaubwürdigkeit des NGO-Status als Nicht-Regierungs-Organisation in Frage stellen würde. Andere Finanzierungsformen wären akzeptabel, aber die weinerlichen Beschwerden von Cojep über eine angebliche Unterrepräsentierung muslimischer NGOs ist unverständlich. Es waren doch sehr viele von ihnen auf der Juli- Veranstaltung anwesend. Was die „hate speech“- Gesetzgebung betrifft (sie sind ausführlich Gegenstand der OECD- Broschüre „Hate Crime Laws — A Practical Guide”) vertrat die US- Delegation folgenden Standpunkt: „Anti-Terror-Gesetze oder Extremismus-Gesetze werden zu oft missbraucht – manchmal bewusst – zur Beschränkung religiöser Gruppen. Zwei Beispiele aus jüngster Zeit, neue Religionsgesetze in Tadschikistan und Kirgisistan scheinen erlassen worden zu sein, um religiösen Extremismus zu deckeln. In der Praxis stellt sich jedoch heraus, dass die Beschränkung legitimer religiöser Aktivitäten eher zu einer Zunahme von Extremismus führt. Unter diesen derart gekennzeichneten Gruppierungen befinden sich in einigen der teilnehmenden Staaten viele muslimische Gruppen … [...].“ Die US- Delegation zitiert auch Präsident Obama, der „darauf hingewiesen hat, wie wichtig es für die Länder sei, zu vermeiden, ihre Bürger von der Art und Weise so wie sie es für richtig halten ihre Religion zu praktizieren, zu behindern – zum Beispiel durch Kleidungsvorschriften zu reglementieren, was eine Frau zu tragen habe.“ Wie mehrere Kommentatoren feststellen, ist diese Aussage wirklich tatsächlich giftig, wenn sie denn auf den Islam angewandt wird. Dennoch, der US- Delegation muss Beifall gezollt werden für ihre die freie Meinungsäußerung betreffende Erklärung, nämlich dass es Beschränkungen derselben nur bei Aufrufen zur Gewalt geben darf: „Manchmal werden Aufrufe zu religiöser Toleranz und zur Achtung gegensätzlicher Überzeugungen dazu missbraucht, um Einschränkungen der Meinungs- und Religionsfreiheit, so wie sie unsere OSZE-Verpflichtungen definieren, zu rechtfertigen. Die Vereinigten Staaten sind der Auffassung, dass solche Beschränkungen der Meinungsfreiheit, die auch Äußerungen zu Religionen betreffen können, nicht hinnehmbar sind, es sei denn, es handelt sich um eindeutige Gewaltdrohungen. Die Regierungen sollten die freie Meinungsäußerung in vollstem Umfang gewährleisten. Aus unserer Sicht ist der Missbrauch der Redefreiheit nicht durch Beschränkung derselben zu bekämpfen – selbst falls gewisse Meinungsäußerungen zugegebenermaßen beleidigend wirken könnten, sondern wir haben dafür zu sorgen, dass unsere Gesellschaft die Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung dazu nutzt, um derartige zweifelhafte Aussagen zu verurteilen und um zu einem respektvollen und konstruktiven Umgang miteinander zu gelangen“ Obwohl ICLA (Dänemark), BÜRGERBEWEGUNG PAX EUROPA (Deutschland), Mission Europa (Österreich) und der Akademikerbund (Österreich) aufgefordert wurden, die vorbereitete gemeinsame NGO- Erklärung (Observatory for Religious Freedom, Spanien; Alliance Defence Fund, USA; Paneuropa- Union, Österreich; Plattform Christianophobia in Europa, Österreich; Evangelischer Aufbruch, Deutschland) mitzuunterzeichnen, so sahen wir uns außerstande dazu. Es sind darin zwar ein paar akzeptable Punkte enthalten; andere Passagen die unserem Standpunkt völlig widersprechen sind jedoch höchst problematisch, selbst wenn die Absicht gut gemeint wäre. Beispielsweise ist der folgende Teil völlig untragbar: „Die Regierungen müssen religiöse Bekleidung in der Öffentlichkeit zulassen, es sei denn, übergeordnete Interessen, wie Sicherheit, öffentliche Ordnung oder Gesundheit zwingen sie anders zu entscheiden. Die Regierungen müssen in vollem Umfang und ungeachtet jeglicher Auswirkungen das Recht der Eltern anerkennen, die moralische und religiöse Erziehung ihrer Kinder selbst zu übernehmen, ohne Einmischung der Politik durch Indoktrination der in der Gesellschaft vorherrschenden Ideologie. Letztendlich müssen die Staaten anerkennen, dass Religion eine wichtige Quelle für moralisches Verhalten darstellt, die höherwertiger und somit über der säkularen Rechtsordnung steht.“ Religiöse Gesetze dürfen niemals einen höheren Stellenwert haben als die säkulare Rechtsordnung. Das wäre nämlich exakt das, was den Beifall der Moslems finden würde, weil sie genau das glauben: Die Scharia steht über allen anderen Gesetzen weil es Allahs Gesetz ist. Deshalb ein eindeutiges Nein zur Überlegenheit religiöser Gesetze gegenüber säkularen Gesetzen. Die Vorstellung, den Eltern das uneingeschränkte Recht auf moralische und religiöse Erziehung ihrer Kinder zu garantieren, würde bedeuten, die Tür für islamische Madrassas zu öffnen, die weithin dafür bekannt sind, den Nährboden für religiöse Indoktrination und Gehirnwäsche zu bereiten. Die Ansicht, dass die Eltern für ihre Kinder die moralische Erziehung alleine bestimmen, ist ja an sich ehrenwert, doch müssten muslimische Eltern sich zuallererst von den als problematisch geltenden Versen und Suren des Korans distanzieren und lossagen. (siehe „Charter for Muslim Understanding“). Andererseits, ein weiterer Teil des Textentwurfs wäre durchaus unterstützenswert gewesen: „Die Genehmigung von religiös genutzten Örtlichkeiten hat unter Berücksichtigung städtebaulicher Erwägungen sowie der künstlerischen, kulturellen, religiösen, architektonischen und ökologischen Eigenarten des Standortes zu erfolgen. Lösungen sollten im Dialog mit der örtlichen Gemeinde und den traditionell dort ansässigen Religionen gefunden werden. Die gesetzlichen Bestimmungen sollten hier einen klaren Unterschied machen zwischen Orten, die ausschließlich für Anbetungszwecke dienen und Orten, die daneben auch für Aktivitäten außerhalb des Gottesdienstes genutzt werden.“ Zur Vervollständigung hier noch ein Auszug aus einer Liste von Empfehlungen (manche davon ziemlich gefährlich), die im Vorfeld der Konferenz an die OSZE eingereicht wurden: Alliance Defense Fund (USA): Religionsfreiheit und Versammlungsfreiheit sind sich gegenseitig ergänzende Rechte, wobei ersteres dem letzteren eine ständige Aktualisierung, Weiterentwicklung und Beibehaltung abverlangt. Ein beunruhigender Trend liegt vor, wenn Gesetze zur Schaffung von Orten der Anbetung für die Minderheiten christlicher Religionen entweder illusorisch sind (wegen der anderslautenden Verwaltungsvorschriften, welche die gesetzlichen Bestimmungen zur Errichtung von Gebetsstätten aushebeln und damit nicht anwendbar machen), wie in der Türkei, oder gar nicht erst vorhanden sind, wie in mehreren der eher konservativen Nationen im Nahen Osten (Vereinigte Arabische Emirate und Saudi-Arabien). Weg der Versöhnung (Österreich): Die freie Meinungsäußerung ist die Grundlage und Basis für den Erfolg einer jeden Demokratie. Sie ist die Grundlage für die Würde des Menschen. Der Verlust der Redefreiheit ist der Anfang der Tyrannei, wie die Geschichte beweist. Sie ist in der EU durch hate-speech- (Hassrede-) und Antidiskriminierungs- Gesetzgebung derzeit sehr stark bedroht. Cojep International (Frankreich): In Europa beobachten wir, dass Muslime in zunehmendem Maße willkürlichen und diskriminierenden Beschränkungen in ihren Rechten ausgesetzt sind, ihre Religion öffentlich zur Schau zu stellen und zu praktizieren. Das geplante Schweizer Referendum, welches den Bau von Minaretten zu verbieten zum Ziel hat sowie das jüngst erlassene Gesetz für die österreichische Provinz Kärnten, das dem gleichen Zweck dient, sind zwei Beispiele für diese besorgniserregende Situation. Muslime sind auch besorgt wegen der Einmischung in ihre internen religiösen Angelegenheiten, vor allem dann, wenn sie sich nicht ihre eigenen Imame und Muftis aussuchen können. Wir möchten empfehlen, dass ODIHR die Sachverständigengruppe zur Religionsfreiheit ausgewogener zusammensetzt und gleichermaßen alle Regionen innerhalb der OSZE und alle religiösen Gruppen, Gläubige und Nicht-Gläubige repräsentiert. Zu diesem Zweck möchten wir vorschlagen, dass ODIHR mindestens noch einen Experten mit muslimischen Migrationshintergrund bestellt. Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association (Island): Abschaffung aller Blasphemie- Gesetze Muzaffar Olimov (Tadschikistan): Das Kopftuchverbot schränkt den Zugang der Frauen zu Bildung und Arbeit erheblich ein und diskriminiert so indirekt alle Frauen. In Tadschikistan, wo der soziale Status der Frauen ohnehin unterhalb dem der Männer liegt, sollte daher das Kopftuchverbot aufgehoben werden. Beobachtungsstelle für Intoleranz und Diskriminierung gegen Christen (Österreich): Radikale Gesetze zur Durchsetzung politischer Korrektheit sowie hate-speech-(Hassreden-) Gesetze können zur Beschränkung der Religionsfreiheit sowie der Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung führen. Wir fordern daher, ein behauptetes Recht, sich nicht beleidigt zu fühlen, nicht zuzulassen, welches schlussendlich die völlige Einschränkung der Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung von Einzelpersonen und Gruppen, einschließlich religiöser Menschen und Gruppen bedeuten würde. Observatory for Religious Tolerance and Freedom (Italien): Das ODIHR sollte Verletzungen der Religionsfreiheit gegen Mehrheitsreligionen nicht minderschwer betrachten, als die Verletzungen gegen Minderheitsreligionen, weil alle Verstöße als solche per se schwerwiegend sind und die OSZE-Richtlinien auch für die Mehrheitsreligionen gelten. Die Europäische Union (EU) war gleichfalls auf der Konferenz vertreten, einmal durch die Ratspräsidentschaft (Schweden) und auch durch die Europäische Kommission gegen Rassismus und Intoleranz (ECRI). Was nun folgt, sind Textpassagen aus den von der ECRI an die OSCE eingereichten Empfehlungen (wichtiges wurde von uns markiert): * ECRI betrachtet religiöse Intoleranz als Form von Rassismus * ECRI beschäftigt sich mit verschiedenen Formen von Intoleranz: mit Belästigung durch die Polizei und dem Umgang von lokalen Behörden mit sogenannten „nicht-traditionellen“ Gruppen, mit Gewalt gegen Personen und Eigentum durch nicht-staatliche Akteure und mit Hetzreden (inflammatory speech) von extremistischen Politikern und Medien. * ECRI äußert sich auch zur Verbreitung von Stereotypen und Vorurteilen (zum Beispiel, die begrenzte Bereitschaft einiger religiöser Gruppen, sich zu integrieren), und auch dem Beitrag, den Mainstream-Politiker zu einem negativen Klima dadurch leisten, indem sie solche Dinge wie Zwangsheirat und weibliche Genitalverstümmlung thematisieren. * Für ECRI gibt es keinen wirklichen Gegensatz zwischen dem Schutz der Redefreiheit und dem Kampf gegen religiöse Intoleranz. Es gibt eben Fälle, in denen es notwendig ist, letzterem den Vorrang vor ersterem zu geben. Es wird in diesem Zusammenhang darauf hingewiesen, dass das Zusatzprotokoll zum Abkommen des Europarats über Cyber-Kriminalität bis zu einem gewissen Grad die gleiche Position einnimmt. * In ihrer allgemeine politischen Empfehlung zur Bekämpfung von Rassismus und rassistischer Diskriminierung in Schule und Unterricht unterstreicht ECRI die Notwendigkeit eines Bildungsansatzes, der „unverzichtbar im Einklang mit der wissenschaftlichen Neutralität“ zu sein hat. * ECRI beschäftigt sich mit religiöser Diskriminierung in den Bereichen Arbeit und Wohnung. Dies betrifft unter anderem auch Frauen mit Kopftuch. * Der Dialog zwischen den Behörden und den Vertretern der religiösen Gruppen, als auch zwischen den verschiedenen Gruppen ist wichtig in einer multikulturellen Gesellschaft; von wesentlicher Bedeutung ist aber auch die Beobachtung der Lage durch die Behörden, durch einen Prozess der Datenerhebung, der den Grundsätzen des Datenschutzes und des Persönlichkeitsschutzes Genüge tut. Allerdings ist Multikulturalismus kein Selbstzweck. ECRI strebt die integrierte Gesellschaft an. Für uns ist die erfolgreiche Integration ein beidseitiger Prozess, ein Prozess der gegenseitigen Anerkennung, welcher nichts mit Assimilation hat. Eine „integrierte Gesellschaft“ in der Konzeption der ECRI ist eine, in der Mehrheit und Minderheiten völlig gleich sind. Wie gefährlich die Diskussion über Religionsfreiheit werden kann, wird sehr deutlich wenn man sechs Jahre zurück geht, zum „Runden Tisch“ über Religionsfreiheit und Demokratie, der in Rom im Jahr 2003, während der Herbst-Konferenz der OSZE über Religionsfreiheit, stattfand: Botschafter Babacar Ba sprach im Namen des Generalsekretärs der Islamischen Konferenz, Abdelouahed Belkeziz, und betonte die Bedeutung des Islam für die Menschheitsgeschichte und für die Werte der Toleranz und der Freiheit, die er stets fördere, während er Zusammenhänge zwischen dem Islam und den 11 September 2001- Terroranschlägen bestritt. Botschafter Ba betonte die positiven Beziehungen zwischen dem Islam und anderen Religionen, unter Hinweis darauf, dass der Islam im Laufe der Geschichte ganz harmonisch bestimmte Bestandteile der vorherigen Zivilisationen integriert habe. Er stellte eine Verbindung mit dem Mittelmeer-Aspekt der Rom- Konferenz her, indem er die entscheidenden Rolle der Mittelmeer-Region in der symbiotischen Beziehung zwischen Europa und dem Islam hervorhob. Zwei Koranverse zitierend unterstrich Botschafter Ba die Offenheit des Islam. Seiner Meinung nach sei der Islam seit jeher im Laufe der Geschichte ein gutes Beispiel für Toleranz gegenüber Juden, Christen und auch Ungläubigen gewesen, während er Zwangskonversionen stets abgelehnt habe. Botschafter Ba versuchte klärend auf die angeblichen Missverständnisse im Zusammenhang mit der Debatte über die Vereinbarkeit von Religion und Demokratie einzugehen. Er meinte, der Islam sei nicht weniger kompatibel mit der Demokratie als andere Religionen, basierend auf der Vorstellung, der Westen habe seine demokratischen Grundsätze ja nicht aus irgendeiner Religion, sondern von seinen großen Philosophen bezogen. Darüber hinaus führte er aus, die islamische Welt sei auf dem gleichen Weg wie der Westen, nämlich die Institutionalisierung der Trennung aller religiösen Institutionen vom Staat anzustreben. Er betonte das Engagement der OIC im Dialog zwischen den Kulturen und den Zivilisationen in allen seinen Beziehungen zu internationalen Organisationen, im Speziellen erwähnte er eine Initiative, die er „Dialog der Kulturen“ nannte. Wir sollten, unter allen Umständen, unbedingt das fortführen was wir im Juli 2009 begonnen haben.Wir müssen aufrütteln und diejenigen aufwecken, die sich aufwecken lassen. Vielleicht werden wir eines fernen Tages sagen können: Die OSZE brachte den Kommunismus zu Fall; die OSZE brachte auch den islamischen Herrschaftsanspruch zu Fall. ODIHR Teilnehmerliste (NGOs ab Seite 13) zur offiziellen Seite der ODIHR- Konferenz: Bericht (englisch) von ESW auf “Gates of Vienna” Bericht von Henrik R. Clausen (ICLA) Mission Europa Netzwerk Karl Martell

http://bpeinfo.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/die-osze-und-der-counter-jihad/