UPDATE: The Chicago Tribune (understandably busy with the Blagojevich blow-up) has the “first ever” newspaper interview with the official PEBO. As we said several days ago, PEBO has stated he wants to make a major speech from a muslim capital. Fine.

Barack Obama says his presidency is an opportunity for the U.S. to renovate its relations with the Muslim world, starting the day of his inauguration and continuing with a speech he plans to deliver in an Islamic capital.

And when he takes the oath of office Jan. 20, he plans to be sworn in like every other president, using his full name: Barack Hussein Obama.

Read the rest ->

“I think we’ve got a unique opportunity to reboot America’s image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular,” Obama said Tuesday, promising an “unrelenting” desire to “create a relationship of mutual respect and partnership in countries and with peoples of good will who want their citizens and ours to prosper together.”

The world, he said, “is ready for that message.”

BO seems to think the world is breathlessly anticipating his speech on the matter. Somehow I doubt it will have THAT big an impact, but it’s worth a try. Meanwhile, the UN is planning an “anti-racism” conference in February, 2009. Earlier this month, Forbes magazine did some research on the 2009 conference and the 2001 that spawned it.

From the original NQ post:

Forbes has an interesting article about a new UN “anti-racism” conference. This new conference will be held in Geneva, April 2009, hard on the heels of the last “anti-racism” conference, held in 2001.

The writer says she studied the now notorious 2001 conference while doing background on the upcoming one.

. . . a notoriously anti-Semitic United Nations conference held in 2001 in Durban, South Africa. Billed as an effort to fight racism, that Durban conclave focused instead on vilifying Israel–whipping up hatred to such an extreme that then- Secretary of State Colin Powell ordered the U.S. delegation to walk out.

The new “anti-racism” conference, called Durban Review Conference, is being organized by some people with serious anti-racism chops. Or not.

The 20-member preparatory committee, operating out of Geneva, is chaired by a Libyan ambassador, Najat Al-Hajjaji. Back in 2003, she chaired the U.N.’s former Human Rights Commission, which discredited itself not only by picking Al-Hajjaji, envoy of Libya’s despotic regime, to run the show, but also by slamming Israel 27 times from 2001 to 2006. As the State Department anti-Semitism report notes, this was more than twice the number of UNHRC criticisms leveled during that same period at North Korea, Burma and Sudan combined.

In 2006, as part of a package of U.N. “reforms,” that farce of a Human Rights Commission was dissolved. It was replaced by the current sham of a Human Rights Council, which in its first 16 months spent most of its time issuing 15 criticisms of Israel, and then singled out Israel to become a permanent item on its agenda.

This same Human Rights Council is now providing the official umbrella and support staff for the Durban Review Conference. Among the vice-chairs of the preparatory committee are emissaries of such unfree countries as Iran, Russia, Pakistan and Cameroon (which, according to New York-based Freedom House, still tolerates slavery in its northern reaches). Cuba–where wholesale repression includes the additional frill of job discrimination against Afro-Cubans–fills two seats at this Durban II table, which features both a Cuban vice-chair and Cuba as Rapporteur.

——————-

As for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, he was quick to express horror over the hate that fueled the terrorist assault on Mumbai. But he has done nothing to defuse the ticking bomb of Durban II. Instead, Ban’s office has been dutifully processing the multi-million dollar funding requests of the Durban organizers. The U.S., which contributes an out-sized 22% to Ban’s budget, is planning to withhold a small portion of that money in hope of pressuring the U.N. into better behavior. Good luck. The U.N. dodge has been to re-frame the total conference tab, now estimated at about $5.1 million, as coming mainly from resources already available, plus donations. China has committed $20,000, Russia $600,000 and a number of as-yet-unnamed member states are expected to pony up.

All of which begs the larger point, that U.S. taxpayers are the chief sugar daddies for the entire U.N. system, which–with its logo, premises and diplomatic perquisites–will give this conference a world stage and stamp of authority it would not otherwise enjoy.

The author ends with this.

Among the U.N.’s 192 member states, only two have had the backbone to announce that they will boycott the Durban Review: Canada, and for obvious reasons, Israel. In the U.S., President Bush has deferred any final decision to the next administration. President-elect Obama, what will you do about Durban II?

She asks a veeerrrrryyy interesting question. What will Obama do? He spent lots of campaign time race-baiting and allowed campaign operatives to use sexism and gender attacks. The LGBT and Hispanic communities are now finding BO’s implied anti-discrimination promise somewhat underwhelming. (Not that this should have come as any surprise to anyone paying the smallest amount of attention to the campaign, but I digress.)

Here’s the thing though. Early in his administration, BO will have to contend with organized anti-Semitism from an institution funded largely by the US. He’ll have to take a stand on racism – something he says is deeply important in his life. The idea of racism is so important to Obama he wrote books about it, centered his religious life around it, selected his home community because of it and built his Presidential campaign around it. Now he’ll have to take a stand when the issue does not directly address only himself or AAs. Given the players in this conference, I don’t see how BO can “finesse” this situation. He will either be against what Forbes called “a mob move against Israel,” or he will permit it. He may try to say the issues are complicated and complex, but the last “anti-racism” conference and the players in this one don’t deserve such hair-splitting from the “post-racial” US President who is, after all, supposed to heal the world.

Making this a little more interesting is the fact that Obama has already said as US President he wants to make a major speech from an Islamic country. The NYT thinks BO will go to Egypt.

President-elect Barack Obama’s aides say he is considering making a major foreign policy speech from an Islamic capital during his first 100 days in office.
————
It’s got to be Cairo. Egypt is perfect. It’s certainly Muslim enough, populous enough and relevant enough. It’s an American ally, but there are enough tensions in the relationship that the choice will feel bold. The country has plenty of democracy problems, so Mr. Obama can speak directly to the need for a better democratic model there. It has got the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist organization that has been embraced by a wide spectrum of the Islamic world, including the disenfranchised and the disaffected.

Politico seems to think it will be Jakarta.

The Obama donor, Los Angeles real estate executive Ted Leary, recalled that Obama spoke of his plan to donors at a February 20, 2007 breakfast fundraiser at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel, soon after announcing his run for president.

“Obama told the 20 or so of us at breakfast that ‘his first trip as President would be to Indonesia – the world’s most populous Muslim country,’” Leary recalled.

Commentary weighed in, not with a pick for the site, but with a comment on the potential speech itself.

The global problems generating from within the Muslim world today are so odious and so obviously self-inflicted that any honest speech on the matter would offend and enrage Muslims the world over. At the same time, because of these very problems, a softball speech about Islam’s current role in global affairs would look like cowardly capitulation. If Obama splits the difference and mixes lukewarm praise with lukewarm condemnation, the stunt will be seen rightly as meaningless.

Obama clearly wants closer ties to Islamic countries, for both foreign policy reasons and personal ones. But how will he handle further Islamic extremism? Does he think once he’s sworn in and speechifies from a carefully chosen Muslim capital that all will be sweetness and light? What, exactly, will it accomplish? But then, what will he do about the rampant anti-Semitism so clearly visible and so acceptable that the UN will sponsor another “notorious” anti-racism event like Durban? This isn’t “genteel” racism, done in code words or through suggestion. This is the real deal, where people regularly say in “polite society” that others do not have a right to live and are the source of all a region’s ills.

What will this post-racial President do? According to the writer at Forbes, another AA had a few words about this. Maybe he should lead the way.

When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism. –The Rev. Martin Luther King, 1968

What an appropriate song to recap the past week of Obama WORMing. (And hey, Jonatha Brooke is just COOL.) My personal favorite is him having to have a press conference to clear up what he said about Iraq recently. And then having to have a press conference to clear up what he said in the press conference. Same day. In Fargo, ND. He had a WORM session, then another WORM session to worm on the WORM (by the way, in case you don’t know, WORM stands for: What Obama Really Meant). I am telling you, people you just cannot make this stuff up. He had a press conference about his press conference. C’mon, that is freakin’ hilarious, don’t you think?

Well, I guess it WOULD be a tad funny if he wasn’t the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party, if people’s LIVES weren’t at stake, and if he hadn’t based his ENTIRE candidacy on a speech he allegedly gave back in 2002 to a very select audience regarding the Iraq War and it being BAD. But now? Well, I reckon it just depends on the day!! Tomorrow might bring something else COMPLETELY new!! (If you would like to see a complete list, and an excellent post, check out SusanUnPC’s, “Oppo Research on Obama’s Shifting, Finger-to-the wind Iraq Stance” at NoQuarterUSA. EXCELLENT piece. It lays it all out there.)

Oh, wait – then there is the whole FISA thing. Now THAT seems to be turning a few more heads, too. For a while, I often mentioned what was going on over at TalkLeft.com, but once Obama became the presumptive nominee, the site got behind him. Well, Big Tent Democrat, one of the two main bloggers there, and attorney who tepidly supported Obama, is pretty upset about the whole FISA thing. BTD seems to think the Declaration of Independence speaks out about just such invasions of privacy that the FISA change would include. BTD does not fall for Obama’s WORMing on this, either, as he notes in his fine piece, “A Response to Obama’s Defense of the FISA Capitulation.”

And then there is Obama’s flip-flop on why mental distress does not count as indicative of the health of a woman who is considering an abortion. Now THAT is some WORM right there. No, that is unkind to worms. Come to think of it, I don’t know to what that would NOT be an insult…Come up with your own. But yes, NARAL and all of these so-called progressive women jumped on this American-Idol style cult bandwagon supporting this man, this man who claims that “mental distress” should not count in factoring the health of a woman. They picked HIM over the woman who has a CONSISTENT, long term record on her work for women, a woman who 13 years ago claimed that,”Women’s Rights are HUMAN Rights,”.

So, how do you all feel NOW? Just this holiday weekend, Obama has shown more and more of who he truly is. Maybe all of these folks should have been looking just a little bit closer for his “Secrets and Lies.” We tried to tell them, I know we did.

Oh, one more little thing. And this follows up nicely (ahem) with discussing the treatment of women. Andrew Sullivan, of The Atlantic, nominated me for The Moore Award. As in Michael Moore. Sullivan’s definition of the award is, “is for divisive, bitter and intemperate left-wing rhetoric.” And what PROMPTED this award? My post the other day, “Why Do They Hate Us?” You know, the one about the misogynistic treatment of women? The one about ow Hillary Clinton has been treated in this primary, especially, but the misogynistic/sexist/brutal treatment of women in general in this country, and many around the globe? Specifically, he targeted this quote,

“Moore Award Nominee, June 30, 2008: “See, I have done a lot of work in the Domestic Violence movement. And I have seen this cycle before: the man abuses, attacks, and lashes out at the woman. The woman makes excuses for, and accepts blame from, the man for his attacks. Not unlike Senator Clinton saying now that they are friends, respect each other, and support each other. I know what respect looks and feels like – Senator Obama has shown NONE for Senator Clinton. Senator McCain has, but Obama? No. Seeing these photos of her with him now reminds me of battered women wearing sunglasses to hide the bruises, and saying, “Oh, he didn’t really mean it. It was my fault, really, I shouldn’t have made him mad. He really does love me, in his own way, really! Don’t be mad at him!”" – Revd Amy on Larry Johnson’s site.

Divisive? Bitter? Left-wing rhetoric? Um, no – realistic observation based on years of experience. But his award simply stands to prove the point I was making in the post, and Victoria Brownworth was making in Curve Magazine. So, thanks for proving the point, Andrew – women and our experiences, women and sexism, women and the constant threats we face, women and domestic violence, are discounted and disregarded by many in this country, and many in the media. Just what we have been saying all along – the media, particularly men, have openly denigrated women during this campaign, Hillary Clinton specifically. And gotten away with it. Hmm, come to think of it, I AM bitter – bitter that they have gotten away with it, and angry that they continue to show no understanding or REMORSE. Thanks for proving the point, Andrew! I might add, the ones who have been divisive around here have been Obama and his minions, not those of us who stand up to him and his “secrets and lies.” There is a big difference – it is called having a principled stand. Operating from integrity. Having a moral compass. Pick one. And maybe get one. That’s how all of these “Secrets and Lies” will be exposed…

UN ‘Human Rights Council’ bans criticism of Islam

The UN ‘Human Rights Council’ decided this week that it is forbidden to criticize Islam because “religious issues can be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense…This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it.” From now on, only religious scholars would be permitted to broach ‘religious matters’ before the Council.

So if you have a problem with a practice that is barbaric and inhuman you can’t ask the UN Human Rights Council to intervene. Not if that practice just so happens to be sanctioned by some nutjob that believes the practice is blessed by what he calls God. And yeah, I know that these same nutjobs believe that they also have the right to put out a hit on me for making the allegation. I am not only a non-believer, I am an infidel. An infidel that couldn’t care squat what some wacko Grand Sheikh says.

The ban came after a heated session on Monday, when the representative of the Association for World Education (AWE), in a joint statement with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, denounced female genital mutilation, the penalty of stoning for adultery and child marriage as sanctioned by Islamic law. Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested, interrupting the AWE speaker, David Littman, with no less than 16 points of order, and succeeding in getting the Council’s proceedings suspended for over half an hour.

It is especially peculiar that Shia Iran aligned itself with the Sunni nations of Egypt and Pakistan.

Imran Ahmed Siddiqui, the representative from Pakistan, echoed the ever-echoing refrain of all Islamic apologists in the West, when he complained that Littman’s initiative on genital mutilation, stoning and child marriage amounted to an “out-of-context, selective discussion on the Sharia law.” He asked that Littman not be allowed to speak: “I would therefore request the president to exercise his judgment and authority and request the speaker not to touch issues which have already been debarred from discussion in this Council.”

So there are certain things we can’t bring up at the dinner table we call the United Nations? Even if it is a chat about barbaric practices sanctioned by the radical offshoot of a religion by some Grand Poobah that issues a fatwa and justifies it as something consistent with Sharia law?

This is a form of madness, in my opinion.

I thought that the word Islam was supposed to mean peace. But for radical Islamists, peace requires remaining silent on the matters of genital mutilation, child marriages and the stoning to death of female adulterers. If you ignore those and of course those pesky little jihads then radical Islam is pretty chill. Unfortunately, diplomats from Egypt, Pakistan, and Iran are enabling the radicals by refusing to challenge these extremist views.

This is about the Sharia law.” Pakistan’s Siddiqui added: “I would like to state again that this is not the forum to discuss religious sensitivity.” Why not? Again sounding notes that are increasingly familiar in any discussion of the elements of Islam that jihadists and Sharia supremacists use to justify oppression, Siddiqui explained: “It will amount to spreading hatred against certain members of the Council. I mean, it has happened before also that selective discussions were raised in the Council to demonize a particular group.” He addressed Costea: “So we would again request you to please use your authority to bar any such discussion again, at the Council.”

Oh! So we cannot discuss these matters because it might make some people look bad. Isn’t that the fricking point? Is it now considered not ok to address some of the most horrid abuses of human rights because if we did so it might offend someone?

Free Speech Dies at the UN

After more discussion, a recess, and another warning from the representative from Egypt, Littman was finally allowed to proceed. After noting that “almost 90% of the female population in the north of Sudan undergo FGM which, in many cases, is practiced in its most extreme form known as infibulation,” Littman declared: “We believe that only a fatwa from Al-Azhar Grand Sheikh Sayyed Tantawi – replacing the ambiguous fatwas of 1949, 1951 and 1981 – will change this barbaric, criminal practice, which is now growing even in Europe.”

At this point Egypt interrupted, complaining that “this is an attempt to raise a bad traditional practice to Islam. Sheikh Al-Azhar [Sayyed Tantawi] is the president of the largest and the biggest and the oldest Islamic university in the world.” He exclaimed: “My point is that Islam will not be crucified in this Council. That’s why we are challenging this ruling” – that is, Costea’s decision to allow Littman to deliver his address.

Crucifying Islam? This is at best a reprehensible statement. Islam does not practice Christianity. But these folks and their radical interpretation of Islam apparently believe that it is okay to make a mockery out of Christianity. Who would anyone complain to after all?

According to these insane people and their heinous form of religion, the mutilation of female genitalia is an honor. Yes, you read that right.

An honor.

Yet an Islamic legal manual endorsed by Al-Azhar states that circumcision is required “for both men and women” (‘Umdat al-Salik, e4.3). And Tantawi himself has said, according to Geneive Abdo, author of No God But God: Egypt and the Triumph of Islam, that female circumcision is “a laudable practice that [does] honor to women.”

So line up ladies. And let these self declared ministers of peace honor you. After all, it’s a religious tradition and you wouldn’t want to offend anyone.

Would you?

Not only does this shameful episode bode ill for the human rights of women in the Islamic world; it also represents another victory in the war against free speech that Islamic supremacists have been pursuing with particular energy lately, calling on Western authorities to prosecute Dutch politician Geert Wilders for his film Fitna and Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard for his drawing of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, and in general to outlaw what they perceive as insults to Islam.

You might imagine that with a name like Pagan I might understand a thing or two about discrimination and distortion of what I practice as a religion. As old as my religion is there is one thing that has been a principle from the start. Men and women are equals. And the law applies to everyone.

So if my point of view offends you please know that I am the one offended. Because my religion requires that I speak out when anyone is treated with less respect than which they are entitled by the Goddess. This latest incident at the UN is a sad reminder that the task of rooting out the hatred that fuels much of the terrorism is difficult and, ironically, being thwarted by the very people who suffer its consequences. We need to be able to talk about difficult things in international fora. If we cannot discuss the matter then what other alternative remains but to fight? That’s not a guaranteed path for world peace if you ask me.