Human rights experts condemn distorted vision of Muslims in the film "Fitna"
Zuiko Azumazi
have been cited in this forum against Islam and Muslims. Do these so-called
"critics" now accept the United Nations condemnation of "the distorted
vision of Muslims in the film Fitna" and similar hate speech often posted to
this Islamic forum under the same provocative guise? Will these regular
interlocutors have the intellectual courage to concede their previous
distortions and withdraw them, acting in good faith, or will they try and
hide behind the "free speech" mantra with more weasel words and
equivocation?
Here's the press release, in the public domain, from the United Nations:-
<Quote> ...
Geneva, 28 March 2008: - - Three UN Special Rapporteurs today issued a joint
statement criticizing the provocative nature of a film depicting an
extremely distorted vision of Muslims, and urging a calm and measured
response to its release.
The Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Doudou Dične; the
Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir; and the
Special Rapporteur for the promotion and protection of the right to freedom
of opinion and expression, Ambeyi Ligabo, issued the following statement:
"We condemn the tone and content of the online film by Dutch Member of
Parliament, Mr. Geert Wilders, which was released on the Internet yesterday.
The film 'Fitna' illustrates an increasing pattern that associates Muslims
exclusively with violence and terrorism. It is crucial that efforts be made
by Governments to stop this pattern and take urgent measures to prevent
incitement to racial and religious hatred which is a major threat to peace
and social cohesion.
"While on the one hand, freedom of expression is a fundamental human right
that must be respected, it does not extend to include incitement to racial
or religious hatred which is itself clearly a violation of human rights.
Public expressions that paint adherents of a particular religion as a threat
to peace or global stability are irresponsible.
"We would like to make a special call for vigilance and tolerance. Following
the publication of the controversial caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in
September 2005, we urged all parties to refrain from any form of violence
and to avoid fuelling hatred.* Furthermore, we encouraged States to promote
the interrelated and indivisible nature of human rights and freedoms, and to
advocate the use of legal remedies. We also called on them to pursue a
peaceful dialogue on matters which go to the heart of all multicultural
societies. We reiterate those calls now.
"We recognize the quick and balanced reaction of the Dutch Government to the
release of this film in which it rejects the equation of Islam with violence
and notes that the 'vast majority of Muslims reject extremism and violence.'
"As Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations Human Rights Council, we call
upon all national and international human rights bodies and mechanisms to
urgently initiate a debate on the best way to ensure the complementarity and
balance of the fundamental rights of freedom of religion or belief and
freedom of expression as enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights. We believe that enhanced efforts to promote
inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue may help to restrain any
possible violent reaction."
<Unquote> ...
Is there any conscientious lesson we can learn from this global "Fitna"
condemnation, in regard to hostile SRI posts, "to stop this pattern and take
urgent measures to prevent incitement to racial and religious hatred which
is a major threat to peace and social cohesion." and so-called forum
"criticism" which shouldn't extend to include contemporary forms of racism,
racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance"?
--
Peace
--
Act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law. [Immanuel Kant]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Robert
Geert Wilders' film "Fitna" does not offer a "vision of Muslims" as
you imply; that it is said to do so is the basic falsifying fallacy in
your posting and in the UN report, which is of course a merely
political document.
The film is very simple: it demonstrates in graphic terms that the
violence of the Islamists is rooted in the verses of the Koran. The
Islamists have accepted this and have stated that it is not offensive:
it accurately defines their position. The film also shows how terrible
Islamic violence - and Koranic violence - are.
It is true that the film does not show that the majority, perhaps, of
Muslims are peaceable, but the Islam of the Islamists is an orthodox
development of the Koranic religion, and when the crisis comes, the
pressure is high, and the call for pure religion goes up, who can tell
which way the "peacable" majority will turn?
Zuiko Azumazi
news:47719f1f-7d2d-4b64...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> Geert Wilders' film "Fitna" does not offer a "vision of Muslims" as
> you imply; that it is said to do so is the basic falsifying fallacy in
> your posting and in the UN report, which is of course a merely
> political document. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
How do you mean it "does not offer" and is "merely a political document"?
Isn't Geert Wilders a politician who is making a malicious political
statement "depicting an extremely distorted vision of Muslims", as the Press
Release itself relates?
Surely the collective opinion of the auspicious "Three UN Special
Rapporteurs" is much more important on the geopolitical stage than the
humbuggery that passes for "criticism" over on the Islamophobe inspired
"Apocalyptic Blogosphere", which is often mindlessly parroted and echoed in
this forum?
What is the "basic falsifying fallacy" in the accurate reporting of the UN
press release about "Human rights experts condemn distorted vision of
Muslims in the film Fitna"? Can you give readers an example? In fact, isn't
this fanciful concoction totally irrational? Where is the any evidence of
"imply", when the UN document says; "criticizing the provocative nature of a
film depicting an extremely distorted vision of Muslims" itself? Isn't this
casuistic reply of yours a deceptive distortion of the printed facts
bordering on utter falsification (see "Doctrine of Equivocation" elsewhere
in this forum) or should I say, more appropriately, downright "taqiyya"?
Obviously, sensible subscribers can visit the relevant UN link and read the
"Press Release" in full themselves rather than accept your malicious
interpretation. Here's the relevant link that spells out "Human rights
experts condemn distorted vision of Muslims in the film "Fitna" and call for
dialogue and vigilance" :-
http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/8019AAF8EB34C2B3C125741A00630A06?opendocument
<Quote> ...
The Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Doudou Dične; the
Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir; and the
Special Rapporteur for the promotion and protection of the right to freedom
of opinion and expression, Ambeyi Ligabo, issued the following statement:
"We condemn the tone and content of the online film by Dutch Member of
Parliament, Mr. Geert Wilders, which was released on the Internet yesterday.
The film 'Fitna' illustrates an increasing pattern that associates Muslims
exclusively with violence and terrorism. It is crucial that efforts be made
by Governments to stop this pattern and take urgent measures to prevent
incitement to racial and religious hatred which is a major threat to peace
and social cohesion. ...
<Unquote> ...
But of course you are once again using a double-standard to falsely
criticise Muslims. Haven't you frequently used reports from the "UN special
rapporteurs" in your anti-Muslimism attacks and now you won't accept their
criticism of "Fitna" when its reversed.
Which raises the question, why are you actively defending, as is referenced
in the article "contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination,
xenophobia and related intolerance", against Muslims? Aren't you in so doing
being despitefully irresponsible according to; "While on the one hand,
freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that must be respected,
it does not extend to include incitement to racial or religious hatred which
is itself clearly a violation of human rights. Public expressions that paint
adherents of a particular religion as a threat to peace or global stability
are irresponsible."?
So is all of this valid "criticism" then a "basic falsifying fallacy" as you
artfully suggest? I'll let the readers decide that for themselves.
--
Peace
--
Malice, in its false witness, promotes its tale with so cunning a confusion,
so mingles truths with falsehoods, surmises with certainties, causes of no
moment with matters capital, that the accused can absolutely neither grant
nor deny, plead innocent. [Sir Philip Sidney]
Zuiko Azumazi.
zuiko....@gmail.com
Surfer
<zuiko....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On several occasions in the past the United Nations and Human Rights issues
>have been cited in this forum against Islam and Muslims. Do these so-called
>"critics" now accept the United Nations condemnation of "the distorted
>vision of Muslims in the film Fitna" and similar hate speech often posted to
>this Islamic forum under the same provocative guise?
>
I have not seen the film.
Could you give some examples of the words that you consider offensive?
Regards,
Surfer
Zuiko Azumazi
news:81iiv39n0rm2foolh...@4ax.com...
<snip> ...
>>On several occasions in the past the United Nations and Human Rights
>>issues
>>have been cited in this forum against Islam and Muslims. Do these
>>so-called
>>"critics" now accept the United Nations condemnation of "the distorted
>>vision of Muslims in the film Fitna" and similar hate speech often posted
>>to
>>this Islamic forum under the same provocative guise? ...
>> Here's the press release, in the public domain, from the United Nations:-
http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/8019AAF8EB34C2B3C125741A00630A06?opendocument
<snip> ...
> I have not seen the film.
> Could you give some examples of the words that you consider offensive?
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Well didn't the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon clearly spell that out when
he said in the UN press release :-
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=26128&Cr=islam&Cr1=alliance
<Quote>
Secretary-General today led a chorus of United Nations condemnation of the
Internet broadcast of a video made by the Dutch parliamentarian Geert
Wilders, describing it as "offensively anti-Islamic," while he also called
on those upset by the film to remain calm.
<Unquote> ...
But of course you aren't part of the "chorus of United Nations condemning
the Fitna video", who collectively described it as "offensively
anti-Islamic". What part of this wholesale condemnation don't you
understand? Isn't this explicit example good enough for yourself or are you
just interested in playing carping Islamophobe inspired word-games? As was
relayed above, didn't it show a "distorted vision of Muslims", in the
considered opinion of the "Three UN Special Rapporteurs", all
highly-regarded experts in the specialized human rights field? Why is such
independent expert opinion insufficient for yourself?
Doesn't it also make you rather the quarrelsome odd man out in this global
human rights rejection, as well as being a self-confessed non-expert "on
contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related
intolerance" distortedly projected against Muslims as a people?
--
Peace
--
The opinion of the intelligent is worth more than the certitude of the
ignorant. [Arab Proverb]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Herb Martin
"Zuiko Azumazi" <zuiko....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47fc386e$0$8437$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> Here's the press release, in the public domain, from the United
>>> Nations:-
>
> http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/8019AAF8EB34C2B3C125741A00630A06?opendocument
> <snip> ...
>
>> I have not seen the film.
First, a compliment, I have started making a POINT to read YOUR
posts, especially those where you respond personally as opposed
to (large quotes) of others such as this press release.
The "UN" doesn't have much credibility with many of us, especially
on such subjects, so *YOUR* personal opinion along with your
own offerings of where it is both objection and inaccurate (at the
same time preferably) would be much more reliable than some UN
personage without explicit examples.
I have watch only a portion of Fitna (and intend to eventually watch
the rest) so might I suggest you yourself watch it and note some of
the problems with it?
>From my studies it certainly does seem to present much of the worst
of Islam and the Qur'an but there don't seem to be any outright
innaccuracies but rather it seems to represent the case that is made
within Islam by the militant Islamists (e.g., Al Qaeda).
I am truly interested in YOUR opinion and the facts you would offer....
Zuiko Azumazi
news:4813c453$1$31721$4c36...@roadrunner.com...>
> "Zuiko Azumazi" <zuiko....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47fc386e$0$8437$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
<snip>
>>>> Here's the press release, in the public domain, from the United
>>>> Nations:-
http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/8019AAF8EB34C2B3C125741A00630A06?opendocument
<snip> ...
Surfer wrote:
>>> I have not seen the film.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I cannot answer for Surfer. So you must ask him about this in a separate
post.
<snip> ...
> The "UN" doesn't have much credibility with many of us, especially
> on such subjects, ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Whether you or I agree or disagree with the "UN" they will still remain as
the peak forum in the international community of sovereign nation-states. I
don't see any trend where nation-sates are relinquishing their membership of
this august institution on such "credibility" grounds.
Concerning global human rights issues and their referenced press release
about, as they say, "Three UN Special Rapporteurs today issued a joint
statement criticizing the provocative nature of a film depicting an
extremely distorted vision of Muslims, and urging a calm and measured
response to its release." What else need to be said about this accurate
critical assessment by any sensible interlocutor? Are you saying this sober
criticism of the "Fitna" film is somehow invalid in the representative
majority human rights worldview? Surely, you aren't trying to defend this
blatant piece publicity seeking and intolerant demagoguery? Can you
elaborate further if you are? What do you object about this particular
section:-
<Quote> ...
"We condemn the tone and content of the online film by Dutch Member of
Parliament, Mr. Geert Wilders, which was released on the Internet yesterday.
The film 'Fitna' illustrates an increasing pattern that associates Muslims
exclusively with violence and terrorism. It is crucial that efforts be made
by Governments to stop this pattern and take urgent measures to prevent
incitement to racial and religious hatred which is a major threat to peace
and social cohesion.
"While on the one hand, freedom of expression is a fundamental human right
that must be respected, it does not extend to include incitement to racial
or religious hatred which is itself clearly a violation of human rights.
Public expressions that paint adherents of a particular religion as a threat
to peace or global stability are irresponsible.
<Unquote> ...
I thought that it was self-evident that the malicious "Fitna" film presented
a "distorted vision of Muslims" and that is was divisively "provocative'.
Why didn't you reach the same conclusion as the majority of its critics?
(See my previous "Fitna" thread).
Why do Muslim interlocutors personally need to dignifyingly comment on this
fact, when Ban Ki-moon has clearly stated that it was "offensively
anti-Islamic" and "there is no justification for hate speech or incitement
to violence."? What is your justification for any such anti-Islamic hate
speech?
With respect, you might want bone up on the fallacy of the "loaded
question" link before continuing with this spurious line of mistaken
interrogative questioning?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
Remember Friedrich Nietzsche famous dictum: "The most perfidious manner of
injuring a cause is to vindicate it intentionally with fallacious
arguments."
Out of general interest, who is this "many of us" (that dislike the "UN")
that you purportedly represent in this peaceful Islamic forum?