I begin this column with a quotation from Soren Kern’s Gatestone
article of December 11th, “OIC
Blames Free Speech for ‘Islamophobia’ in West
“:
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, an influential bloc of 57
Muslim countries, has released the latest edition of its annual
“Islamophobia” report.
The “Sixth
OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia: October 2012-September 2013

is a 94-page document purporting to “offer a comprehensive picture of
Islamophobia, as it exists mainly in contemporary Western societies.”
But the primary objective of the OIC—headquartered in Saudi Arabia
and funded by dozens of Muslim countries that systematically persecute
Christians and Jews—has long been to pressure Western countries into passing
laws that would ban “negative stereotyping of Islam.”
I’ve written in the past about the OIC’s continuing campaign to
insulate Islam from serious and satirical criticism here,
here,
and here
in its call for international censorship. In this column I will discuss some
angles Kern does not emphasize or discuss in his column.
The OIC report is unique in that it is illustrated and features photographs of individuals the OIC has found guilty of
“Islamophobia,” images of “offensive” newspaper headlines
and photographs, and even of “defamatory” FaceBook pages and
“tweets” that identify the alleged criminals. These can be found
between pages 10 to 83, which constitute the bulk of the report and represent a
“catalogue of crimes.” 
Kern writes, in reference to the OIC
report
:
But the common thread that binds the entire document together is
the OIC’s repeated insistence that the main culprit responsible for “the
institutionalization of Islamophobia” in Western countries is freedom of
speech, which the OIC claims has “contributed enormously to snowball
Islamophobia and manipulate the mindset of ordinary Western people to develop a
‘phobia’ of Islam and Muslims.”
According to the OIC, freedom of expression is shielding “the
perpetrators of Islamophobia, who seek to propagate irrational fear and
intolerance of Islam, [who] have time and again aroused unwarranted tension,
suspicion and unrest in societies by slandering the Islamic faith through gross
distortions and misrepresentations and by encroaching on and denigrating the
religious sentiments of Muslims.”
“Freedom of expression” occurs six times in the
document, while “freedom of speech” occurs only once. Not that it
makes a difference which term the document employs. (Hillary Clinton would
agree.)  The term “hate speech”
occurs fifteen times, while “hate crime” was used thirty-five times,
most frequently in the “catalogue of crimes.” The OIC demanded that
Islam be “respected” seventeen times, and cited the importance of
“interfaith dialogue” twenty-one times, even though such
“dialogue” notoriously is set on Islamic terms and can go only one
way, with concessions made by Christians and Jews, and none made by Muslims.
The term “toleration” and its variants, such as
“intolerance,” occur fifty-seven times in the document. What this
means in practice is that Western societies must “tolerate” the
depredations of Islam and “accommodate” Muslims at the price of Western
civil liberties, while any resistance or criticism of Islam’s ideology and
practices, such as primitive Sharia law, can be designated as bigoted
“intolerance.”
Islamophobia, as Kern points out, is a “nebulous term” invented for
the purpose of defaming the knowledge and certainty that Islam is primarily a
political nemesis of totalitarian character and that Islam does not tolerate dissension from its tenets
or the existence of other creeds.
According Robert Spencer and David Horowitz’s 2011 publication, Islamophobia:
Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future
:
 …A front group – the International Institute
for Islamic Thought – invented the term “Islamophobia.
Abdur-Rahman
Muhammad is a former member of the International Institute for Islamic Thought.
 He was present when the word
“Islamophobia” was created, but now characterizes the concept of Islamophobia
this way: “This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliché
conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down
critics.” In short, in its very origins, “Islamophobia” was a term designed as
a weapon to advance a totalitarian
cause
by stigmatizing critics and silencing them.
The term occurs in the 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document, “An Explanatory
Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America
,”
which details the means and ends of introducing Islam in the U.S. with the
long-term end of colonizing it with immigrant Muslims and gradually and
stealthily transforming it into an Islamic state. Kern quotes from the OIC
report:
Islam and Muslims have increasingly been portrayed as representing
violence and terror that seek to threaten and destroy the values of Western
civilization and that the Muslim way of life is incompatible with Western
values of human rights and fundamental freedoms. For Muslims, Islamophobia is a
deliberate scheme to distort the teachings and principles of peace and
moderation engrained in Islam. As part and result of this scheme, Muslims tend
to be collectively accused for any violence that erupts in society and are seen
as ipso facto potential suspects well ahead of any investigation. This negative
stereotype causes Muslims to be subjected to indignity, racial discrimination
and denial of basic human rights. (p. 11, OIC report)
Islam and Muslims are justifiably associated with violence and
terror and as a threat to Western civilization. That is, after all, an article
of faith expressed in the Muslim Brotherhood memorandum of 1991.
The Ikhwan [the Brothers] must
understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating
and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging”
its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is
eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.
And over all other ideologies, beliefs, and principles. There will
be no arguing the point. Kern goes on about how that “grand jihad” is
being carried out by calling for restrictions on speech that castigate or
criticize Islam, and quotes from the report:
The chapter further underscores that increased hate speech and
discrimination against Muslims is a major factor behind the rise of the
phenomenon of Islamophobia. In this context, acceptance of various forms of
intolerance, including hate speech and the propagation of negative stereotypes
against Islam and Muslims in some western countries contribute towards
proliferation of intolerant societies. This process is further supported by
three main manifestations, namely: the exploitation of freedom of expression
and perpetuation of an ideological context advocating an inescapable conflict
of civilizations; the right wing parties have politicized Islamophobia and
instrumentalized fear in the context of growing socio-economic instability as
well as the erosion of human rights in the name of national security and the
fight against terrorism. (p. 7, OIC report)
The report claims that the news media is largely responsible for
contributing to the alleged environment of fear and trepidation experienced by
Muslims.
…the negative role played by major media outlets who not only
propagate stereotypes and misperceptions about Islam, but also undermine and
usually keep shadowed any meaningful instance of individuals or groups speaking
out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred and violence.
This biased approach of the media has helped drawing an emphatically demonized,
sometimes dehumanized, image of Muslims in the minds of a certain class of
people which is predisposed to xenophobic feelings due to the increasingly dire
economic situation, or the simply to the irrational fear of the other. (p. 15)
This is one of the most absurd claims of the report. The mainstream
news media has not authored or perpetuated a “negative” stereotype of
Islam and Muslims. Quite the contrary, it has instead largely white-washed
Islam as a matter of editorial and journalistic policy, and denied that Islam
has any causo-connection with Islamic terrorism, or has gone through evasive
mental contortions to the same effect. If the news media has any “biased
approach” to reporting news about Islam, it is in favor of Islam. One
would need to search long and hard to find any major news media organization
broadcasting any “negative” stereotypes or misperceptions about
Islam.
Kern observes that:
The OIC concludes that “journalists and media organizations
have a responsibility to avoid promoting rhetoric of hate by acting as a
platform for its widespread dissemination.” (p. 30)
One supposes that the OIC’s model news platforms are Qatar-funded Al
Jazeera
and Russia’s government-funded RT (Russia Today).
Kern quotes two key paragraphs from the OIC report.
According to the OIC, freedom of speech is to blame for the
“perpetuation of Islamophobia,” which:
“…has become increasingly widespread, which, in turn, has
caused an increase in the actual number of hate crimes committed against
Muslims. These crimes range from the usual verbal abuse and discrimination,
particularly in the fields of education and employment, to other acts of
violence and vandalism, including physical assaults, attacks on Islamic centers
and the desecration of mosques and cemeteries.” (p. 11)
“In this context, acceptance of various forms of intolerance,
including hate speech and the propagation of negative stereotypes against Islam
and Muslims in some western countries contribute towards proliferation of
intolerant societies. This process is further supported by… the exploitation of
freedom of expression and perpetuation of an ideological context advocating an
inescapable conflict of civilizations.” (p. 7)
There is no mention in the report of the countless attacks on
Christian churches or Jewish synagogues by Muslims. No mention in it of the
countless physical attacks on Christians or Jews by Muslims. No mention of the
murders committed by Muslims of non-Muslims. No mention of the countless rapes
of non-Muslim women by Muslims in European countries. No mention of the nonstop,
formulaic verbal abuse, libels, slanders, demonizations, and denigrations of
Jews or Christians by Muslims in print or in person. No mention of the
standard, stereotyping caricatures of Jews as drooling vampires by Muslims, or
of the constant vilification of Jews as descendents of apes and pigs.
These are all “hate crimes” and instances of “hate
speech” that go unpunished and unrecognized. But Islam is by definition the very “intolerant
society” the OIC rails against with astonishingly arrogant verisimilitude,
and in which, in Koranic theory and in practice, Muslims would be the only ones
permitted “freedom of expression” in any way they chose with impunity.
Throughout the OIC report, Islam’s “victimhood card” is
as big as a highway billboard.
Kern also turns to the OIC’s campaign in the United Nations to get
its “tolerance” agenda approved and implemented.
Chapter 4 of the report, “OIC Initiatives and Activities to
Counter Islamophobia,” focused on the OIC’s ongoing efforts to promote the
so-called Istanbul Process, an aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it
an international crime to criticize Islam. The explicit aim of the Istanbul
Process is to enshrine in international law a global ban on all critical
scrutiny of Islam and Islamic Sharia law.
In recent years, the OIC has been engaged in a determined
diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United
Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution
16/18
, which calls on all countries to combat “intolerance, negative
stereotyping and stigmatization of… religion and belief.” (Analysis of the
OIC’s war on free speech can be found here
and here.)
And to prove that the U.N. knows and cares nothing about
“human rights” (another “nebulous term”), look who was
recently elected to be on its Human
Rights Council
:
The General Assembly today elected 14 countries to serve on the
United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) for a period of three years beginning
on 1 January 2014.
Algeria, China, Cuba, France Maldives, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia,
Saudi Arabia, South Africa, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Viet
Nam, Russia, and United Kingdom, were elected by secret ballot today at UN
Headquarters in New York.
When you grant formal recognition to governments and régimes that
are little more than secular or religious tyrannies, hereditary monarchies,
totalitarian behemoths, and tin pot dictatorships, this is the caliber of
absurdity and insanity one should expect. It’s called political
“diversity.”
Finally, Kern turns to the OIC report’s chief ends:
Chapter 5 of the OIC report provides a set of conclusions and
recommendations, which call on Western governments, international organizations
and non-state actors to:
“Take all necessary measures within their power and
legal/jurisdictional systems to ensure a safe environment free from
Islamophobic harassment… by strictly enforcing applicable hate crime and
discrimination laws;
“Create, whenever necessary, specialized bodies and
initiatives in order to combat Islamophobia… based on internationally
recognized human rights principles and standards;
“Combat Islamophobic hate crimes, which can be fuelled by
Islamophobic hate speech in the media and on the Internet;
“Take all necessary measures to ensure that the media
refrains from serving as a platform for the dissemination of hate speech… by
associating extremism and terrorism to Islam and Muslims… and presents the true
positive nature of Islam.
“Implement provisions of UNHRC Resolution 16/18 through the
Istanbul Process mechanism as it offers a positive platform for debate,
exchange of best practices and maintaining of a common and unified
stance.” (pp. 37-38)
There’s little humor to be found in the OIC report. But, on one
hand, just before it “condemns in the strongest possible terms the
reprehensible release of the film ‘The Innocence of Muslims’ as a deliberate
incitement to hatred that has deeply offended more than 1.5 billion Muslims and
all the people of conscience in the world” (p. 90; actually, it was just a
trailer for the film, and I was offended more by its sophomoric amateurishness
than by its content), the report noted that a “Ministerial Brainstorming [was] held during the 39th
Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers, held in Djibouti in 2012…” On
page 9, however, it was called a barnstorming
session.
Kern ends his article with:
The report concludes with the transcript of a speech by OIC
Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, in which he thanks American and
European political leaders for their help (here
and here)
in advancing his efforts to restrict free speech in the West.
“The Istanbul Process initiated with Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security
Policy Catherine Ashton to build further on the consensus building that went
into Resolution 16/18 must be carried forward. While the resolution forms a
triumph of multilateralism, Istanbul Process must also be seen as a poster
child of OIC-US-EU cooperation… I appreciate that this Process has come to be
recognized as the way forward by all stakeholders… We need to build on
it,” Ihsanoglu said. (pp. 92-93)
Hillary Clinton, presidential hopeful, in December 2011 hosted an
OIC “barn-or-brainstorming” session in Washington D.C. on how to curb
freedom of speech without curbing freedom of speech. CNS
observed
that:
The Obama administration says a meeting in Washington next week
seeks to make progress in combating religious intolerance, but critics say the
U.S. is pandering to an ideological agenda aimed at restricting speech critical
of Islam.
According to the State Department the aim is to find ways to
combat religious hate without compromising freedom of expression. Detractors
are skeptical that this can be done, and they suspect that free speech will end
up the loser.
Hillary Clinton thinks that censorship is just halal when it comes to accommodating
Islam and its 1.5 billion collect of brain-stultified manqués. She thinks that
a semantic barnstorming stunt can be pulled off without actually censoring any
and all criticism of Islam, serious or satirical.
However, remember what happened to the “Innocence of
Muslims” fellow who she and Barack Obama blamed for the Benghazi
attack
during which four Americans were murdered…by Muslims. Even those
responsible for the attack denied any connection of it with the video. The
attack was in the works
long before the video
was broadcast on YouTube.
But, to Hillary, what difference does that make?
 Are you Ready
for Hillary
in 2016? Prepared to shut your mouth and shut down your mind in
the name of “tolerance”? She hopes Americans are ready to submit. She
wants the White House very much.
She’s “organized” her own brand of campaign taqiyya, but, the way things are going,
that might not make a difference, either.