Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

Op-Ed: Genocidal Leader Slams Fitna As Human Rights Violation

By Johnny Simpson     Mar 31, 2008 in Politics
"The offenses against our Arab and Islamic nations under the banner of freedom of expression are derogatory and defamatory and go against all human values," Sudan president Omar al-Bashir said at a recent Arab summit in Syria. 'Human Values' indeed.
The irony could not be more profound, and would be laughable if the situation were not so tragic or important. Perhaps even more disturbing is that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon agrees with this Islamist Paragon of Virtue word for word on both the problem AND the solution. More on that later. First, let us hear the Paragon speak his humble and virtuous mind:
Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, the architect of the Darfur genocide which has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced millions more, strongly condemns Geert Wilders' controversial new film 'Fitna' on humanitarian grounds. [1]
Mr. Bashir also called on Muslims at that same Arab summit in Damascus to 'challenge those who insult' the prophet and proposed a 'binding international charter' calling for the 'respect of religious beliefs,' the AP reported earlier today.
In the interest of brevity I will not rehash what we already know about the hundreds of thousands slaughtered in cold blood, the millions displaced, the female genital mutilations, the modern-day crucifixions of Christians or the reviled and long-discarded practice of slavery enjoying a robust revival in Mr. Bashir's Islamist Paradise. Rather, I will let noted authorities speak for me on the subjects of 'human values' and 'respect for religious beliefs' as they pertain to the esteemed human rights advocate Mr. Bashir himself.
1. In an Interim Report by a UN panel of experts dated 14 April 2007, the Sudanese government was accused of painting military aircraft white, the same color as UN humanitarian flights, in direct violation of Article 24 (i) of the Sudan Peace Agreement and for the express purpose of deceiving civilians on the ground into exposing themselves to military attack.
The Sudanese government continues to operate similarly disguised military aircraft to this day, targeting schools, churches, markets, refugee camps and relief aid centers in the south in direct violation of the Geneva Convention, the UN Human Rights Charter and many other international conventions proscribing the intentional targeting of civilians by military forces. [2]
2. The Sudanese government not only allows the heinous practice of the trafficking of human beings within its borders, but actually promotes its exercise as a matter of state policy.
'The Government of Sudan has trained their own Peoples' Defense Forces (PDF) and armed Arab tribes in the North with the express objective of using them to capture women and children in the South and the other marginalized areas inhabited by Sudanese Africans. The government does not pay them salaries but has instructed them that their pay is the booty they obtain from the raids on Southern villages.
'In these raids the elderly and sick are usually killed on the spot and their food granaries set ablaze. The children and young women who are taken and sold into slavery in the North and other Arab countries in the Middle East are used as domestic servants, cattle keepers, farm workers, concubines, and very often given out as gifts. It is estimated that as many as 200,000 Southern Sudanese and Nuba children and women have been taken into slavery." [3]
3. The Sudanese government also continues to engage in the practice of what former US Senator Bill Frist calls 'calculated starvation' and using food as a weapon to coerce the starving into the Islamic faith.
"The Sudan government is notoriously known for creating famine or what Senator Bill Frist calls "calculated starvation" for the people of the South and the Nuba Mountains. It does this by bombing Southern villages and denying relief flights to areas in need of relief assistance. According to the US Agency for International Development, between 100,000 and 200,000 South Sudanese people perished as a result of this man made famine.
'The Sudan government also uses food as a means for luring Southern Sudanese Christians into its so-called peace camps which are located in the desert far away from the amenities of the cities. These camps resemble the concentration camps of Nazi Germany. Food distribution in these camps is carried out exclusively by Islamic organizations, which use the food for converting Southern Christians into Islam. If one does not bear an Islamic name one is denied food. Clearly, therefore, the Sudan government is guilty of using food as a weapon of coercion to force people to embrace the Islamic faith." [3]
So much for the 'respect of religious beliefs.' Perhaps the larger issue here for those of us not living the nightmare that is Darfur is what, exactly, is Mr. Bashir's idea of a 'binding international charter' calling for the 'respect of religious beliefs'? What should be even more disturbing to free peoples is that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon appears to concur with Mr. Bashir in his own official public statement that Fitna is both an affront to Islam and a matter than can best be resolved by the pre-emptive blanket censorship of all things 'un-Islamic.'
'I condemn, in the strongest terms, the airing of Geert Wilders’ offensively anti-Islamic film. There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence. The right of free expression is not at stake here. I acknowledge the efforts of the Government of the Netherlands to stop the broadcast of this film, and appeal for calm to those understandably offended by it. Freedom must always be accompanied by social responsibility.
'The United Nations is the centre of the world’s efforts to advance mutual respect, understanding and dialogue. We must also recognize that the real fault line is not between Muslim and Western societies, as some would have us believe, but between small minorities of extremists on different sides with a vested interest in stirring hostility and conflict.' [4]
Let's break Mr. Moon's statement down, shall we?
'There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence."
I agree. There is no justification for the leaders of Islamic states like Sudan and Iran, or their radical Imams and clerics, to rile up their volatile Islamist cadres with hate speech to incite violence against Geert Wilders, Ali Hirsi Ani, Salman Rushdie, the Danish cartoonists, LiveLeak employees or infidel Western kaffirs in general.
'The right of free expression is not at stake here.'
I tend to think that I, the above named defendants and millions of others like us in the free West would strongly beg to differ. Censorship efforts were well under way long before the film was even released, such as the US-based Network Solutions' pulling of the reserved Fitna website before there was even any content. Is this a portent of the Utopian Paradise of Free Expression we can expect to see in the future as it pertains to offending tender Muslim sensibilities?
'The United Nations is the centre of the world’s efforts to advance mutual respect, understanding and dialogue. We must also recognize that the real fault line is not between Muslim and Western societies, as some would have us believe, but between small minorities of extremists on different sides with a vested interest in stirring hostility and conflict.'
Small extremist minorities like Omar al-Bashir of the Sudan, or Mahmud Ahmedinejad of Iran, or the leaders of HAMAS and Hezbollah who in effect control the machinery of state, political and religious power which they often wield to incite hatred, murder and genocide, as well as subjugating their own citizens with arbitrary and capricious Islamist laws and brutal punishments which include unlawful detention, torture, rape, amputation, stoning, beheading and the public hanging of women and homosexuals from crane wires which involves slow, torturous, prolonged strangulation? THOSE minorities?
Excuse me, but my definition of 'extremist minority' is a basement full of skinheads getting drunk, surfing Aryan Supremacist websites and reading the Turner Diaries, NOT the leaders of oppressive Islamic states like Sudan and Iran or their radical Islamist clerics who hold religious and ideological sway over vast swaths of their constituencies.
Lastly, Mr. Moon's Coup de Grace:
'I acknowledge the efforts of the Government of the Netherlands to stop the broadcast of this film, and appeal for calm to those understandably offended by it. Freedom must always be accompanied by social responsibility.'
I don't know about you, but I get a very bad feeling when I hear the Secretary General of the United Nations applauding censorship efforts in a free sovereign state like Holland over a film he himself no doubt has never even watched.
I also find it ironic that such appeals for calm are never necessary when it is Christians, Jews or secularists like me that are highly offended by the likes of the Hitler Youth mind-control programming of HAMAS' JihadTV For Kids' Network, which Hitler himself would have marvelled at in awe. Or the steady fetid stream of anti-Western, anti-Christian and anti-Semitic hatred and filth passing itself off as journalism in the Arab world today.
Lastly, I can only wonder what would be contained in any UN 'binding resolution' or charter 'calling for the respect of religious beliefs' that isn't already well-defined in the original UN Declaration on Human Rights. [5]
Since it appears that Mr. Moon is in total agreement that 'Fitna' or any other materials deemed 'anti-Islamic' by the likes of Mr.Bashir and Mr. Amedinejad should never see the light of day, I can only imagine what rules and proclamations such a charter would construe as binding. Would such a charter give the UN power to impose economic and other sanctions on free democracies like Holland, Denmark and Britain when their authors, artists, filmmakers, cartoonists, websites such as LiveLeak and even well-meaning schoolteachers who innocently name a teddy bear 'Mohammed' cross the 'anti-Islamic' line?
Will reparations to Islamic states like Sudan and others in the Muslm world be enforced upon said free nations and others to salve the psychological wounds such 'anti-Islamic' materials as Fitna and the Danish cartoons inflict upon the Religion of the Perpetually Outraged? Better yet, will people like Geert Wilders, cartoonist Kurt Westergaard and even Ali Hirsi Ani and Salman Rushdie be compelled to stand trial in some UN kangaroo court presided over by the likes of Bashir and his Janajweed minions, who take great offense at a controversial video but think nothing of extinguishing thousands of human lives in a day?
Or will free and democratic nations kowtow under the pressure and begin the process of rigorous self-censorship by decree, as many in the Western press do now in order to placate the raging mobs of Islam, thereby assuring themselves that the swords of Allah's more radical adherents will not fall upon their throats as they did Theo van Gogh's?
Worst case scenarios? Perhaps. Paranoid? Also, perhaps. But the alarm bells go off in the back of my head when I see such a powerful and influential public figure as the Secretary General of the United Nations and the architect of the Darfur genocide in total agreement on so supremely important a subject as to what constitutes freedom of speech and expression in free nations and, more important, what does not. The fecklessness of many artists, authors, publishers, journalists, politicians and other public figures in the West to stand up in defense of Geert Wilders, or the freedoms for which countless brave men and women have perished to defend and preserve, does not fill me with hope for the future, to say the least.
If anything, the only news that brings me comfort is that some politicians and others have spoken out against this vehement worldwide assault on Western freedoms, and that by far the vast majority of commenters on blogs like Digital Journal, LiveLeak and even USA Today are both passionate and surprisingly eloquent in their overwhelming support of Geert WIlders, Fitna and the right of free societies to view such controversial materials without prior self-censorship motivated by intimidation and the fear of violence by the truly ignorant and unenlightened. Like Mr. Bashir, for example.
Keep your eyes open, people. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, this is not the end of the Fitna vs. Free Expression war. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. A lot more to come.
In closing, I leave you with this opening statement of the Preamble from the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the content of which UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon seems as blissfully unaware of as the content of 'Fitna.'
'Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
'Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.'
1.'Arab, Muslim Leaders Denounce Anti-Islam Film by Dutch Filmmaker.' USA Today, March 30, 2008.
2. 'Interim Report of the Panel of Experts on Sudan,' United Nations, April 18, 2007.
3.'War and Genocide in Sudan,' Sabit A. Alley, iAbolish newsletter, American Anti-Slavery Group.
4. 'Official Statement of the Secretary-General of the United Nations,' SG/SM/11483, Department of Public Information.
5. Universal Declaration On Human Rights, General Assembly of the United Nations, December 10, 1948.
More about Darfur, Fitna, Genocide
Latest News
Top News