...Ever since he took office, the OIC secretary-general has been working on formulating ways and means to stop acts of religious intolerance.
“It was during my address to the 15th session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva that I outlined a new approach toward evolving a consensus against incitement to violence and intolerance on religious grounds that could endanger peaceful coexistence and must be viewed as a direct contrast to the very notion of a globalized world,” said Ihsanoglu. “I am glad that the eight points in the proposed approach found resonance with all the negotiating partners. They formed the basis of the consensus reflected in Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. The importance of the consensual adoption of this resolution should be duly recognized.”
He said challenges remain.
“However, the test would lie in the implementation. Having been successful at consensus building, we must now act in concert to build on the consensus. The adoption of the resolution does not mark the end of the road. It rather signifies a beginning based on a new approach to deal with the whole set of interrelated issues,” said Ihsanoglu. “Resolution 16/18 provides a good basis for concerted action by states, at both national and international levels and must be utilized accordingly. Otherwise, we would be faced with the unaffordable risk of the agenda being hijacked and set by radicals and non-state actors.”
Ihsanoglu said there was a delicate balance between freedom of expression and incendiary speech.
“We continue to be particularly disturbed by attitudes of certain individuals or groups exploiting the freedom of expression to incite hatred by demonizing purposefully the religions and their followers. Though we respect their freedom of opinion and expression, we find these attitudes politically and ethically incorrect and insensitive.”He sounds like a regular Bernie Farber, doesn't he? Censorious to the core. Thing is, you can't "balance" free speech and "incendiary speech." Free speech is, by definition and requirement, often "incendiary." Also "politically and ethically incorrent and insensitive." Also irreverent, rude, cheeky and insulting. Also downright upsetting. So what? If you get rid of the incendiary, insensitive, upsetting, insulting bits--and I know this part is hard for some to comprehend--it isn't free. And if it isn't free, then neither are we.
You can see what's happening here, can't you? The Ottoman is telling us kafirs that if we don't want violent jihadis, er, sorry, "radicals and non-state actors," to do their damage, we had better hew to the state actors' sharia rules on "free speech"--or else. (Meanwhile, you can be sure that the rules won't apply to Muslims in the Muslim world, who will continue to spew their Zionhass freely and enthusiastically.) How dumb are we, state actors of the West, that we are smiling through the OIC's latest smarm 'n' and charm offensive, consenting sans the least demurral to play our new supporting role on the world stage: toothless, tongueless, gelded dhimmis?