Monday, January 04, 2016

Twitter’s Blue Bird of Sharia Compliance

Twitter seems to be in partnership with the U.S. House of Representatives in its determination to culturally enrich America with Sharia speech restrictions. On December 22nd I reported, in my Rule of Reason  column, “A Congressional Overture to Censorship,” on House Resolution 569, submitted on December 17th to the House committee process, which in its content and intent, preempted Twitter’s January 1st, 2016, publication of its new rules that prohibit the promotion of hate content, “sensitive” topics, and the advocacy of violence globally. Ostensively, it is a stab at combating terrorists from using Twitter as a means of communication to its allies and its enemies, but it is too coincidental with both the Congressional resolution and the OIC’s Sharia compliance plans. Here is a copy and paste from Twitter’s support page.

What products or services are subject to this policy?

This policy applies, but is not limited, to:

·         Hate speech or advocacy against an individual, organization or protected group based on race, ethnicity, national origin, color, religion, disability, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status or other protected status. Violence or threats of violence against people or animals
·         Glorification of self-harm or related content
·         Organizations or individuals associated with promoting hate, criminal, or terrorist-related content
·         Inflammatory content which is likely to evoke a strong negative reaction or cause harm.
  • Offensive, vulgar, abusive or obscene content  [Emphasis mine]
What products or services are not subject to this policy?  This policy generally does not prohibit:

  • News and information that calls attention to hate, sensitive topics, or violence, but does not advocate for it
  • Commentary about products, services, companies, or brands, including potentially negative commentary
 The Twitter rules do not mention Islam or Muslims, but the whole statement is in line with the 57-member state Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) Ten-Year-Programme to impose UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 globally and especially on the U.S.  The OIC “program” was inaugurated in December 2005 and has, as of December 31st, 2015, accomplished its ten-year goal. In Part III of its program, it specifies:

III.      Islam - The Religion of Moderation and Tolerance

1.  Endeavour to spread the correct ideas about Islam as a religion of moderation and tolerance and to safeguard Islamic values, beliefs and principles in order to fortify Muslims against extremism and narrow-mindedness.

2.  Condemn extremism in all its forms and manifestations, as it contradicts Islamic and human values; and address its political, economic, social, and cultural root-causes, through development programs and resolution of long-standing conflicts, which are to be faced with rationality, persuasion, and good counsel.

 3.  Emphasize that inter-civilizational dialogue, based on mutual respect and understanding, and equality amongst people are prerequisites for international peace and security, tolerance, peaceful co-existence, and participation in developing the mechanism for that dialogue.

4.  Encourage inter-religious dialogue and underline common values and denominators.

5.  Ensure the participation of the OIC and its specialized bodies, as a proactive partner in the dialogue among civilizations and religions, as well as in initiatives and efforts exerted in this regard.

6. Utilize the different mass media in order to serve and defend the causes of the Muslim Ummah, promote the noble principles and values of Islam, and correct misconceptions about it.

7.  Strive for the teaching of Islamic education, culture, civilization, and the jurisprudence and literature of difference; call on Member States to cooperate amongst themselves in order to develop balanced educational curricula that promote values of tolerance, human rights, openness, and understanding of other religions and cultures; reject fanaticism and extremism, and establish pride in the Islamic identity.

Stephen Coughlin has minutely detailed the stealth jihad concerning “interfaith dialogue” throughout his Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, but most particularly in the Appendix, Part XI, “Interfaith Outreach,” reviewed on Rule of Reason in “Interfaith Bridges to Islam.” The OIC’s principal goal is to stamp out “Islamophobia.” Stating the truth about Islam is treated as “Islamophobia,” and even stating a demonstrable and uncontroversial truth about Islam is “slander.”

What must be kept in mind when reading Point III is that all the benign, surfacy terms such as “understanding,” “tolerance,” “mutual respect,” “openness,” “human rights, and “equality” do not mean to the OIC or in Sharia what they mean to Westerners. They mean the exact opposite. Exploiting the postmodern miasma of words having no fixed meaning, The OIC and its UN doppelganger Resolution 16/18 have consciously engaged in what can only be called Super-Taqiyya, of saying one thing to the public but meaning quite another thing to and among Muslims.

VII.     Combating Islamophobia

1.  Emphasize the responsibility of the international community, including all governments, to ensure respect for all religions and combat their defamation.

2.   Affirm the need to counter Islamophobia, through the establishment of an observatory at the OIC General Secretariat to monitor all forms of Islamophobia, issue an annual report thereon, and ensure cooperation with the relevant Governmental and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in order to counter Islamophobia.

3.  Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.

4.  Initiate a structured and sustained dialogue in order to project the true values of Islam and empower Muslim countries to help in the war against extremism and terrorism.

VIII.  Human Rights and Good Governance:

1.  Seriously endeavor to enlarge the scope of political participation, ensure equality, civil liberties and social justice and to promote transparency and accountability, and eliminate corruption in the OIC Member States.

2.  Call upon the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers to consider the possibility of establishing an independent permanent body to promote human rights in the Member States, in accordance with the provisions of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam and to also call for the elaboration of an OIC Charter for Human Rights. Introduce changes to national laws and regulations in order to guarantee the respect of human rights in Member States.

3. Mandate the OIC General Secretariat to cooperate with other international and regional organizations to guarantee the rights of Muslim Minorities and Communities in non-OIC Member States, and promote close cooperation with the Governments of the States hosting Muslim communities.

 If one treats the OIC as a global caliphate entity, one can see that it is already moving to impose Sharia controls over everyone everywhere, affiliated with the United Nations. The House Resolution, however, is certainly copacetic with both the OIC’s program and UN Resolution 16/18 and with even the Countering Violent Extremism narrative (CVE), which is built into our emasculated “War on Terror” efforts. One can only suspect that the wording of Resolution 569 is not only indicative of Congress’s willingness to submit to Sharia, but also of the subornation of Congress itself by a foreign power to abridge or obviate the First Amendment. The OIC is certainly a “foreign power.”

Frank Gaffney, in his Breitbart column of January 3rd, “Shariah-Compliant Twitter,” reported also that a sitting president and a presidential candidate (but then Secretary of State) are behind UN 16/18 and the OIC’s efforts to gag America when it comes to even thinking about Islam.

In 2011, with the active support of the Obama administration, this gambit produced UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. It basically gives the imprimatur of international law to Shariah’s demand that speech, books, videos and now Tweets that “defame” Muslims or their faith be prohibited.

In July of that year, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton implicated herself personally in this affront to our First Amendment guarantee of free expression. She launched with the OIC and the European Union the so-called “Istanbul Process,” a tripartite effort to accommodate the Islamic supremacists’ demands that Western nations conform to Resolution 16/18 by adopting domestic strictures against offense-giving to Muslims. 

On that occasion, Mrs. Clinton famously declared her willingness “to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.” The message could not have been more clear to jihadists around the world: The United States was submitting to shariah blasphemy norms.

Clinton has since doubled down on that commitment. Medichecker, in “Hillary Clinton: Defamation of Islam Must be Prevented — in America (UN Resolution 16-18), ” reported on May 1st, 2014:

At the invitation of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, representatives of 26 governments and four international organizations met in Washington, D.C. on December 12-14, 2011 to discuss the implementation of United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution (UNHRC) 16/18 on “Combating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping and Stigmatization of, and Discrimination, Incitement to Violence and Violence Against, Persons Based on Religion or Belief.” In her closing remarks, Secretary Clinton stressed, “The United States is hosting this conference because religious freedom and freedom of expression are among our highest values. They are enshrined in our Constitution. For people everywhere, faith and religious practice is a central source of our identity. It provides our lives with meaning and context. It is fundamental to who we are.” (Emphasis in article; Italics mine.)

There’s that Obama meme, “Who we are,” about which he knows nothing concerning who or what the U.S. is, or is hostile to. It has been repeated several times since 2014 by the usual suspects. Mediachecker goes on to point out:

The OIC’s purpose, as stated explicitly in its April 2011 4th Annual Report on Islamophobia, is to criminalize “incitement to hatred and violence on religious grounds.” Incitement is to be defined by applying the “test of consequences” to speech. Under this twisted perversion of falsely “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” it doesn’t matter what someone actually says — or even whether it is true or not; if someone else commits violence and says it’s because of something that person said, the speaker will be held criminally liable. (Emphasis in article)

In other terms, if you called Al Capone a syphilitic mobster, it would be a true statement, but it would earn you a pair of concrete shoes and a permanent dip in Lake Michigan. “Yes, it’s true,” Frank NItti , Capone’s second-in-command and heir, might say, “but we don’t want you should be telling others that, people might get the wrong impression, it’s slander and a defamation of Al’s character.”

The OIC is taking direct aim at free speech and expression about Islam. Neither Christianity nor Judaism is named in the OIC’s official documents, whose only concern is to make the world safe from “defamation” of Islam — a charge that includes speaking truthfully about the national security implications of the Islamic doctrine of jihad. (Emphasis in article)

Per the OIC and Resolution 16/18 rules, under “Slander and Free Expression”, Part IV, “Organization of the Islamic Caliphate,”  in Catastrophic Failure, Stephen Coughlin goes into detail about the implications of making a true statement about Islam. He quotes from Reliance of the Traveler, a basic and fairly comprehensive manual of shariah law:

Under the Sharia slander regime, someone can be guilty of slander even if what is said is true. Getting more specific from Reliance:

In fact, talebearing is not limited to that, but rather consists of revealing anything whose disclosure is resented….The reality of talebearing lies in divulging a secret, in revealing something confiddential whose disclosure is resented. A person should not speak of anything he notices about people besides that which benefits a Muslim.

Slander in Islamic law does not necessarily concern questions of truth or falsity but rather the inviolability of Muslims and, by extension, the Qur'an, Islam, and its Prophet. Slander is saying something disfavored by Islam.  (pp. 249-250; emphasis author’s.)

In every set of rules, even in Sharia, there is a loophole. Coughlin continues:

There are, however, six reasons for permitting slander, only one of which we will review. From “Permissible Slander,” in Reliance:

Slander, though unlawful, is sometimes permissible for a lawful purpose…the legitimating factor being that there is some aim countenanced by sacred law that is unattainable by other means.”

This means that when an issue favored by shariah cannot be advanced honestly, then defaming an opponent or his issue becomes permissible. This can take the form of accusing someone of defaming Islam or, as has become the narrative, of Islamophobia. (p. 250; emphasis author’s.)

It also means defaming Israel, defaming Germans who protest the Islamification of Germany, slandering Britons who oppose the Islamification of Britain, and so on. The worst adherents to Sharia law in defaming their enemies, are not Muslims, but dhimmified Western politicians, charitable organizations, and the Sharia observant MSM.

Twitter, five percent of whose stock is owned by Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud, a co-enabler of Islamic terrorism together with his princely brothers, cousins, and nephews, who in 2011 invested $300 million in the social network, has been dhimmified, as well.

Tweeters, be advised. And beware. Twitter is becoming a veritable anti-social network, thanks to Sharia.

Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, by Stephen Coughlin. Washington DC: Center for Security Policy Press, 2015. 788 pp.

No comments: