OIC FREE SPEECH ALERT: Islamic Supremacism on the Net?

The Organization of the Islamic Conference will doubtless demand the suppression of websites that “insult Islam” or “encourage hatred,” and a number of European countries may well go along.

Atlas readers are well aware and sagaciously wary of the goals of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC has already gotten passed a proposal in the UN, backed by Muslims nations, urging the passage of
laws around the world protecting religion from criticism. Islam is the only religion specifically named as deserving protection.

Websites like mine are the ones that dare speak of the truth of Islam and report on the terrible human rights abuses, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu etc persecution, suppression of women and children, the murder of non-believers, brutal imposition of shariah law, Islamic supremacism, academic jihad, social  jihad, cultural jihad, shariah finance, stealth jihad and the galloping global jihad. The corrupt media are already subdued and auto-censor themselves. The net is all there is.

Expect a fierce fight. And don’t expect the left to fight – despite the fact that it is a fundamental “liberal” value”. The fascists on the left would like to silence the rational, the reasoned, the logical. They won’t be targeted ………… not at first (but certainly at last).

Here’s the latest attack on the West by the global jihad. File this move under “stealth jihad” or quiet jihad or soft jihad, though its anything but.

WHO CONTROLS THE NET Ariel Rabkin, Weekly Standard

In order to please our European allies and our Third World critics, the Obama administration may be tempted to surrender one particular manifestation of American “dominance”: central management of key aspects of the Internet by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Other countries are pushing for more control. Early
this year, British cabinet member Andy Burnham told the Daily Telegraph that he was “planning to negotiate with Barack Obama’s incoming American administration to draw up new International rules for English language websites.”

It would be a mistake for the administration to go along. America’s special role in managing the Internet is good for America and good for the
world.

Internet domain names (such as www.google.com) are managed hierarchically. At
the top of the hierarchy is an entity called IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority, operated on behalf of the Commerce Department. The U.S. government
therefore has the ultimate authority to review or revoke any decision, or even
to transfer control of IANA to a different operator.

Until now, the management of the Domain Name System has been largely
apolitical, and most of the disputes that have arisen have been of interest only
to insiders and the technology industry. IANA has concerned itself with fairly
narrow questions like “Should we allow names ending in .info?” Commercial
questions about ownership of names, like other property disputes, are settled in
national courts. Political questions like “Who is the rightful government
of Pakistan, and therefore the rightful owner of the .pk domain?” are
settled by the U.S. Department of State

The State Department? Great.

There are persistent proposals to break the connection between IANA and theU.S. government. In these schemes, IANA would be directed by some internationalbody, such as the United Nations or the International Telecommunication Union, which coordinates international phone networks. It is unclear what problem such
proposals attempt to solve. There have been no serious complaints about American
stewardship of the Internet, no actual abuses perpetrated by American overseers.
But were we to abdicate this stewardship, a number of difficulties could
arise.

Domain names sometimes present political questions. Which side in a civil war
should control Pakistan’s Internet domain? Should Israel’s .il be suspended as
punishment for its being an “Apartheid state”? What about Taiwan’s .tw if China
announces an attempt to “reabsorb its wayward province”?

Perhaps most serious, control of Internet names could become a lever to
impose restrictions on Internet content. Many governments already attempt to
control speech on the Internet. Some years ago, Yahoo! was subject to criminal
proceedings in France for allowing Nazi memorabilia to be auctioned on its
website. Britain, Canada, and Australia all have mandatory nationwide blacklists
of banned sites, managed by nongovernmental regulators with minimal political
oversight. Such blacklists can have unpredictable consequences: Wikipedia was
badly degraded to British users for some hours because of a poorly designed
censorship system targeting child pornography.

If we give control of the Internet naming infrastructure to an international organization, we must expect attempts to censor the Internet. The Organization of the Islamic Conference will doubtless demand the suppression of websites that “insult Islam” or “encourage hatred,” and a number of European countries may
well go along. 

Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition, and if we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online, we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standards. Many other First World countries already have government-imposed restrictions on Internet speech that we would not contemplate here. Even if Internet governance were shared only with First World democracies, they might urge and ultimately demand that domain operators impose restrictions on content.

Bat Ye’or wrote here of the OIC:

The OIC is one of the largest intergovernmental organizations in the world. It encompasses 56 Muslim states plus the Palestinian Authority. Spread over four continents, it claims to speak in the name of the ummah (the universal Muslim community), which numbers about 1.3 billion. The OIC’s mission is to unite all Muslims worldwide by rooting them in the Koran and the Sunnah — the core of traditional Islamic civilization and values. It aims at strengthening
solidarity and cooperation among all its members, in order to protect the
interests of Muslims everywhere and to galvanize the ummah into a unified body.

The OIC is a unique organization — one that has no equivalent in the world. It unites the religious, economic, military, and political strength of 56 states. By contrast, the
European Union represents half as many states and is a secular body only, and
the Vatican — which speaks for the world’s 1.1 billion Catholics — is devoid of
any political power. Many Muslims in the West resist the OIC’s tutelage and
oppose its efforts to supplant Western law with sharia. But the OIC’s resources
are formidable.

The organization has numerous subsidiary institutions
collaborating at the highest levels with international organizations in order to
implement its political objectives worldwide. Its main working bodies are the
Islamic Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (ISESCO), which seeks
to impose on the West the Islamic perception of history and civilization; the
Observatory of Islamophobia, which puts pressure on Western governments and
international bodies to adopt laws punishing “Islamophobia” and blasphemy; and
the newly created Islamic International Court of Justice. As stated in its 1990
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, the OIC is strictly tied to the
principles of the Koran, the Sunnah, and the sharia. In a word, the OIC seeks to
become the reincarnation of the Caliphate.

The OIC regularly reiterates its commitments to protecting the political, historical, religious, and human rights of Muslims in non-OIC states, especially Muslims who form the majority in
specific regions of non-Muslim countries — such as the southern Philippines,
southern Thailand, and western Thrace in Greece — as well as Muslims in places
like the Balkans, the Caucasus, Myanmar, India, and China. The OIC supports Hamas and the Palestinians in their struggle to destroy Israel, as well as the Muslim fight for “legitimate self-determination” in “Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir.” It has condemned the “continual Armenian aggression against Azerbaijan,” and it expresses its full
solidarity with “the just cause of the Muslim Turkish people of Cyprus” and with
Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir, whom many hold responsible for
encouraging the massacres in Darfur. The seat of the OIC is in Jeddah, but the
organization regards that location as temporary: Its headquarters will be
transferred to al-Kods (Islamized Jerusalem) when that city has been “liberated”
from Israeli control.

In its efforts to defend the “true image” of Islam and combat its defamation, the organization has requested the UN and the Western countries to punish “Islamophobia” and blasphemy. Among the manifestations of Islamophobia, in the OIC’s view, are European opposition to illegal immigration, anti-terrorist measures, criticism of multiculturalism, and indeed any efforts to defend Western cultural and national identities. The OIC has massive funding from oil sources, which it lavishly spends on the Western media and academia and in countless “dialogues.” It influences Western policy,
laws, and even textbooks through pressures brought by Muslim immigrants and by
the Western nations’ own leftist parties. Hence, we have seen Kristallnacht-like
incitements of hate and murder against European Jews and Israel conducted with
impunity in the cities of Europe — where respect for human rights is supposed to
be one of the highest values.

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

• $25.00 here
• $50.00 here
• $75.00 here
• $100.00 here
• $250.00 here