Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Archives - UN Watch https://unwatch.org/category/country/organization-of-islamic-cooperation-oic-en/ Monitoring the UN Promoting Human Rights Tue, 02 Jan 2024 09:20:13 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Islamic & African Nations Boycott Meeting With First U.N. Expert on Anti-Gay Violence https://unwatch.org/unhrc-holds-first-meeting-on-controversial-new/ Thu, 26 Jan 2017 06:39:30 +0000 https://unwatch.jaredco.com/?p=16514 Prof. Vitit Muntarbhorn (above) is the UN’s newly appointed Independent Expert on violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI). GENEVA, Jan. 25, 2017 –  Islamic and African nations, where violence and discrimination against the LGBTI community are most prevalent, boycotted a session held yesterday and today with the first U.N. expert on anti-gay […]

The post Islamic & African Nations Boycott Meeting With First U.N. Expert on Anti-Gay Violence appeared first on UN Watch.

]]> Prof. Vitit Muntarbhorn (above) is the UN’s newly appointed Independent Expert on violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI).

GENEVA, Jan. 25, 2017 –  Islamic and African nations, where violence and discrimination against the LGBTI community are most prevalent, boycotted a session held yesterday and today with the first U.N. expert on anti-gay violence and discrimination.
Prof. Vitit Muntarhbhorn, the UN’s new Independent Expert (IE) on violence and discriminiation based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), held his first public consultations with UN member states and NGOs yesterday and today.
No country from the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) or the 54-member African Group took the floor, and barely a handful were even in the room.
The new mandate was adopted by the UNHRC in June 2016, and confirmed by the UN General Assembly in December 2016 amidst a heated vote in which the OIC and African Group made a failed bid to block passage of the new mandate.
During the June 2016 vote, the OIC, represented by Pakistan, submitted a total of 11 amendments to gut the resolution. Only 4 of these proposed amendments were adopted. But, while some of the most objectionable amendments – such as one which would have removed 6 out of the resolution’s 8 paragraphs and another seeking to erase completely the term sexual orientation and replace it with the term sexual disorientation – were rejected, those ultimately adopted significantly weakened the resolution.
Specifically, the accepted amendments added language calling for the respect of social and religious sensitivities of the people of different countries and of not resorting to using external pressures and coercive measures against states. 
After the OIC and African Group failed to vote down the resolution, Egypt announced it would boycott the SOGI mandate of protecting LGBTI individuals against violence, and dozens of other like-minded states followed.
During the consultation, Prof. Muntarbhorn announced that he would be making his first country visits as IE to Argentina and other states in South America. Of the 72 states in the world which criminalize homosexual relations, only two are within South America.
UN Watch took the floor to urge the new U.N. monitor to prioritize urgent situations.

The post Islamic & African Nations Boycott Meeting With First U.N. Expert on Anti-Gay Violence appeared first on UN Watch.

]]> vititpic3 Islamic States Block 22 Gay Rights Groups From UN Aids Summit https://unwatch.org/islamic-states-block-22-gay-rights-groups-un-aids-summit/ Wed, 08 Jun 2016 16:42:28 +0000 https://unwatch.jaredco.com/?p=11239 PRESS RELEASE — FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE GENEVA, June 8, 2016 — UN Watch, a Geneva-based non-governmental human rights organization, today called on UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and General Assembly President Mogens Lykketoft to “name and shame” the countries responsible for excluding of 22 gay and transgender rights groups from the UNGA’sHigh Level Meeting on Ending Aids, which opens today […]

The post Islamic States Block 22 Gay Rights Groups From UN Aids Summit appeared first on UN Watch.

]]> PRESS RELEASE — FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

GENEVA, June 8, 2016 — UN Watch, a Geneva-based non-governmental human rights organization, today called on UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and General Assembly President Mogens Lykketoft to “name and shame” the countries responsible for excluding of 22 gay and transgender rights groups from the UNGA’sHigh Level Meeting on Ending Aids, which opens today with heads of state, cabinet ministers, corporate executives, and people living with HIV.

The NGOs were excluded from the UN conference due to a letter reportedly sent by Egypt on behalf of 51 member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, backed by Russia, Cameroon and Tanzania. The UN refuses to release the text, but it was seen by AP and others. Several Arab and African countries that criminalize homosexuality act in concert at the UN to block recognition of gay rights.

“By barring activists from this conference because of their sexual orientation, the UN is committing a gross violation of the equality and anti-discrimination guarantees of its own Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch.

“The discrimination is particularly absurd and pernicious in the context of this HIV summit, because it silences the voices of those who suffer most from the problem the summit is supposed to address, with transgender people 49 times more likely than others to be infected by HIV.” 

UN Watch noted that Mr. Ban last week said he was “opposed to the exclusion of LGBT organizations” from the conference, noting that “NGOs are close to communities affected by the epidemic and they must be part of the response.

“This is welcome but insufficient,” said Neuer. “The only way to stop non-democracies from the escalating and widespread phenomenon of NGOs being barred from normal UN participation is for the head of the organization to call out serial offenders and hold them to account. Unless the enemies of civil society are named and shamed, they will continue to block human rights activists—especially gay rights defenders—with impunity.”

Neuer noted that this is not an isolated incident. When Mr. Ban recognized gay marriage for UN staffers in 2014, a coalition of 44 states including Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan and Syria tried, but failed, to block the move

The post Islamic States Block 22 Gay Rights Groups From UN Aids Summit appeared first on UN Watch.

]]> The return of the Ad Hoc https://unwatch.org/4129-2/ Mon, 29 Jul 2013 15:22:19 +0000 https://blog.unwatch.org/?p=4129 On July 22, 2013, a two-week session of the controversial Ad Hoc Committee on the Collaboration of Complementary Standards commenced. The Committee, set up in accordance with Paragraph 199 of the Durban Declaration, has as its goal to identify protection gaps in the fight against racism, especially within the International Covenant for the Elimination of […]

The post The return of the Ad Hoc appeared first on UN Watch.

]]> On July 22, 2013, a two-week session of the controversial Ad Hoc Committee on the Collaboration of Complementary Standards commenced. The Committee, set up in accordance with Paragraph 199 of the Durban Declaration, has as its goal to identify protection gaps in the fight against racism, especially within the International Covenant for the Elimination of Racial Descrimination (ICERD). From its first session in 2008, the Committee acquired notoriety as it became the forum through which the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) was seeking to draft an international protocol against defamation, thus limiting free speech and promoting blasphemy laws.
So far, this year’s session has been pretty uneventful. The committee meetings were extremely stilted, as many delegations had nothing to say, or felt no need to further elaborate. Many afternoon or morning sessions were postponed and adjourned, due to lack of content, or officially, to give countries time to familiarize themselves with material that was not distributed until last minute, such as biographical information on upcoming speakers.
The European Union and the United States continued to be vocal critics of the committee’s work, like in the past. They both complained against attempts to bring defamation back to the agenda. The EU noted with regret that the committee’s questionnaire was not carried out in a transparent manner, that important information was only provided at late stages, and that many countries did not respond, resulting in an underrepresentation of some regions. The United States said that they saw no need for additional substantive legal instruments, because the mandate of the committee is to promote a consensus of action plans and not create new confusing international law instruments. At times, the USA also had to ask a speaker how their topic had anything to do with the question of xenophobia.
Why not make this year’s session the Committee’s last one?

The post The return of the Ad Hoc appeared first on UN Watch.

]]> "No such thing as Islamic terrorism," delegate tells UN confab on religious sensitivities https://unwatch.org/free-speech-and-freedom-of-religion-debated-at-oic-led-meeting-2/ Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:02:26 +0000 https://blog.unwatch.org/?p=4040 For more photos of the conference, click here. GENEVA – Nations attacked the West for wrongly associating Islam with terrorism at a June 19-21 international conference in Geneva organized by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, part of the U.S.-Turkish led “Istanbul Process,” an intended Western-Islamic framework for détente created by a 2011 UN Human Rights […]

The post "No such thing as Islamic terrorism," delegate tells UN confab on religious sensitivities appeared first on UN Watch.

]]>
The OIC hosted the 3rd Istanbul Process session, the product of a Western attempt to replace the Islamic group's "defamation of religion" UN campaign.

For more photos of the conference, click here.
GENEVA – Nations attacked the West for wrongly associating Islam with terrorism at a June 19-21 international conference in Geneva organized by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, part of the U.S.-Turkish led “Istanbul Process,” an intended Western-Islamic framework for détente created by a 2011 UN Human Rights Council resolution to “combat intolerance, discrimination and incitement to hatred and/or violence on the basis of religion or belief.”
The 3rd International Expert Meeting on the Follow-Up and Implementation of HRC Resolution 16/18 was held at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva. The previous meeting of the Istanbul Proces was hosted by then U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington, D.C., in December 2011.

Critics say the resolution and its follow-up process have seen the U.S. legitimize the longstanding Islamic campaign at the UN to ban “defamation of religion,” only with different terminology.

A central theme of the conference was how to balance freedom of speech with freedom of religion. Many countries argued for protecting “religious sensitivities.” Indonesia stated that freedom of speech is not absolute, and that it must come with restrictions based on legitimate grounds.

Egypt said that freedom of opinion is a manifestation of social freedoms – and is therefore the mother of all rights – but that the freedom of religion must also be considered in light of basic human rights, given the fact that Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR impose duties and responsibilities.
Mr. Taskin Soykan, an adviser on combating intolerance and discrimination against Muslims at the OSCE, said that freedom of religion is “sacrosanct but not absolute,” and that individuals have responsibilities in exercising the right.
Western states emphasized the need to protect free speech. United States Ambassador Eileen Donahoe paraphrased Hillary Clinton: ‘Is our faith so weak that we can’t discuss and question it?:
US Ambassador Michael G. Kozak touched on America’s historical familiarity with blasphemy laws. He cited the 1798 “Alien and Sedition Acts” that facilitated deportation and prohibited public opposition to government. Mr. Kozak made the point that intolerance is often more likely to be stifled by protecting free speech rather than by banning it, and expressed his hope that focus would remain on how to better implement the prescriptions currently contained in Resolution 16/18, instead of adding new measures designed to further restrict free speech. When free speech is criminalized, violence becomes the only option. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion could strengthen one another.
At other times in the session, however, Western governments seemed more concerned to reassure religious sensitivities than to defend free speech.
The US reminded the conference that both President Obama and former Secretary of State Clinton had spoken out against the Innocence of Muslims film of  last year, whose depiction of Islam’s prophet was invoked as Muslims worldwide rioted and caused over 50 deaths.
Another topic of concern was the image globally projected of Islam and its frequent association with violence. Muslim panelists and member-state representatives insisted on the inherently peaceful character of their personal faith and state religion.
Slimane Chikh, Ambassador of the OIC’s UN mission in Geneva, stressed that Islam is a religion that accepts dissent.
In a debate on the implementation of Paragraph 5 (e) of Resolution 16/18, Ambassador Ömür Orhun, the Permanent Representative of Turkey to the OSCE, regretted use of the term “Islamic terrorism” by the Western media following terrorist attacks like the 2005 London bombings. “There is no such thing as Islamic terrorism,” he said.
US Ambassador Kozak responded that terrorists are often labeled as such in Western countries precisely because this is what they term themselves. Most “Islamic terrorists” are self-proclaimed as such. To successfully disassociate Islam from terrorism, the OIC would need to address such issues.
There was disagreement over what violent incidents can be attributed to “Islamophobia.” The OIC’s Slimane Chikh listed the 2011 Norway attack by Anders Breivik among recent terrorist events motivated by Islamophobic sentiments.
The following day, during a panel discussion on the implementation of Paragraph 5 (h) of Resolution 16/18, UN expert Doudou Diène mentioned the Norwegian attacks in the same breath as the Srebrenica massacre, in which Bosnian Muslims were deliberately targeted as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing. In the subsequent open forum, the Italian representative denounced the association, saying that the Norwegian slaughter included victims from the perpetrator’s own country and ethnicity, and that simply sourcing such an atrocity to a Western identity crisis in general, and Islamophobia in particular, would be inappropriate and misleading.
Concerns were also voiced that the OIC tends to be preoccupied with offences committed against Muslims abroad without paying attention to discrimination and incitement to hatred against minorities in Muslim-majority countries. In discussing the need to “adjust to changing realities,” the representative of Pakistan invoked recent media coverage of U Wirathu, dubbed ‘the face of Buddhist terror’ by Time magazine, who was also featured in the International Herald Tribune of that day.
Regrettably, the conference turned a blind eye to terrorism committed by Islamist extremists even as it met. On June 19th, the conference’s opening day, The Times reported that 16 students had been shot dead in Nigeria by suspected Islamist terrorist group Boko Haram, whose name roughly translates as “Western education is sin.”
Suggestions were given on how to move forward with the Istanbul Process. One was that an international observatory, in the form of an “umbrella NGO,” should be set up to supervise the implementation of Resolution 16/18. This arose in response to qualms that most NGOs focusing on this area are based in the West – even Muslim-oriented think-tanks tend to be subsidiaries of larger Western organizations, it was said.
US Ambassador Kozak suggested that establishing a further international observatory was unnecessary, since the straightforward task of implementing the Resolution’s existing measures had not yet been achieved by most member states under its current supervisory circumstances. Russia also expressed some apprehension towards the idea, adding that member states should be weary of multiplying the number of international mechanisms with similar purposes, to avoid duplicating work.
On the third and final day, States gave closing remarks. US Ambassador Kozak warned against the dangers of spending too much time on technical debates
regarding the definition of “incitement” and other such terms instead of focusing on actual instances of violence. He also expressed concern that the conference’s overall narrative was unhelpfully framed in terms of “the West versus the rest,” with prime focus on the West’s failure to enact prohibitions on free speech; and this despite the fact that the countries where the most religious violence takes place tend to be those that have blasphemy laws in place.
Pakistan reacted indignantly, dismissing the Muslims in America that had been cited by the US delegation as having praised American tolerance as merely “rented Muslims” – a term that Ambassador Kozak rejected.
In stressing the conference’s value, Turkey pointed out that there already exists a Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religious or Belief (Mr. Heiner Bielefeld), and that while another Special Rapporteur could well be introduced to monitor hate crime and hate speech, the OIC preferred the route of dialogue, of which the conference should serve as an example.
OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu commented on how the media can unfairly distort perceptions on both sides. Western media tends to highlight the reaction of radical Imams and their fellow religious fundamentalists, while Muslims worldwide are exposed exclusively to the likes of the Koran-burning pastor. He called for the media to address the issue, and also for a fixed agenda to emerge in order to prevent future summits from descending into circularity and repetition.
— Reporting by Casey Larsen

The post "No such thing as Islamic terrorism," delegate tells UN confab on religious sensitivities appeared first on UN Watch.

]]> OIC istanbul process in geneva The OIC hosted the 3rd Istanbul Process session, the product of a Western attempt to replace the Islamic group's "defamation of religion" UN campaign. "No such thing as Islamic terrorism," delegate tells UN confab on religious sensitivities https://unwatch.org/free-speech-and-freedom-of-religion-debated-at-oic-led-meeting/ Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:02:26 +0000 https://blog.unwatch.org/?p=4040 For more photos of the conference, click here. GENEVA – Nations attacked the West for wrongly associating Islam with terrorism at a June 19-21 international conference in Geneva organized by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, part of the U.S.-Turkish led “Istanbul Process,” an intended Western-Islamic framework for détente created by a 2011 UN Human Rights […]

The post "No such thing as Islamic terrorism," delegate tells UN confab on religious sensitivities appeared first on UN Watch.

]]>
The OIC hosted the 3rd Istanbul Process session, the product of a Western attempt to replace the Islamic group's "defamation of religion" UN campaign.

For more photos of the conference, click here.
GENEVA – Nations attacked the West for wrongly associating Islam with terrorism at a June 19-21 international conference in Geneva organized by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, part of the U.S.-Turkish led “Istanbul Process,” an intended Western-Islamic framework for détente created by a 2011 UN Human Rights Council resolution to “combat intolerance, discrimination and incitement to hatred and/or violence on the basis of religion or belief.”
The 3rd International Expert Meeting on the Follow-Up and Implementation of HRC Resolution 16/18 was held at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva. The previous meeting of the Istanbul Proces was hosted by then U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington, D.C., in December 2011.

Critics say the resolution and its follow-up process have seen the U.S. legitimize the longstanding Islamic campaign at the UN to ban “defamation of religion,” only with different terminology.

A central theme of the conference was how to balance freedom of speech with freedom of religion. Many countries argued for protecting “religious sensitivities.” Indonesia stated that freedom of speech is not absolute, and that it must come with restrictions based on legitimate grounds.

Egypt said that freedom of opinion is a manifestation of social freedoms – and is therefore the mother of all rights – but that the freedom of religion must also be considered in light of basic human rights, given the fact that Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR impose duties and responsibilities.
Mr. Taskin Soykan, an adviser on combating intolerance and discrimination against Muslims at the OSCE, said that freedom of religion is “sacrosanct but not absolute,” and that individuals have responsibilities in exercising the right.
Western states emphasized the need to protect free speech. United States Ambassador Eileen Donahoe paraphrased Hillary Clinton: ‘Is our faith so weak that we can’t discuss and question it?:
US Ambassador Michael G. Kozak touched on America’s historical familiarity with blasphemy laws. He cited the 1798 “Alien and Sedition Acts” that facilitated deportation and prohibited public opposition to government. Mr. Kozak made the point that intolerance is often more likely to be stifled by protecting free speech rather than by banning it, and expressed his hope that focus would remain on how to better implement the prescriptions currently contained in Resolution 16/18, instead of adding new measures designed to further restrict free speech. When free speech is criminalized, violence becomes the only option. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion could strengthen one another.
At other times in the session, however, Western governments seemed more concerned to reassure religious sensitivities than to defend free speech.
The US reminded the conference that both President Obama and former Secretary of State Clinton had spoken out against the Innocence of Muslims film of  last year, whose depiction of Islam’s prophet was invoked as Muslims worldwide rioted and caused over 50 deaths.
Another topic of concern was the image globally projected of Islam and its frequent association with violence. Muslim panelists and member-state representatives insisted on the inherently peaceful character of their personal faith and state religion.
Slimane Chikh, Ambassador of the OIC’s UN mission in Geneva, stressed that Islam is a religion that accepts dissent.
In a debate on the implementation of Paragraph 5 (e) of Resolution 16/18, Ambassador Ömür Orhun, the Permanent Representative of Turkey to the OSCE, regretted use of the term “Islamic terrorism” by the Western media following terrorist attacks like the 2005 London bombings. “There is no such thing as Islamic terrorism,” he said.
US Ambassador Kozak responded that terrorists are often labeled as such in Western countries precisely because this is what they term themselves. Most “Islamic terrorists” are self-proclaimed as such. To successfully disassociate Islam from terrorism, the OIC would need to address such issues.
There was disagreement over what violent incidents can be attributed to “Islamophobia.” The OIC’s Slimane Chikh listed the 2011 Norway attack by Anders Breivik among recent terrorist events motivated by Islamophobic sentiments.
The following day, during a panel discussion on the implementation of Paragraph 5 (h) of Resolution 16/18, UN expert Doudou Diène mentioned the Norwegian attacks in the same breath as the Srebrenica massacre, in which Bosnian Muslims were deliberately targeted as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing. In the subsequent open forum, the Italian representative denounced the association, saying that the Norwegian slaughter included victims from the perpetrator’s own country and ethnicity, and that simply sourcing such an atrocity to a Western identity crisis in general, and Islamophobia in particular, would be inappropriate and misleading.
Concerns were also voiced that the OIC tends to be preoccupied with offences committed against Muslims abroad without paying attention to discrimination and incitement to hatred against minorities in Muslim-majority countries. In discussing the need to “adjust to changing realities,” the representative of Pakistan invoked recent media coverage of U Wirathu, dubbed ‘the face of Buddhist terror’ by Time magazine, who was also featured in the International Herald Tribune of that day.
Regrettably, the conference turned a blind eye to terrorism committed by Islamist extremists even as it met. On June 19th, the conference’s opening day, The Times reported that 16 students had been shot dead in Nigeria by suspected Islamist terrorist group Boko Haram, whose name roughly translates as “Western education is sin.”
Suggestions were given on how to move forward with the Istanbul Process. One was that an international observatory, in the form of an “umbrella NGO,” should be set up to supervise the implementation of Resolution 16/18. This arose in response to qualms that most NGOs focusing on this area are based in the West – even Muslim-oriented think-tanks tend to be subsidiaries of larger Western organizations, it was said.
US Ambassador Kozak suggested that establishing a further international observatory was unnecessary, since the straightforward task of implementing the Resolution’s existing measures had not yet been achieved by most member states under its current supervisory circumstances. Russia also expressed some apprehension towards the idea, adding that member states should be weary of multiplying the number of international mechanisms with similar purposes, to avoid duplicating work.
On the third and final day, States gave closing remarks. US Ambassador Kozak warned against the dangers of spending too much time on technical debates
regarding the definition of “incitement” and other such terms instead of focusing on actual instances of violence. He also expressed concern that the conference’s overall narrative was unhelpfully framed in terms of “the West versus the rest,” with prime focus on the West’s failure to enact prohibitions on free speech; and this despite the fact that the countries where the most religious violence takes place tend to be those that have blasphemy laws in place.
Pakistan reacted indignantly, dismissing the Muslims in America that had been cited by the US delegation as having praised American tolerance as merely “rented Muslims” – a term that Ambassador Kozak rejected.
In stressing the conference’s value, Turkey pointed out that there already exists a Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religious or Belief (Mr. Heiner Bielefeld), and that while another Special Rapporteur could well be introduced to monitor hate crime and hate speech, the OIC preferred the route of dialogue, of which the conference should serve as an example.
OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu commented on how the media can unfairly distort perceptions on both sides. Western media tends to highlight the reaction of radical Imams and their fellow religious fundamentalists, while Muslims worldwide are exposed exclusively to the likes of the Koran-burning pastor. He called for the media to address the issue, and also for a fixed agenda to emerge in order to prevent future summits from descending into circularity and repetition.
— Reporting by Casey Larsen

The post "No such thing as Islamic terrorism," delegate tells UN confab on religious sensitivities appeared first on UN Watch.

]]> OIC istanbul process in geneva The OIC hosted the 3rd Istanbul Process session, the product of a Western attempt to replace the Islamic group's "defamation of religion" UN campaign. Letter from UN’s Islamic group to UNHRC President Opposing Panel on Violence Against Gays https://unwatch.org/letter-from-uns-islamic-group-to-unhrc-president-opposing-panel-on-violence-against-gays-2/ Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:49:36 +0000 https://blog.unwatch.org/?p=1760 PDF of original letter PERMANENT MISSION OF PAKISTAN TO THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 56 me de Moillebeau 1211 Geneva 19 Tel: (4122) 7491930 Fax: (4122) 734 8085 E-mail: mission.vakistan@ties.ita.int. Ambassador No. Pol/S0/2012 14 February 2012 H.E. Ms. Laura Dupuy Lasserre President of the Human Rights Council Geneva My dear President, I am […]

The post Letter from UN’s Islamic group to UNHRC President Opposing Panel on Violence Against Gays appeared first on UN Watch.

]]> PDF of original letter

PERMANENT MISSION OF PAKISTAN
TO THE UNITED NATIONS AND
OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

56 me de Moillebeau
1211 Geneva 19
Tel: (4122) 7491930
Fax: (4122) 734 8085
E-mail: mission.vakistan@ties.ita.int.

Ambassador
No. Pol/S0/2012

14 February 2012

H.E. Ms. Laura Dupuy Lasserre
President of the Human Rights Council
Geneva

My dear President,

I am writing to you in my capacity as Coordinator of the OIC Group on Human Rights and Humanitarian Issues in Geneva.

2.         I wish to explain the position taken by the Member States of the OIC onResolution 17/19 and the subsequent Panel on “Discrimination and Violence based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity” scheduled to be held on 7 March 2012 during the 19’th Session of the Human rights Council.

3.         The OIC States are deeply concerned by the introduction in the Human Rights Council of controversial notions like “sexual orientation and gender identity.” The OIC countries have been consistent in their opposition to the consideration of these controversial notions in the context of human right at international fora.

4.         We are seriously concerned at the attempt to introduce in the United Nations concepts that have no legal foundation in any international human rights instrument. The international community only recognizes those rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which were codified in subsequent international legal instruments.

5.         We note with concern the attempts to create controversial “new notions” or “new standards” by misinterpreting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and intemational treaties to include such notions that were never articulated or agreed to by the UN membership. These attempts undermine not only the intent of the drafters and signatories to these human rights instruments, but also seriously jeopardize the entire international human rights framework.

6.         We are even more disturbed at the attempt to focus on certain persons on the grounds of their abnormal sexual behaviour, while not focusing on the glaring instances of intolerance and discrimination in various parts of the world, be it on the basis of colour, race, gender or religion, to mention only a few.

7.         It must also be recognized that the international community agreed during the World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in 1993, that while considering the issue of human rights, national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind. From this perspective, the issue of sexual orientation is unacceptable to the OIC.

8.         The OIC Member States are concerned that the Panel will discuss issues that relate to personal behavior and preferences, and have nothing to do with fundamental human rights. This debate will shift the focus from the real issues that deserve the attention of the Council.

9.         For the reasons explained above the Member States of the OIC would like to place on record their opposition to the holding of this panel and will not accept its considerations and recommendations.

Sincerely yours,

Zamir Akram
Ambassador and Permanent Representative
Coordinator of the OIC Group on Human Rights
and Humanitarian Issues

Copy to H.E. Ms. Navanethem Pillay, High Commissioner for Human Rights

The post Letter from UN’s Islamic group to UNHRC President Opposing Panel on Violence Against Gays appeared first on UN Watch.

]]> Letter from UN’s Islamic group to UNHRC President Opposing Panel on Violence Against Gays https://unwatch.org/letter-from-uns-islamic-group-to-unhrc-president-opposing-panel-on-violence-against-gays/ Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:49:36 +0000 https://blog.unwatch.org/?p=1760 PDF of original letter PERMANENT MISSION OF PAKISTAN TO THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 56 me de Moillebeau 1211 Geneva 19 Tel: (4122) 7491930 Fax: (4122) 734 8085 E-mail: mission.vakistan@ties.ita.int. Ambassador No. Pol/S0/2012 14 February 2012 H.E. Ms. Laura Dupuy Lasserre President of the Human Rights Council Geneva My dear President, I am […]

The post Letter from UN’s Islamic group to UNHRC President Opposing Panel on Violence Against Gays appeared first on UN Watch.

]]> PDF of original letter

PERMANENT MISSION OF PAKISTAN
TO THE UNITED NATIONS AND
OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

56 me de Moillebeau
1211 Geneva 19
Tel: (4122) 7491930
Fax: (4122) 734 8085
E-mail: mission.vakistan@ties.ita.int.

Ambassador
No. Pol/S0/2012

14 February 2012

H.E. Ms. Laura Dupuy Lasserre
President of the Human Rights Council
Geneva

My dear President,

I am writing to you in my capacity as Coordinator of the OIC Group on Human Rights and Humanitarian Issues in Geneva.

2.         I wish to explain the position taken by the Member States of the OIC onResolution 17/19 and the subsequent Panel on “Discrimination and Violence based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity” scheduled to be held on 7 March 2012 during the 19’th Session of the Human rights Council.

3.         The OIC States are deeply concerned by the introduction in the Human Rights Council of controversial notions like “sexual orientation and gender identity.” The OIC countries have been consistent in their opposition to the consideration of these controversial notions in the context of human right at international fora.

4.         We are seriously concerned at the attempt to introduce in the United Nations concepts that have no legal foundation in any international human rights instrument. The international community only recognizes those rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which were codified in subsequent international legal instruments.

5.         We note with concern the attempts to create controversial “new notions” or “new standards” by misinterpreting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and intemational treaties to include such notions that were never articulated or agreed to by the UN membership. These attempts undermine not only the intent of the drafters and signatories to these human rights instruments, but also seriously jeopardize the entire international human rights framework.

6.         We are even more disturbed at the attempt to focus on certain persons on the grounds of their abnormal sexual behaviour, while not focusing on the glaring instances of intolerance and discrimination in various parts of the world, be it on the basis of colour, race, gender or religion, to mention only a few.

7.         It must also be recognized that the international community agreed during the World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in 1993, that while considering the issue of human rights, national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind. From this perspective, the issue of sexual orientation is unacceptable to the OIC.

8.         The OIC Member States are concerned that the Panel will discuss issues that relate to personal behavior and preferences, and have nothing to do with fundamental human rights. This debate will shift the focus from the real issues that deserve the attention of the Council.

9.         For the reasons explained above the Member States of the OIC would like to place on record their opposition to the holding of this panel and will not accept its considerations and recommendations.

Sincerely yours,

Zamir Akram
Ambassador and Permanent Representative
Coordinator of the OIC Group on Human Rights
and Humanitarian Issues

Copy to H.E. Ms. Navanethem Pillay, High Commissioner for Human Rights

The post Letter from UN’s Islamic group to UNHRC President Opposing Panel on Violence Against Gays appeared first on UN Watch.

]]> Outrage at UN as 56 Islamic States Slam Gays for “Abnormal Sexual Behaviour,” Warning UN to Ignore Anti-Gay Violence https://unwatch.org/outrage-un-56-islamic-states-slam-gays-abnormal-sexual-behaviour-warning-un-ignore-anti-gay-violence/ Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:59:58 +0000 https://unwatch.jaredco.com/?p=15600 PRESS RELEASE Rights group urges Hillary Clinton to speak out GENEVA, Feb. 17 – A Pakistani spokesman for the UN’s Islamic bloc sparked outrage today after telling the UN’s top rights body that its 56 member states would ignore a scheduled UN rights panel on anti-gay violence, saying they were “disturbed” at the “attempted focus […]

The post Outrage at UN as 56 Islamic States Slam Gays for “Abnormal Sexual Behaviour,” Warning UN to Ignore Anti-Gay Violence appeared first on UN Watch.

]]> PRESS RELEASE

Rights group urges Hillary Clinton to speak out

GENEVA, Feb. 17 – A Pakistani spokesman for the UN’s Islamic bloc sparked outrage today after telling the UN’s top rights body that its 56 member states would ignore a scheduled UN rights panel on anti-gay violence, saying they were “disturbed” at the “attempted focus on certain persons” on the grounds of their “abnormal sexual behaviour,” which “have nothing to do with fundamental human rights.”

The Islamic announcement, obtained by the Geneva-based human rights group UN Watch and posted on its website, is provoking sharp reactions from human rights activists.

UN Watch director Hillel Neuer today called on US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to condemn the “scandalous assault on the right of gays not to be put to death in countries like Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen.”

“Human rights are universal and there is no religious exemption for barbaric violence against innocent human beings anywhere,” said Neuer, who lauded Clinton for her previous leadership on this issue at the UN.

“We’re alarmed by a steady drumbeat against gays by powerful countries,” said Neuer. “Because this latest outrage follows a Libyan speech to the UN this week accusing gays of threatening the continuation of the human race, we are deeply concerned that anti-democratic regimes may be laying the groundwork for a new round of anti-gay violence and persecution.”

Diplomatic sources have also reported to UN Watch that the Islamic states are considering a walk-out during the March 7th panel.

The letter by Pakistan’s Geneva envoy Zamir Akram on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation—comprised of 56 Islamic UN member states and the Palestinian Authority—was sent on Valentine’s Day to UN Human Rights Council president Laura Dupuy Lasserre and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay. Click here for letter.

The OIC declared its unequivocal opposition to the upcoming March 7th panel discussion concerning a new UN report on discriminatory laws and practices and violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. The OIC will “will not accept its considerations and recommendations.”

The unprecedented panel and report were mandated by the council’s historic June 2011 resolution, which passed by a slim majority of 23 to 19, with 3 abstentions.

The OIC letter said the panel on anti-gay violence addresses “controversial notions” that have “no legal foundation in any international human rights instrument,” “misinterpreting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

The OIC warned the debate would “seriously jeopardize the entire international human rights framework,” and “shift the focus from the real issues that deserve the attention of the Council.”

“The Panel will discuss issues that relate to personal behavior and preferences, and have nothing to do with fundamental human rights,” said the OIC.

To justify its position, the OIC cited UN language, seemingly giving exemptions to universal rights laws, that “historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind. From this perspective, the issue of sexual orientation is unacceptable to the OIC.”

The post Outrage at UN as 56 Islamic States Slam Gays for “Abnormal Sexual Behaviour,” Warning UN to Ignore Anti-Gay Violence appeared first on UN Watch.

]]> Islamic States Pledge Tolerance as Report Says They Practice Persecution https://unwatch.org/islamic-states-pledge-tolerance-as-report-says-they-practice-persecution/ Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:26:08 +0000 https://blog.unwatch.org/?p=1632 Concerns about an Islamic-sponsored “combating intolerance” initiative at the United Nations are brought into sharp relief by results of a new world survey on religious persecution. Muslim nations make up nine out of the top ten countries where Christians face the “most severe” persecution, and 38 of the top 50, reports U.S.-based Open Doors in […]

The post Islamic States Pledge Tolerance as Report Says They Practice Persecution appeared first on UN Watch.

]]> Concerns about an Islamic-sponsored “combating intolerance” initiative at the United Nations are brought into sharp relief by results of a new world survey on religious persecution.

Muslim nations make up nine out of the top ten countries where Christians face the “most severe” persecution, and 38 of the top 50, reports U.S.-based Open Doors in its 2012 World Watch List.

Topping the list is North Korea, where the Stalinist regime enforces cult worship of its leaders.

The results lay bare the sheer incongruity of the idea that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), whose 56 member states control more than a quarter of the votes in the UN General Assembly, can be serious about promoting religious tolerance.

Yet that is what it claimed by successfully pushing for an assembly resolution titled “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief.” The measure, which passed last month, mirrored an almost identical resolution in the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva last March.

The assembly resolution, which the United Arab Emirates tabled on behalf of the OIC, repeats the prior HRC measure’s call for governments to “take effective measures to ensure that public functionaries, in the conduct of their public duties, do not discriminate against an individual on the basis of religion or belief.”

OIC member states want us to believe they are promoting that and the many other praiseworthy precepts of both resolutions even though a majority of them oppose the measures through their actions.

What’s more, a decade’s worth of Open Doors surveys shows that “the persecution of Christians in these Muslim countries continues to increase,” the group’s Dr. Carl Moeller reports.

And so the question begs: If most OIC member states practice the opposite of each resolution’s stated intent, why did the organization launch the initiative?

The answer lies in the language of early drafts of the resolution the OIC shepherded through the Human Rights Council. Those drafts focused heavily on the idea that states should show tolerance for Muslim peoples around the world.

Western negotiators explained to their OIC counterparts that they needed to “universalize” the language if the text was to stand any chance of winning Western support.

The OIC complied in order to see the Human Rights Council resolution succeed. Likewise, the current General Assembly resolution – approved by consensus in a key assembly committee Nov. 15, and by the full assembly Dec. 19 – conforms with universal rights doctrine when taken at face value.

But unspoken UN convention will ensure that the imprint of the earlier Muslim-specific language will remain in spirit. This will have the effect of giving Islamic countries added force when they speak out against incidents they believe to have slighted the Islamic faith.

Obvious past examples of perceived slights include the cartoon depictions of the Prophet Muhammad by a Danish newspaper in 2005.

For more than a decade, the OIC sought protection for Islam by annually pushing through resolutions that explicitly granted faiths the right not to be “defamed.” It abandoned that cause last March when Western-led opposition had grown big enough to defeat it. The West argued that human rights protections extended only to individuals, not to beliefs.

In exchange for dropping the “defamation” language, the OIC was rewarded with massive Western buy-in of their resolution. These included most famously the high-level events endorsing the resolution by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, first in Turkey and then in Washington, in joint appearances with the OIC leadership.

But while the OIC’s adoption of universal language for its “combating intolerance” initiative won it Western support, no one is expecting change on the ground in the bulk of Islamic countries any time soon.

Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Iran, Maldives, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Iraq and Pakistan complete the Open Doors Watch List’s top ten persecutors of religious minorities – in that order after North Korea.

Discrimination against religious minorities in these and many other Islamic countries on the Watch List is so deeply entrenched that it’s inconceivable they have the slightest intention of conforming to the precepts in the OIC draft they themselves have authored.

As such, the problem is not with the document per se, but with its sponsor. Simply put, the OIC initiative was not an honest one. That in itself should have raised alarm bells – even as the language used appears to be generally in line with universal standards.

The post Islamic States Pledge Tolerance as Report Says They Practice Persecution appeared first on UN Watch.

]]> Iran “Human Rights” Center Boosts UN-based Bid to Erode Universal Guarantees https://unwatch.org/iran-human-rights-center-boosts-un-based-bid-erode-universal-guarantees/ Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:45:53 +0000 https://unwatch.jaredco.com/?p=15629 PRESS RELEASE International Sponsors Should Pull Out GENEVA, Nov. 21 – As Western countries seek to have the UN condemn Iran for abusing human rights, a Tehran “human rights” center is to hold inaugural global conferences this week in a stepped-up bid to erode universal rights in favor of a “cultural diversity” doctrine which the […]

The post Iran “Human Rights” Center Boosts UN-based Bid to Erode Universal Guarantees appeared first on UN Watch.

]]> PRESS RELEASE

International Sponsors Should Pull Out

GENEVA, Nov. 21 – As Western countries seek to have the UN condemn Iran for abusing human rights, a Tehran “human rights” center is to hold inaugural global conferences this week in a stepped-up bid to erode universal rights in favor of a “cultural diversity” doctrine which the EU fears could justify the repression of basic freedoms, said UN Watch today.

The International Committee for the Red Cross and a leading human rights authority, London-based William Schabas, have given their credibility to the conferences at the Iranian-sponsored Center for Human Rights and Cultural Diversity in Tehran — despite the center’s aim of elevating “cultural diversity” to the point of permitting individual rights to be restricted by the alleged demands of religion or culture.

In an op-ed appearing in today’s New York Daily News, UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer argues that the Nov. 22 and 24 gatherings cannot easily be ignored. While spearheaded by Iran and Cuba, the center is officially an initiative of the 120-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), whose membership of mainly non-democratic countries controls almost two thirds of UN General Assembly votes.

“The term ‘cultural diversity’ has a ring of political correctness to it,” said Neuer, “but it’s being used cynically by authoritarian regimes in a growing campaign at the UN to justify the restriction of their own citizens’ rights to freedom of speech, assembly and religion, under the argument that universal protections don’t apply in certain cultures.”

Given the menacing nature of the center’s ideological mission, Neuer says it is “incomprehensible” for reputedly mainstream human rights voices to participate in its events.

Schabas – author of numerous textbooks on international humanitarian law, chair of a UN human rights fund and president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars – is billed as keynote speaker at the first of the conferences, to open tomorrow. The center says the ICRC is working “in cooperation” with it to stage both conferences this week – as is an institution Schabas directed for a decade and still chairs, the Irish Center for Human Rights at the National University of Ireland in Galway.

“At a time when the Iranian regime continues to arrest, beat and rape its own citizens, and the universality of human rights remains tenuous in too many countries, both the ICRC and Schabas should do the right thing and pull out of this insidious project,” Neuer said.

“It’s one thing for the ICRC to deal with dubious regimes as part of its mission to help war victims everywhere, but it’s quite another thing for the humanitarian organization to willingly lend its name to what is clearly an effort by Iran, Cuba and the center’s other NAM backers to subvert the Red Cross’s own universal ideals.”

The ICRC has prior connections with the center. In June, the ICRC’s Delegate for Islamic Affairs in Tehran, John Strick van Linschoten, delivered a presentation at the center that emphasized ICRC operations in favour of victims in Islamic states and the importance of seeing the Shiite “point of view.” In 2008, the ICRC as well as Schabas’ Irish institute co-sponsored a seminar with the Iranian centre’s director entitled “60th Anniversary of the Occupation of Palestine.”

The first of the conferences is set to begin after a Western-led bid today in a key UN General Assembly committee to have Iran condemned – as in previous years – for its poor human rights record. Also, the General Assembly on Friday voted 106-9, with 40 abstentions, to condemn Iran for an alleged plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador in Washington.

The new center’s founding document proclaims that human rights should defer to “the significance of national and regional particularities” and “various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds.”

“Implicit in the center’s manifesto is the idea that the world should give a free pass to the oppressive rulers of the likes of Iran, Syria, Cuba, China and Zimbabwe due to their alleged ‘cultural’ differences,” said Neuer.

Schabas, born in the United States, but a citizen of Canada and Ireland, has a personal connection: the center’s current director, Kamran Hashemi, wrote his PhD under the academic at the Irish Center for Human Rights, and later taught there. Schabas currently serves as a professor at Middlesex University in London.

Hashemi argues on the Tehran center’s website that Sharia is the world’s best legal system to protect Jews and other minorities, Neuer notes in his commentary.

The center, meanwhile, is getting into full swing just months after countries acting on behalf of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) ended – at least for now – their separate effort to recast universal human rights principles at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

That bid had involved winning UN resolutions over a decade that contained demands to combat “defamation of religion,” particularly Islam.

Western countries opposed the measures, saying human rights protections extend only to individuals, and warned that protecting a belief could lead to persecution of people criticizing or not following that faith.

The OIC – which now calls itself the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – faced the prospect of an embarrassing defeat in March after Western campaigning led to a fall in global support. But the Tehran center – by focusing on “cultural diversity” – effectively picks up the baton.

In a recent UN debate on cultural rights, the EU warned against “diffuse and dangerous notions of cultural relativism,” and noted that “some cultural practices violate human rights.”

The post Iran “Human Rights” Center Boosts UN-based Bid to Erode Universal Guarantees appeared first on UN Watch.

]]>