Ban the Burqa

As the French mull over banning the burqa (full Islamic covering for women, with only the eyes showing), the Belgians are already making up their minds. The Interior Affairs Committee of the Belgian parliament voted unanimously to prohibit the wearing of burqas in public, as a security measure.

"We cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen," said the legislator who proposed the bill. He added that he was not targeting the classic headscarf worn by many Muslim women. The measure will be taken up by the Belgian House of Representatives in late April. Expect legal challenges! (Thanks to Jihad Watch.)

Don't drag your feet

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that Greek Cypriots driven from their homes during the Turkish invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974 cannot plead attachment to family homes indefinitely. Nor can they demand their homes back, if those homes are occupied by other people over time. But they can, and should, receive adequate compensation for their lost property.

A majority of the court's 17 judges "fully accepted the Turkish position - whereby reality overrides 'family roots,' time outweighs sentiment and the rights of the tenant come before those of the owner. The refugees, the court said, can receive what they are entitled to in cash." The court's most important message: if you wait and wait and wait, you're less likely to regain what you've lost.

The ECHR is a powerful institution whose influence extends beyond the borders of Europe. It would be great if, over time, the ECHR decision tempers sympathy for maximalist Palestinian demands to return to property their grandparents or great-grandparents owned in 1948. However, I'm not holding my breath! (Thanks to Daily Alert.)

Human rights in Iran

According to Radio Free Europe, the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, which has received about $3 million over the past 5 years from the U.S. Agency for International Development (part of the State Department) has just learned no more such funding will be forthcoming.

The apparent reason: the U.S. government wants to create a favorable atmosphere for the talks with Iran on its nuclear ambitions.

This decision is wrong on many accounts, but I'll just mention two. First, documenting the human rights abuses of the Iranian regime is key to addressing them, as knowledge is power and totalitarian regimes rely on keeping the truth hidden. Second, why anyone in the Adminstration would imagine, even for a moment, that such a step would make the Iranians more amenable to compromise on nuclear issues, is beyond my comprehension.

It's simple appeasement. And it won't even work, so it's really, really dumb.

Islamic human rights

In past entries, I've mentioned the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights, adopted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) that guts Western human rights standards by requiring them to be sharia-compliant.

Here's an example of how that works in practice: King Abdullah II of Jordan unleashed a firestorm by lifting the reservation Jordan had placed, years ago, on the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Jordan's Board of Fatwas denounced the decision.

As a Muslim Brotherhood leader noted: "Anything that contradicts the Sharia in the Convention (UN) is prohibited. A woman should not live and work as she wants because this would eliminate the sense of the word family, according to the Sharia." (Thanks to Jihad Watch.)

Defending human rights

In case you missed it, there's been an interesting controversy recently regarding Human Rights Watch, one of the foremost NGOs supposedly protecting human rights worldwide.

Its director, Ken Roth, confirmed that HRW officials have sought to raise funds in Saudi Arabia, essentially by criticizing Israel's human rights record. The spokesman for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu compared this initiative to a women's rights group asking the Taliban for donations.

As Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic points out here, HRW put itself on shaky ground by fundraising in a country that it often targets for human rights failures. More generally, I assume HRW's ability to raise funds in the United States will suffer if stories like this continue.

Muslim governments and human rights

Egyptian liberal Magdi Khalil analyzes here the strategy of Muslim governments aimed at reducing the overall level of international human rights standards, while restricting any criticism of Islam or of their policies.

He recounts how Muslim members of the UN's Human Rights Council, which control 26 of the 53 votes on the Council, consistently "use a strategy of obfuscation and blackmail to prevent the rest of the world from discussing problems rampant in Islamic states." (Thanks to MEMRI.)

All Muslim governments belong to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) which, like the EU, seeks to have its members vote as a bloc in international organizations like the UN. Increasingly, the OIC is succeeding in this goal, particularly when it involves human rights standards or anything that can be construed as criticizing Islam.

Who is damaged by this: anyone at risk of having his/her human rights violated; Western governments bullied or snookered into lowering their standards; and Muslim governments seeking to provide better protection for their citizens.

A human rights travesty

The United States has now joined the UN's Human Rights Council, one of the goals set by the Obama administration. Why this should be such an achievement is hard to see: the Council has done nothing but condemn Israel while blocking any investigation of serious human rights abusers such as Belarus, Liberia or Iran.

This is hardly a surprise, since 26 of the 47 Council members are from Islamic states; in addition, China is a prominent member. Why, one wonders, do U.S. taxpayers want to fund such activities? The Obama administration wants to reform the Council from within, yet the chances of that happening are non-existent.

Perhaps UN ambassador Susan Rice could spell out the advantages of closer cooperation with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) which dominates the Council. OIC members in 1990 agreed to a sharia-compliant human rights declaration that makes a mockery of UN human rights. (Thanks to Eye on the UN.)

Islamic human rights

The Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Saudi-backed group that includes 57 Muslim countries, issued the Cairo Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam in 1990. The Declaration forbids genocide, guarantees everyone access to justice, and states that all individuals are equal under the law.

There is, of course, a caveat: Article 24 states that "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in the Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah." Other articles, such as the one on freedom of expression, contain explicit restrictions.

A principal shortcoming of the international human rights movement has been its failure to challenge the Cairo Declaration in any serious manner.

Wrong answer

Let me see: you're an Iraqi living in Denmark and Danish intelligence suspects you are the premier recruiter in Northern Europe for suicide bombers in Iraq. So what does the Danish government do: (1) send you back to Iraq; or (2) keep you in Denmark on humanitarian grounds, because you might be harmed if you were sent back to Iraq.

The Danes are not alone in picking option (2); for years, the British have been trying in vain to deport Abu Qatada, an even more notorious figure. Human rights advocates can always turn to the European Court on Human Rights to back them up; embattled national security officials lack a patron in the broader European sphere. (Thanks to Jihad Watch.)

Creeping sharia in Germany

Dr. Sami Alrabaa, an ex-Muslim professor of sociology, describes the ways in which sharia is creeping into German law, schools and the Foreign Office. (Thanks to Jihad Watch.)

He recounts the case of a German woman, married to an Egyptian, who sued for divorce and asked for protection for herself and her 17-year-old daughter. She claimed her husband wanted to kill her daughter because the daughter had been raped - in his eyes, rape is equivalent to adultery. The judge ruled last January that the woman could not be legally divorced for at least a year, because time was needed to re-educate the husband. "Muslims have a different understanding of rape than Europeans, and this must be taken into account."

In another case, last February, a German judge ruled that a man could beat his daughter for refusing to wear a headscarf, quoting the Koran to make his point. These, according to Alrabaa, are just examples of numerous recent cases in which German courts have used sharia in their judgments.

Some Germans have protested, as Alrabaa reports. Sounds like there need to be a lot more of them.

Joining the UN Human Rights Council

The Obama administration has decided to compete for election to the UN's Human Rights Council. The United States will most likely win; we will then be well-positioned to legitimize the efforts of countries like Libya, China and Iran to attack Israel while covering up their own human rights abuses.

You can also expect the administration to claim victory at the Council: we will for sure cite occasions when we have succeeded in changing the wording of a resolution, or perhaps even keeping one or two anti-Israel resolutions off the table. It is highly unlikely, though, that we will ever be able to point to a case in which we actually protected human rights.

If we don't kick up too much dust, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the EU members of the panel will be happy - after all, we'll be providing them cover and respectability. And we will imagine we are currying favor with the Organization of the Islamic Conference; we'll overlook the OIC's tendency to pocket any concession while demanding more.

Gee, what an outstanding use of my taxpayer dollars!

Sneaky music

Recently, I reported that the State Department withdrew from the negotiations over the UN's Durban II conference. Well, according to Anne Bayevsky of Eye on the UN, the withdrawal wasn't absolute. Rather, it was conditioned on whether a better text could somehow be produced. Since the purpose of Durban II is to demonize Israel, it's hard to see what this means, except that the door is still open a crack.

The State Department also promised to 'participate' for the first time in the UN's Human Rights Council, a travesty dominated by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The OIC is happy to support any human rights that are consistent with sharia law; at least that's what its Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam states. The Council, in its brief existence, has passed numerous anti-Israeli resolutions - but no other resolutions condemning individual states.

A month ago, President Obama sent a letter to the OIC proposing closer cooperation. The letter's contents were not made public. Perhaps because they would have provoked public outrage?

Dutch on Durban II

The Netherlands have announced that they will join Canada and Israel in boycotting the UN's Durban II conference on racism in 2009 unless draft documents disproportionately critical of Israel are amended. The EU (of which the Netherlands is a member state) is considering its position; its own watchdog agency on racism has lobbied against pulling out, arguing that 'much remains to be done to fight racism globally and regionally'. Why attending this conference will fight racism is beyond me.

Meanwhile, 24 prominent Americans signed a statement published as a full-page ad in the Washington Times urging the United States to boycott the meeting as well. In 2001, the Durban I conference in South Africa was such a hate fest that Secretary of State Colin Powell walked out. Let's hope the Obama administration will decide to stay away.

So what constitutes torture?

Writer John Rosenthal compares two cases in 2002 involving allegations of torture, one in Germany and the other in Guantanamo. If you think the European authorities adhere to a higher standard of protection...well, you need to read this article. It compares the treatment accorded to a young German law student accused of kidnapping a young boy with that given to a key Al Qaeda operative.

It's not just the women

The German news magazine Der Spiegel reports (in English) that young Muslim men as well as women suffer from being forced into unwanted marriages. (Thanks to Ken.)

Spiegel is not the only source to describe this problem. Turkish-German authors Necla Kelek and Ahmet Toprak have written books analyzing the distressing situation of young men forced to submit to the tribal laws of their community. Marrying against their will is only one part of the problem; others end up with criminal careers as they follow the orders of their elders. Kelek, for example, argues that adolescent circumcision, performed as part of a public ceremony, serves to subjugate the teenagers and teach them that violence and pain are an integral part of community life.

Subjugating the individual to the group may be necessary for survival in the remote outposts of the Middle East and Central Asia, but it is in direct opposition to Western concepts of individual rights and equality before the law. And the damage done to the young people involved is undeniable.

Unfortunately, I don't think either Kelek or Toprak has been translated into English.

More on Georgia

The Russian strategy of 'regime change' in Georgia - which they deny pursuing - is for Russian citizens to sue Georgian President Saakashvili in European human rights courts for war crimes. Russians see their invasion of Georgia as a mirror image of NATO's intervention in Kosovo; if one was justified, the other must be too. After all, Yugoslavia never threatened NATO, but Georgia actually attacked South Ossetia. They propose to get rid of Saakashvili in the same manner that the West deposed Yugoslav President Milosevic. See here.

Nor are the Russians likely to be swayed by accusations that they have used 'disproportionate force' (the charge Europeans levied against Israel in its war against Hezbollah), since they always use it, especially if they think it will work. And, to continue the comparison, they can argue that the West used disproportionate force in the Kosovo war, bombing Belgrade civilian targets. (See Wayne's analysis here.)

Are the Russians also interested in gaining control of the pipeline that runs through Georgia? Probably.

What will the West do? NATO should start dusting off its territorial defense plans. As for the EU, the Russian invasion has probably put a proposed EU-Russia agreement on ice. Watch to see if the G-8 (club of the rich and powerful) shrinks to the G-7, as Russia is excluded. Or if the United States opposes Russia's long-sought entry into the World Trade Organization.

And let's hope the Congress votes to allow offshore drilling and exploitation of the oil shales, because the sooner the United States reduces its dependence on foreign energy sources, the better.

It's a small world

If you think Afghanistan and Iraq are far away, think again. The fingerprints of hundreds of insurgents, detainees and ordinary people in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Horn of Africa are already in U.S. databases, often in connection with crimes committed in the United States. Apparently many of them came here to study.

The matches have been made due to FBI and military biometric data programs developed since 9/11. While these programs raise concerns about the protection of civil liberties, they also provide undeniable new capabilities for tracking - and stopping - potential terrorists. See here for a discussion of the pros and cons.

European justice to be tested

Danish Muslims have tried four times to get Danish courts to rule against the famous cartoons that satirized the prophet Mohammed. In the latest instance, the High Court for western Denmark upheld an earlier ruling, saying among other things that "[i]t is a known fact that acts of terror have been carried out in the name of Islam and it is not illegal to make satire out of this relationship."

What to do? Danish Muslim leader Mohammed Khalid Samha announced that Danish Muslims will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, a court set up by the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France. Bilal Assaad, another plaintiff in the case, said "We had hoped that we could put this unfortunate matter behind us and that the High Court would draw the line that establishes the limits of freedom of expression in religious matters."

Let's hope the European Court of Human Rights does just that. Emphatically in favor of complete freedom of expression in religious matters. For more details, see Islam in Europe here.

Wafa the wonderful

Wafa Sultan, an Arab-American psychiatrist, doesn't seem to know the meaning of fear. Her outspokenness against various aspects of Islam on Al-Jazeera several months ago brought her a harsh condemnation from Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, considered the spiritual leader by many Muslims. She's been in hiding since, but has now given an equally outspoken interview on Al-Hayat TV in Cyprus. See the clip here. Note how she describes the way in which negative words and thinking warp and diminish people; it helps to explain the happy lynch crowd killing the young Iraqi girl, as reported earlier.

Wafa Sultan deserves a Medal of Honor - too bad that her bravery and intelligence pass virtually unnoticed in the United States.

The UN never disappoints

The Durban II racism conference - expected to be an antisemitic and anti-American hatefest - will be held in Geneva on April 20-24, 2009, thus coinciding with the annual Holocaust Remembrance Day.

As Anne Bayefsky of EYE on the UN notes: "Jews all over the world will be remembering the 6 million murdered in the worst instance of racism and xenophobia in human history. At the same time, the United Nations will be discussing whether the Jewish state, created in the wake of the Holocaust and standing as a bulwark to ensure it is never repeated, should be demonized as the worst practitioner of racism and xenophobia among nations today."

Canada, the United States and Israel are expected to boycott the conference; the European Union likely will attend. The next time a European harangues you (if you're an American) about human rights, please ask him or her why the EU supports such an outrage.