Kuwaiti Human Rights head labels ‘profaning' Muhammad the worst human rights violation in the world!

by Aaron Eitan Meyer  •  Oct 14, 2008 at 5:35 pm

https://www.legal-project.org/blog/2008/10/kuwaiti-human-rights-head-labels-profaning

On October 4^th, the London Telegraph reported that YouTube had taken down comedian Pat Condell's video "Welcome to Saudi Britain," with the only explanation being that the video constituted a "terms of use violation." In the video, which is now back up on YouTube, Condell took aim at the institution of Shari'a courts in Britain, terming them fundamentally unfair to women and criticizing the fact that "we're now accommodating Saudi Arabian legal principles here in Britain." A YouTube spokesman told the Telegraph that the site has guidelines regarding certain types of content, including ‘hate speech.'

Distressing as it is that a site like YouTube even temporarily bowed to Islamist pressure to censor free speech critical of radical Islam, that pales in comparison to the statements recently made by Dr. Adel Al-Damkhi, Chairman of the Kuwait Human Rights Society. Amid urging the Kuwaiti government to pressure YouTube into removing "all derogatory statements about Islam and Muslims" he expressed the following basis for his claim.

Dr. al-Damkhi stated that "uttering profanities against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the worst form of human rights violation in the world."

Let's consider for a moment Dr. al-Damkhi's claim, which is not a fringe position, but entirely consistent with recent statements made by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a Jordanian court and even the UN Human Rights Council.

Speaking as the chairman of the Kuwaiti Human Rights Society, al-Damkhi has declared blasphemy of Islam the gravest of all possible human rights violations.

Greater than sending innocent Muslim children strapped with bomb belts into marketplaces and detonating them by remote control amongst crowds of civilians? Greater than ‘honor' killings, where women who have been raped or who flee abusive marriages are murdered by their own relatives? Greater than beheading a journalist in the name of "Islam"? Of course these human rights violations are not considered violations at all by some radical Imams. And that is exactly the problem, as Western court systems and democratic notions of human and civil rights are being manipulated to undermine and cloud the very real distinction between true crimes and mere hurt feelings.

Disturbingly, even amid the recent 60^th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is growing more apparent that there is a legitimate question as to whether there is anything universal about human rights, at least as far as the partisans of radical Islam are concerned. The United Nations has already caved towards an Islamist version of human rights, as exemplified through its Human Rights Council Resolution 7/19 which attempts to bans blasphemy of Islam as a crime against humanity! This from a group that can't even define the word terrorism.

We cannot dismiss the sentiments voiced by Dr. al-Damkhi, despite the fact that he himself is a relative non-factor politically. As noted earlier, the same Islamist ideology that informs his conception of human rights is at the core of recent OIC, Jordanian and UN Human Rights Council statements and resolutions. It's even in line with the US government's adoption of mandatory language guidelines that prohibit the use of words and phrases such as "jihad", "Islamic terrorism", "Islamofascism", etc., when describing the goals and objectives of the "War on Terror".

The danger posed by this perversion of the natural and inalienable right to free speech isn't merely a matter for legal scholars to debate. Open dialogue on issues of public concern is a cornerstone of western government, rightfully seen as an essential part of the functioning of a democracy. When that public concern involves discussion about the grave threat posed by Islamist ideology, the importance of free and open public debate is perhaps at its greatest and the protection of this speech is a matter of national security.

The question for us has become whether we have the fortitude to hold fast to the course of Western human rights development, or whether we allow the definition of human rights to be perverted to serve radical Islam, a theology which cares exceedingly little for protecting inalienable rights of humanity.

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the legal project's free mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.