In the wake of the Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris earlier this month, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is seeking to take a major step in Muslim progressivism. Almost singularly focused, the OIC has been attempting to criminalize criticism of Islam for years; it’s what they did in the wake of the 2005 Danish cartoons; it’s what they did in the wake of the 2012 Benghazi attacks; and it’s what they’re doing now. The OIC is patient but determined to make this happen.
Diplomatic and NGO sources in Brussels say that the European Union is now considering proposals from Muslim groups to strengthen laws against “hate speech” following the fatal attacks in Paris at the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine and a Jewish Supermarket.
The proposals are based on fears that the attacks by Islamists could provoke a backlash against Europe’s growing Muslim community, leaders of which uniformly condemned the killings, while simultaneously protesting against denigration of Muhammed.
Mainstream Muslim leaders have close contacts with the European Union and its related institutions, as do the leaders of other faith groups.
The sources, consulted in the last two days, who insisted upon anonymity, said that senior EU officials were sympathetic to calls for libel and hate-speech laws to be strengthened, but were sceptical of getting support from member governments or from the European Parliament where Right-leaning parties increased their presence at last year’s European elections.
One well-informed member of a non-governmental orgainsation in Brussels said:
“The conversation is going on. In fact, it’s the only game in town after Paris. But you aren’t going to get anyone to go on the record right now. Everyone’s too scared, and I don’t mean scared of the Islamists, I mean scared of being accused of being politically correct, even if they are. ”
“The Jewish groups are terrrified, but let’s face it, how many Jews are there in Europe against the number of Muslims? But, yes, they are considering a ban on Islamophobia”.
That part about EU politicians being scared of being perceived as politically correct is significant. Political correctness is something everyone claims to despise but yet, so many of the world’s leaders fervently practice it and no one can really identify its source.
When it comes to the OIC’s efforts to criminalize speech critical of Islam, the origins of political correctness trace back to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on July 15, 2011. While in Istanbul, Turkey, Hillary was one of three co-chairs (then OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu and current Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu). In her speech at that meeting, which was specifically intended to kick off a process that would work toward what we’re seeing in the EU after the Paris attacks, Hillary said this about a recent United Nations Resolution upon which the Istanbul meeting was based:
“The resolution calls upon states to protect freedom of religion, to counter offensive expression through education, interfaith dialogue, and public debate, and to prohibit discrimination, profiling, and hate crimes, but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.“
Isn’t that part in bold what the OIC is arguing happened in Paris? Hillary continued:
“…we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and 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.”
Is not what Hillary was calling for at the very essence of political correctness? So, while everyone bemoans political correctness while pleading ignorance about its source, in the case of a movement to crackdown on Islamophobia, that source in the U.S. is Hillary Clinton (apparently it’s too politically incorrect to point that out).
Hillary’s co-chair on that day, İhsanoğlu, said this:
“We continue to be particularly disturbed by attitudes of certain individuals or groups exploiting the freedom of expression to incite hatred by demonizing purposefully the religions and their followers. Though we respect their freedom of opinion and expression, we find these attitudes politically and ethically incorrect and insensitive.”
It doesn’t get any more obvious than that. Hillary’s co-chair was openly admitting that he supported political correctness. Also in 2011, İhsanoğlu welcomed Barack Obama’s brother Malik Obama to the OIC headquarters in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
In reality, it’s the OIC and the Turks who are exploiting terrorist attacks in order to push the same agenda as the terrorists! In fact, Davutoglu exploited the Paris rally by walking arm-in-arm with world leaders who were supposed to be standing up for freedom of the press but soon after the rally, Davutoglu called for a rally against Islamophobia, as Shoebat.com reported.
In light of the strong evidence that the Obama administration itself was involved in the production of the Innocence of Muslims video, as Shoebat.com has reported, perhaps questions should be raised about who the “big guns” behind the Paris attacks may have been. In fact, Shoebat.com has done that as well. Just a day before the terror attacks in Paris, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan gave a speech in which he called for a crack down on Islamophobia.
Today, we’re hearing that demands are being placed on the EU to side with the Muslim terrorists who attacked Charlie Hebdo. This is clearly coming from the OIC.
Had four Americans not died in Benghazi but the Innocence of Muslims protests still taken place, it would certainly have been easier for the OIC to push the ‘crackdown on Islamophobia’ narrative then as well. Those deaths relegated the “Istanbul Process” agenda to the backseat.
Make no mistake. What we’re watching unfold between the OIC nations and the European Union today is what the OIC and U.S. State Department under Hillary Clinton wanted to see happen in the wake of the Benghazi attacks.