Additional Resources
Top Commentators:
- Elliott Abrams
- Fouad Ajami
- Shlomo Avineri
- Benny Avni
- Alan Dershowitz
- Jackson Diehl
- Dore Gold
- Daniel Gordis
- Tom Gross
- Jonathan Halevy
- David Ignatius
- Pinchas Inbari
- Jeff Jacoby
- Efraim Karsh
- Mordechai Kedar
- Charles Krauthammer
- Emily Landau
- David Makovsky
- Aaron David Miller
- Benny Morris
- Jacques Neriah
- Marty Peretz
- Melanie Phillips
- Daniel Pipes
- Harold Rhode
- Gary Rosenblatt
- Jennifer Rubin
- David Schenkar
- Shimon Shapira
- Jonathan Spyer
- Gerald Steinberg
- Bret Stephens
- Amir Taheri
- Josh Teitelbaum
- Khaled Abu Toameh
- Jonathan Tobin
- Michael Totten
- Michael Young
- Mort Zuckerman
Think Tanks:
- American Enterprise Institute
- Brookings Institution
- Center for Security Policy
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Heritage Foundation
- Hudson Institute
- Institute for Contemporary Affairs
- Institute for Counter-Terrorism
- Institute for Global Jewish Affairs
- Institute for National Security Studies
- Institute for Science and Intl. Security
- Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
- Investigative Project
- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
- RAND Corporation
- Saban Center for Middle East Policy
- Shalem Center
- Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Media:
- CAMERA
- Daily Alert
- Jewish Political Studies Review
- MEMRI
- NGO Monitor
- Palestinian Media Watch
- The Israel Project
- YouTube
Government:
Back
[Maclean's-Canada ] Luiza Ch. Savage - The Organization of the Islamic Conference has been leading a remarkably successful campaign through the UN to enshrine in international law prohibitions against "defamation of religions," particularly Islam. Their aim is to empower governments around the world to punish anyone who commits the "heinous act" of defaming Islam. The trend has rights advocates worried. "Defamation of religions" is not about protecting individual believers from damage caused by false statements - but rather about protecting a religion, or some interpretation of it, or the feelings of the followers. Religions by definition present competing claims on the truth, and one person's religious truth is easily another's apostasy. The subjective perception of insult is what matters, and what puts the whole approach on a collision course with the human rights regime. "Islamophobia is a problem. But this is not a practical solution, and it destabilizes the human rights agenda," said Angela Wu, international law director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Washington. "The defamation of religions protects ideas rather than individuals, and makes the state the arbiter of which ideas are true. It requires the state to sort good and bad ideologies." By doing so, she said, the approach "violates the very foundations of the human rights tradition by protecting ideas rather than the individuals who hold ideas." 2008-07-31 01:00:00Full Article
Islamic States Use UN to Stifle Free Speech - Globally
[Maclean's-Canada ] Luiza Ch. Savage - The Organization of the Islamic Conference has been leading a remarkably successful campaign through the UN to enshrine in international law prohibitions against "defamation of religions," particularly Islam. Their aim is to empower governments around the world to punish anyone who commits the "heinous act" of defaming Islam. The trend has rights advocates worried. "Defamation of religions" is not about protecting individual believers from damage caused by false statements - but rather about protecting a religion, or some interpretation of it, or the feelings of the followers. Religions by definition present competing claims on the truth, and one person's religious truth is easily another's apostasy. The subjective perception of insult is what matters, and what puts the whole approach on a collision course with the human rights regime. "Islamophobia is a problem. But this is not a practical solution, and it destabilizes the human rights agenda," said Angela Wu, international law director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Washington. "The defamation of religions protects ideas rather than individuals, and makes the state the arbiter of which ideas are true. It requires the state to sort good and bad ideologies." By doing so, she said, the approach "violates the very foundations of the human rights tradition by protecting ideas rather than the individuals who hold ideas." 2008-07-31 01:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|