Under the UN speech codes, you can’t call an Islamic terrorist . . . an Islamic terrorist

It sounds so innocent: “Combatting Defamation of Religion.” Who could be against defamation of religion, or of anything else, for that matter? Do we not have an “Anti-Defamation” League? Would any person of good will favor the defamation of Judaism? Wouldn’t that be “anti-Semitism”?

As with almost everything else at the UN, the surface is the opposite of the substance. An innocent title masks a malevolent goal.

The 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference at the UN sponsored the the anti-defamation of religion resolution in 2005, and it passed. It is soon up for renewal and, lo and behold, the US and the EU have seen through the innocent cover to the rotten core.

This resolution retards freedom of speech in two ways:

First, the resolution lets Islam off the hook for terrorists acts (or other crimes) committed in the name of Islam. Actually, the resolution is worse. It puts the person who, or the media that, calls a spade a spade on the defensive.

Second, the resolution redefines “human rights” out of existence. A human right is granted to the individual to resist the power or the tyranny of a government or other group. The resolution at the UN, on the other hand, would grant a rights to the group — for example, a right to Islam to suppress the free speech of individuals who criticize it.

It is worth noting that while the the broad language of “Combatting Defamation of Religion” seems to embrace all religions, the resolution names only Islam. It is clearly the worst form of having it both ways: defending the right of believers in Islam to kill those who they disagree with; and denying others the right to say that the killers act in the name of Islam.

Obviously, not all, and not even a majority, of believers in Islam believe in or practice violence. Just as obviously, these people don’t need a resolution at the UN to protect them against defamation. No one is defaming them. The only reason for the UN resolution is the blatant link between Islam and much of world terrorism — a link proudly trumpeted by the Islamic terrorists themselves, from al-Qaida to Hamas. Thus, when Islam is criticized for nurturing vile and violent terrorists acts around the world, this isn’t “defamation”; it is merely calling attention to what the killers themselves proudly affirm. It is the truth.

Especially in the case of Islam, it is the individual, not the religion, who is need of defense. Cases in point: Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker, murdered; Salman Rushdie, the author, threatened with murder; publishers of Danish cartoons critical of Muhammed, silenced.

Try this on for a logic chop: Islamic backers of the “Combatting Defamation of Religion” resolution cite anti-Holocaust denial laws in various European countries. The backers ask: If denial of the Holocaust can be prosecuted under the law, why not defamation of Islam?

Among the many differences between the two:

• Holocaust-denial laws respond to the distortion of the truth, namely, that the Holocaust occurred, and on a massive scale; the defamation of Islam resolution responds to the affirmation of the truth, namely, that violence in the name of Islam has become widespread.
• Holocaust-denial laws seek to prevent damage against Jews or historians of the Holocaust; while the defamation of Islam resolution seeks to justify or to obscure damage against Jews and other bystanders.
• Holocaust-denial laws seek to protect standards of truth in order to prevent another descent into massive racism and violence; while the defamation of Islam resolution seeks to hide the efforts of some Islamic believers to cause another descent into racism and violence.
• Holocaust-denial laws illustrate the legitimate link between the destruction of European Jewry and the creation of Israel; while the defamation of Islam resolution seeks to delegitimate that link. This is because radical Islam’s primary enemy is Israel, so that any attempt to protect this malevolent goal against “defamation” is really an attempt to let radical Islam proceed with its anti-Israel agenda unfettered.

Holocaust-denial laws are not about free speech. They’re about preventing a rerun of the worst episode in human history. The defamation of Islam resolution is about free speech — about protecting the freedom to speak out against just such a rerun.