The UN’s human-rights body approved a proposal by Muslims nations Thursday urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism.

The proposal put forward by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic countries – with the backing of Belarus and Venezuela – had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies.

A simple majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution. Eleven nations, mostly Western, opposed the resolution, and 13 countries abstained.

The resolution urges states to provide “protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.”

“Defamation of religions is the cause that leads to incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence toward their followers,” Pakistan’s ambassador Zamir Akram said. (Heyyy, Zamir, so what about discrimination against non-Muslims in Islamic countries? Are they going to be protected against discrimination? No, right?)

“It is important to deal with the cause, rather than with the effects alone,” he said.

via UN approves religious criticism proposal | International | Jerusalem Post. tx to O Insurgente.

I had written before about this really worrying (at least for me) subject. It’s curious though: there are NO Spanish MSM which have published something about this, that I know of.

But you know what’s curious too? That the Organization for the Security and the Cooperation in Europe has alerted of the discrimination that Christians are suffering in Europe:

Last March 4th, for the 1st time in its history, the office of the Organization for the Security and the Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), for the Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), organised a debate in Vienna specially focused in the risks the right to religious liberty regarding Christians, experiment in Europe.

The intervention of Mario Mauro, VicePresident of the European Parliament, was the most interesting of all. He is also the personal representative of the OSCE Presidency against racism, xenophobia and discrimination. the MEP explained that the “examples show that that discriminations against Christians do not only exist in the countries where the Christians are a minority but also in those in which they are a majority of the population, not considering the persecutions that strike these communities outside the OSCE’s area”.

(…) But, why does the Organization for the Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) worry now about the  abused rights of Christians? The answer was pointed out in the same debate, remembering that  hate and intolerance do not only affect the people’s security but also to country’s stability. That’s why the Organization has decided lately to intensify the efforts to counter these discriminative cases more efficiently in the future.

It seems that Christians are mainly discriminated even in Christian countries. Something which is really worrying…

NOTE that they are NOT worried about the discrimination considerated as an unlawful and unethical fact, but because it can affect country’s stability. Specially in this economic crisis…

Anyway where are the riots? Where the enraged statements made by Governments about Christian persecution? Where the Pope’s statements calling for the murder of those insulting Catholicism/Orthodox/etc.? Where the cartoonists are obliged to live in hiding because they draw a cartoon mocking Jesus Christ or the Church (whatever Church it is)? So, now tell me who did all these things and what religion the belong to now, in this very same moment. Just in case someone begins speaking about “Christian extremism” or something like that…

Both Zapatero and Medvedev want Spain and Russia to be strategic partners (well, we can say safely that Putin wants it too) in several areas such as energy (which would mean Spain would buy their energy, as it looks like that Russia has a special plan to monopolise the access of energy to Europe), tourism (more Russian mobsters undoubtedly: the South of Spain, specially Málaga is full of them), infrastructures and transports.

The official meeting between Medvedev and Zapatero will take place tomorrow in Moncloa’s Palace (Official residence of the Spanish PM), where they are going to sign an “Statement of strategic association”. They will also analyse measures to fight economic crisis, possibilities of commercial relations and other bilateral matters, international political situation, energetic situation, UN reform, relationship between NATO and Russia and also between the latter and EU, regarding the next Spanish presidency.

The results on the poll on Geert Wilders (Do you agree with the English decision of declaring Wilders “persona non grata”?) are:

• A total and absolute error: freedom of speech must be preserved 94% (15 votes).
• While I think that freedom of speech is important, I believe that religious sensitivities must be respected 6% (1 votes)
• Who is Geert Wilders? 0% (0 votes)

This week poll is about the agreement between the Talibans and the Pakistani Government in Swat’s valley. Fareed Zakaria discusses it and says that while the Talibans are “bad guys”, we don’t have to worry about them as they don’t want to achieve the Global Caliphate:

The groups that advocate these policies are ugly, reactionary forces that will stunt their countries and bring dishonor to their religion. But not all these Islamists advocate global jihad, host terrorists, or launch operations against the outside world — in fact, most do not. Consider, for example, the most difficult example, the Taliban. The Taliban have done all kinds of terrible things in Afghanistan. But so far, no Afghan Taliban has participated at any significant level in a global terrorist attack over the last ten years–including 9/11. There are certainly elements of the Taliban that are closely associated with Al Qaeda. But the Taliban is large and many factions have little connection to Osama bin Laden. Most Taliban want Islamic rule locally, not violent jihad globally.

Of course, the help they can give the Global Caliphate’s supporters or the pledge of alliegance to Bin Laden are for me significant.

These two videos can also be of help (2nd one seen on Incognito’s blog):

So what do you think?

[polldaddy poll="1410267"]

The chancellor has given Muslim leaders private assurances that he wants to create a “level playing field” in the economy, so that more and more “sharia compliant” financial products can be offered to British Muslims.

To comply with sharia law, financial products must not charge or earn interest, which is regarded as usury.

Brown hopes his proposed changes would remove barriers to many British and foreign Muslims participating fully in the financial system. They would help make London the natural home for Islamic funds from around the world, and increase the inflow of investment from oil-rich Middle Eastern countries.

“Making the UK and London a centre for Islamic finance means putting in place the tax and legislative framework that is supportive of Islamic products,” said a senior Treasury official.

“On top of this, we’re also looking at promoting the City abroad as a centre for Islamic finance.”

via Brown to boost Islamic banking – Times Online. This article dates back to March, 2006, but it’s importance has not diminished. Because in the present situation of global economic crisis Western countries are having similar ideas: for exmple the US:

The Risk of Shariah Finance: While Americans are selling their positions in U.S. companies, Middle Easterners flush with petrodollars are aggressively gobbling up these stocks at fire sale prices. Moreover, as American financial institutions report the losses that forced them to deplete their cash reserves, CEOs are begging for loans from oil-rich Middle East nations that have benefited from the rise in oil prices in recent years from $30 to nearly $100 per barrel. As one former Wall Street executive lamented, U.S. business leaders are “lining up to kiss the ring.”. (…) How might this harm America? If any of these investors, or a bloc of investors, gains enough controlling shares of a company, they can exact a dangerous influence. This might include the insistence that a corporation’s activities are halal, which would mean jettisoning business interests that include: banks charging interest; firms that are either based in Israel or are working with the Jewish state; firms developing weaponry used in Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern states; casinos and other gambling companies; businesses that involve pork products; alcohol distillers and bottlers; publishers that release books critical of Islam; and even entertainment companies that could offend Muslim sensibilities or appear incompatible with Muslim values.

Melanie Phillips h/t Shariah Finance Blog was very clear as to the extent of the dangers: [Western leaders] don’t understand that the spread of sharia banking in Britain and America is a significant part of the attempt to Islamise Britain and America. Acceptance of sharia finance furthers the Islamist objective of gradually legitimising Islamic sharia law more generally in the west. (…) The most important point to grasp is that Islam recognises no authority superior to sharia. Sharia banks will therefore not recognise the superior authority of the law of the land. When trillions of pounds and dollars are locked into them, who will argue with them?

The curious thing of this “new” movement is precisely that it is not only aimed at people coming from countries outside Europe but also from other parts of Europe.

Sometimes it is just ridiculous. Italian city Lucca has ordered that all restaurants should have an Italian decoration, waiters should wear elegant clothes and speak English and (the important thing) they should serve Italian food. While the first requirements weren’t very much disputed, the latter has caused a lot of criticism. The opposition has even considered this as “meal racism”, or “racism considering that the restaurants that are going to be closed serve non-Italian meals”. Of course, the mere consideration from a etimological point of view of “meals/cooking’s racism” is just a total absurd. But the real thing is that the opposition is worried mainly about the Turkish döner kebabs but not about French, Spanish or Hindu restaurants, which normally tend to be owned by Italians, or about McDonalds or Burger King’s which are also included in the measure

Meanwhile, in Great Britain the situation is not as “ridiculous” but rather is much more worrying. Expat Yank points out the real problem:

Absolutely disgraceful reporting on the part of the Beeb. For as of that 11:10 report, nowhere in that piece is it made clear that those “overseas” and “foreign” workers are Italian EU nationals. Nor was it mentioned in yesterday’s initial piece. Nor is it gently pointed out that the protesting British workers themselves clearly don’t understand that those Italians have as much right to those jobs as do Britons.

What happens? A part of an oil refinery was being constructed, work which was won by IREM, an Italian-based contractor, which brought in its own workforce. So the workers from the Oil Refinery, even if no redundacy was going to be caused by those Italians, went on an unofficial strike. They can’t understand that, under European Union regulations, European citizens, can move throughout the territory of the EU, without restraint, to work.

But the worrying thing is that the BBC, paid by the British taxpayer and under the Government’s supervision, precisely attacks this idea of free movement. The double standard is so worrying that, after the BBC has been reporting in a “italians-are-stealing-British-jobs” mode, Gordon Brown can afterwards say this:

Brown Warns Global Economy Is Slipping into Financial Protectionism

to afterwards saying:

what we’ve got to do over time, as I’ve always said, is that where there are jobs in this country, we need people with the skills, developed in this country”…

In Spain, we have a similar problem. Spanish Industry Minister, Miguel Sebastian, said that we should buy “Spanish products”, to help Spanish producers. So a journalist asked Zapatero if he supported that. As he was in a press conference with Portuguese Primer Minister, our cosmic leader from the Alliance of Civlizations President answered “I chose the ibéricos“, referring to both Spanish and Portuguese products, but not taking into account that in Spain that expression refers to this.

But the problem is aggravated by the influence of the Autonomous Communities. After financing an association which sends letters to firms menacing them with fines in case they don’t write commercial signs in Galician, and after Galician President, Touriño, has spent huge quantities of money in highly luxurious items (nearly €4 million in the reform of three meeting rooms, €26.284 in a table; €2.269 for each chair he bought; €170.212 in the windows of another room and €480.000 in an official car), his Vicepresident, Galician independentist Anxo Quitana, has asked the people to buy Galician products. Why don’t you lower the taxes to help those “producers”?? 

So the question is: are we really for a globalised economy with the natural competitiveness that it brings or rather are we going to go back to old protectionism? The economical crisis is going to point out which direction we are taking. But seeing President Obama calling for “Buy American products” is not a really good sign.