The Turkish Vote

Bloomberg posted an article yesterday about the results of the referendum in Turkey. The results of the election are not good news for freedom-loving people in Turkey or in the Middle East.

The article reports:

Turkey voted to hand Recep Tayyip Erdogan sweeping authority in the most radical overhaul since the republic was founded 93 years ago on the expectation he’ll safeguard security amid regional wars and kickstart the economy.

The referendum won approval of 51.3 percent to 48.7 percent of Turks, according to the state-run Anadolu news agency, as opposition parties alleged fraud and the European Union branded it as unfair. Once implemented, Erdogan will have authority to appoint ministers and top judges at his discretion and call elections at any time. It will also give him much greater sway over fiscal policy and may deepen investors’ concerns about the independence of the central bank.

The win “represents a blow to the assumption that liberal or even in some cases hybrid democracies are structured to prevent authoritarian figures from hijacking the political system,” Anthony Skinner, a director with U.K.-based forecasting company Verisk Maplecroft, said before the results were declared.

Erdogan triumphed by appealing to voters in the small towns that dot the Anatolian heartland where he won overwhelmingly. These Turks want a firm hand at the helm to combat the resurgence of terrorism, fight Kurdish separatism and Islamic State in Syria and defend Turkey’s global interests. The result is a victory not only for him, but for type of authoritarian system exemplified by Vladimir Putin that has gained admirers around the world.

It helps when looking at this situation to look at some of the history of Turkey and some of its current friends. Turkey is a member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) as well as a member of NATO. The OIC describes itself as “the collective voice of the Muslim world” and works to “safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony.” It’s important to note here that the definition of peace under Sharia Law is the subjugation of all countries and people of the world to Sharia Law. This is not a group that favors democracy.

Historically, Turkey was the heart of the Ottoman Empire, which was defeated in World War I.  In 1924, Ataturk (Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founder of the Republic of Turkey, serving as its first President from 1923 until his death in 1938) enacted a new constitution in Turkey. The new constitution instituted laws and jurisprudence much like European laws. There was also a thorough secularization of modernization of the administration. The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the secularization of Turkey caused Hassan al Banna to found the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928 with the purpose of unifying the Islamic states under a new caliphate.

We need to remember that the Ottoman Empire was dissolved less than one hundred years ago. There are still many Muslims who want to bring back the caliphate. I suspect that in addition to his desire to obtain more power and more control, Recep Tayyip Erdogan may well be moving in the direction he feels will bring back the caliphate.

 

 

When Their True Colors Show…

Islam is not a tolerant religion–women are stoned for adultery, thieves have their hands cut off, infidels are beheaded, and homosexual men are thrown off the tops of buildings to their death. In an Islamic country, if you don’t fit the Islamic picture of what you are supposed to be, your life can get very complicated very quickly. There was an example of how this principle works internationally this week.

Fox News reported on Wednesday that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a major voting block in the United Nations, prevented 11 gay and transgender rights organizations from attending a meeting at the United Nations next month on ending AIDS. The OIC was organized in 1969 with the stated goal of “revitalizing Islam’s  pioneering role in the world.” At that time, it was called the Organization of the Islamic Conference. In 2011, it was renamed the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation. The purpose of the organization is to be the voice of the Muslim world and to safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world. Its membership includes 57 countries.

The article at Fox News reports:

In Egypt’s letter, a reason for the OIC’s rejection of the groups was not specified, but Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the groups appeared to have been blocked for their role in LGBT advocacy.

“Given that transgender people are 49 times more likely to be living with HIV than the general population, their exclusion from the high-level meeting will only impede global progress in combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic,” Power wrote in a letter to General Assembly President Mogens Lykketoft.

U.N. officials told Reuters that the E.U. and Canada also wrote letters to Lykketoft in protest.

“The movement to block the participation of NGOs on spurious or hidden grounds is becoming epidemic and severely damages the credibility of the U.N.,” Powers added.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon – caught in the middle of the battle for gay rights – has been an advocate for LGBT equality but has faced opposition from African and Arab states as well as Russia and China. In February, the countries protested six new U.N. stamps promoting LGBT equality.

The items on the liberal wish list in America are in direct contradiction to Islamic law. It will be interesting to see when the American left wakes up to this fact. When the gay population that supports the agenda of the political left realizes that under Sharia Law they will be killed, they may stop advocating for American courts to accept Sharia Law.

 

This Looks Innocent But It Isn’t

CBN News reported today on U.N. Resolution 16/18, a U.N. Resolution supported by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The resolution sounds very practical until you examine it closely. The resolution seeks to limit freedom of speech when dealing with Islam.

The Center for Security Policy reports:

The Obama administration started down this ill-advised road by cosponsoring in 2009 an OIC-drafted resolution in the UN Human Rights Council that condemned “defamation of religion” – read, Islam.  That initiative helped advance the Islamists’ twelve-year campaign to “prohibit and criminalize” such defamation in accordance with the “blasphemy laws” that are part of the totalitarian doctrine they call shariah.

Then, as more and more of the Free World began awakening to the danger posed by such efforts to compel them to submit to shariah, Team Obama helped engineer a new document at the Human Rights Council.  Adopted in March, Resolution 16/18 focused, instead of banning defamation, on getting the world’s nations to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization, and  discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”  

The countries in the OIC that are sponsoring this are countries where a person can be put to death for converting to Christianity or encouraging anyone else to become a Christian. Do we really believe that they are for preventing discrimination based on religion?

The article at CBN reports:

Sekulow (Jordan Sekulow, director of policy and international operations for the American Center for Law and Justice) says his organization is fighting to keep the resolution from becoming adopted because it could backfire and be broadly misinterpreted country by country.

“Just the building of churches … having a cross outside your door can be inciting violence,” Sekulow explained.

“So if you let them define these definitions when there is no problem coming from the minority faiths, this is somehow going to ‘green light’ their suppression,” he added.   

We need to remember that freedom of religion is not a right in many countries around the world. Letting a group of countries where freedom of religion does not exist pass a law about religious discrimination is simply not smart–the intentions of those countries may be very different than the intentions of the countries in the world where all faiths are welcome.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Do The Rules And Words Of The United Nations Mean Anything ?

United Nations exhibit by OWI at Rockefeller P...

Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr

This week Israeli IDF sergeant Gilad Shalit returned home to Israel five years after being taken hostage by Hamas. Sergeant Shalit was kidnapped inside Israel in a cross-border raid via underground tunnels near the border with Gaza.

In June 1983, the United Nations passed the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages. The Convention states:

CONSIDERING that the taking of hostages is an offence of grave concern to the international community and that, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, any person committing an act of hostage taking shall either be prosecuted or extradited,

My questions is simple–“Where was the outrage at the United Nations over the kidnapping of this soldier?” To win his freedom, Israel agreed to release 1,027 Palestinian prisoners, including about 400 with “blood on their hands.” That means they were directly linked to the deaths of Israeli Jews in terrorism attacks. If the United Nations were truly dedicated to peacekeeping, shouldn’t they logically be outraged that there are now at least 400 more terrorists loose in the world? At the present time the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), a 56-member group of Islamic nations, is one of the main power blocs in the United Nations. As long as that is the case, the United Nations will not deal with terrorism or brutal dictatorships–in fact, in some cases it will enable and encourage them. It is time the United States took leadership and started a group of peace-loving democracies as a counter-weight to the United Nations. Then, and only then, will there be a world-wide body of nations attempting to work toward peace.


 

Enhanced by Zemanta