The Cairo Declaration on “Human Rights” in Islam (CDHRI) and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) together constitute the racist/sexist islamist world Umma/Sharia caliphate that heavily violates the most important aspects of Human Rights.
CDHRI, boosted by its islamofascist Turkish/Saudi led organization OIC, is a medieval Leviathan that wants to forever keep women below men (sexism/sex segregation) and muslim men above all other humans (racism/supremacism). Sadly, this evil package has a certain allure not only to many racist/sexist men with low moral standards (or simply ignorance in the issue), but also to women who naively only see what they think are “positive” aspects of sexism/sex segregation. An example of the latter is muslim women who veil themselves to avoid rape etc. and then feel “good” when the non-veiled “whores” are raped/intimidated by their criminal muslim brethrens.
Despite a universalist language akin to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, OIC’s CDHRI expresses islamic particularity/Sharia. CDHRI emphasizes the Quran, sharia and aspects of the Islamic faith that appear on no other similar international list. The CDHRI concludes in article 24 and 25 that all rights and freedoms mentioned are subject to the islamist Shariah, which is the declaration's sole source. The CDHRI declares "true religion" to be the "guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human integrity". It also places the responsibility for defending those rights upon the entire Ummah.
CDHRI avoids discussing freedom of religion, assembly, association or the requirement of free consent to marriage, the right to a fair trial, prisoners' rights, minority rights, the right to a nationality, suffrage, social security, trade unions, strikes or participation in cultural life. CDHRI also includes several crucial limitations, including all rights being bound by islamic Sharia; it allows the right to take a life, inflict bodily harm, that the education of children be in accordance with sharia, that there are rights that can be claimed from children or kin, restriction on freedom of movement and the ability to deny refugees protection whenever permitted by Sharia.
The CDHRI has been criticized for being implemented by a set of states with widely disparate religious policies and practices who had "a shared interest in disarming international criticism of their domestic human rights record."
Article 24 of the declaration states: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the islamist Sharia." Article 19 also says: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia."
The CDHRI has been criticised for failing to guarantee freedom of religion as a "fundamental and nonderogable right".
In a joint written statement submitted by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), a non-governmental organization in special consultative status, the Association for World Education (AWE) and the Association of World Citizens (AWC): a number of concerns were raised, that the CDHRI limits Human Rights, Religious Freedom and Freedom of Expression. It concludes: "The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is clearly an attempt to limit the rights enshrined in the UDHR and the International Covenants. It can in no sense be seen as complementary to the Universal Declaration."
The Centre for Inquiry in September 2008 in an article to the United Nations writes that the CDHRI: "undermines equality of persons and freedom of expression and religion by imposing restrictions on nearly every human right based on Islamic Sharia law."
Rhona Smith writes that because the CDHRI's reference to Shariah implies an inherent degree of superiority of men.
Adama Dieng, a member of the International Commission of Jurists, criticised the CDHRI. He argued that the declaration gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus on which the international human rights instruments are based; that it introduces intolerable discrimination against non-Muslims and women. He further argued that the CDHRI reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, to the point that certain essential provisions are below the legal standards in effect in a number of Muslim countries; it uses the cover of the "Islamic Shari'a (Law)" to justify the legitimacy of practices, such as corporal punishment, which attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.
Klevius concluding remarks: It's very simple. Negative rights guard the boundaries for further impositions by positive "rights". Meaning, for example, that ideological impositions on women (sex segregation) which are not only fully accepted in ALL of islam but also compulsory, are completely lacking in the negative part of the true Human Rights. However, due to an ideological flaw in socialism (inherited from Marx) socialist parties and individuals have always had a problem with negative rights. I wrote about this in Social-democracy and the Rights of the Individual (1994).
No comments:
Post a Comment