IHEU complains to UNCHR about attempted censorship

  • Date / 3 August 2005

IHEU has filed a formal complaint with the UN Commission on Human Rights about ad hominem attacks on an NGO Representative and attempted censorship at the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights on 26 July 2005.

The complaint was made in a letter sent jointly with the Association for World Education and the Association of World Citizens to Mr. Vladimir Kartashkin, Chairman of the fifty-seventh session, on 2 August 2005.


Case Postale 205 – 1196 Gland – Switzerland

Chairman of the fifty-seventh session
UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights
Palais des Nations. Geneva

2 August 2005

Dear Mr. Kartashkin,

Formal Complaint

Ad hominem Attacks on an NGO Representative and Attempted Censorship
Sub-Commission: 26 July 2005 (p.m.), plenum meeting, under item 2

We wish to register this formal complaint to you as Chairman of the 57th session, and would ask you to accept our request that it be circulated to members of the bureau, the expanded bureau, and all members of the Sub-Commission. This formal complaint with two attachments is also being sent to the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs. Louise Arbour, and to the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, Ambassador Makarim Wibisono.

This matter concerns several calumnies and ad hominem attacks that were made toward the close of the afternoon plenum meeting on Tuesday, 26 July 2005 against Mr David G. Littman – a representative of the Association for World Education – while he was delivering a joint oral statement (as first NGO speaker under agenda item 2) on behalf of three NGOs: the Association for World Education, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, and the Association of World Citizens.

One veteran member accused him of personally attacking Islam despite the fact that he was reading a joint statement for the three NGOs. Just as delegates of Governments represent their Governments and not their own personal views, so NGO speakers represent their organisations and not themselves. This policy is necessary for the effective functioning of work and should apply to any ‘point of order’ or ‘right of reply.’

Our joint statement contains not one word of an “attack on Islam”; in fact, we condemned terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islam by those “who defame Islam by calls to kill in the name of Allah or of Islam,” and we then called on the Sub-Commission and the Commission “to adopt a clear resolution by consensus, or a Chairman’s statement, in which any call to kill, to terrorise, or to use violence in the name God, or any religion is categorically condemned.” These words were read out by Mr Littman and are on the UN’s tape recording of the meeting and will probably appear in the summary record. Surely this is a matter on which all members of UN bodies would agree? This member also accused Mr Littman of being an “Islamophobe,” adding: “Mr Littman has never – since I have been at this Sub-Commission – I have never heard him make a statement which did not attack Islam.” UN records show that this is incorrect.

Another veteran member suggested that a quotation by Mr Littman of article 8 of the Hamas charter was probably inaccurate, and that “it would not be the first time” he had done this. The Hamas Charter is posted on several websites and its quoted article 8 is easily verifiable by all. This accusation was not sustained by an example. As an historian, Mr. Littman is careful never to quote anything that he had not checked personally; his statements have been on the public record since 1986, and such calumnies have never been proven by any delegate or member.

The same member also alleged that Mr. Littman was “pretending to speak for all the Jews in the world, but I can assure you, in the name of my Jewish wife that he does not speak for her.” None of the three organisations for which he was speaking have any Jewish affiliation. As a representative of the World Union for Progressive Judaism – his other NGO accreditation – Mr. Littman has on previous occasions referred to the fact that he was speaking for 1.5 million Reform and Liberal Jews worldwide (when authorised to do so), but it is totally irrelevant in this particular context (as is the personal information concerning the member’s Jewish wife).

The Association for World Education has been in the forefront condemning all personalised attacks on representatives, be they a Government, NGO, or a Special Rapporteur. As a result of one such appeal, the Chairman of the 57th session of the Commission, Ambassador Leandro Despouys, referred – in his statement to the plenum on 12 April 2001 – to the Main Rules and Practices (articles 11 and 16 of E/CN.4/2001/CRP.1), in regard to any ad hominem attacks on Special Rapporteurs – and also on NGO representatives. This appeal was understood and noted by all on that occasion. Four months later, at the start of the Sub-Commission’s 53rd session in 2001, Chairman David Weissbrodt made a similar plea that was much appreciated and noted by participants at that session (but was then forgotten during the 54th session in 2002).

On 21 March 2003 at the Commission, Mr Littman delivered a joint oral statement on behalf of the Association for World Education, the Association of World Citizens, the Lutheran World Federation, and the World Federation of Methodist and Uniting Church Women, in which he recalled the words of the Chairperson of the 59th session, Ambassador Najat al-Hajjaji of Libya, spoken at a meeting of the expanded bureau and NGOs the previous month. Then she stated that “civilised language” should be the golden rule at UN bodies and that she and her colleagues would not allow any personal attacks to be made against a speaker, whether by a State Member against another State or Observer Member, or against Special Rapporteurs, or NGOs – all of whom should be considered equal in human dignity, precisely here at the United Nations. In her opening remarks, she again stressed this basic theme of equality, notably gender equality, and she did her best to stick to this golden rule during the session. This joint oral statement read by Mr Littman for four NGOs then is pertinent today: “We are convinced that all our other NGO colleagues would endorse this joint statement as it touches the human dignity and equality of all representatives, at what is often referred to as the seat of individual human rights. We would encourage the Bureau to examine with the competent UN authorities how such iniquitous ad hominem calumnies can be prevented and corrected.”

Mr Littman then quoted from the inspiring Report of the newly appointed High Commissioner for Human Rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, who was tragically killed in Baghdad a few months later with over 20 other UN civilians. They were murdered by a group representing “the radical Ideology of Jihad that includes calls for killing and terrorism in the name of God” – as was stated in the first line of our joint oral statement of 26 July 2005, which a member of the Sub-Commission suggested in his point of order “should be deleted.”

We believe that the recommendation made by the late High Commissioner for Human Rights, which is being applied to the future Commission (or Council) should also be applicable to its Sub-Commission:

“Membership of the Commission on Human Rights must carry responsibilities. I therefore wonder whether the time has not come for the Commission itself to develop… a code of conduct for members while they serve on the Commission. After all, the Commission on Human Rights has a duty to humanity and the members of the Commission must themselves set the example of adherence to the international human rights norms – in practice as well as in law.” (E/CN.4/2003/14, from his introduction, point 5)

In view of the seriousness of these regular ad hominem attacks on representatives – especially of NGOs, and particularly at the Commission and the Sub-Commission – we are again submitting a formal complaint and appeal for a legal opinion to be issued by the competent UN legal authority, and for a new general rule of procedure to be introduced, by which any ad hominem attack against a speaker would automatically be ruled ‘out of order’ by Chairpersons of UN bodies, especially at the Commission and the Sub-Commission on Human Rights.

Yours respectfully,

René Wadlow
Main Representative of the Association for World Education
Main Representative of the Association of World Citizens

Roy W. Brown
President and Main Representative of the International Humanist and Ethical Union

Attached is a transcript from the UN recording from the time the Chairman called on Mr Littman to speak until the close of the meeting just after 6:00pm, with the four points of order and comments (translated from French and Spanish, and from Russian).Also, NGO written statement E/CN.4/2003/NGO/229 by the Association for World Education, entitled: Improving UNCHR/NGO relations: an end to all ad hominem attacks on NGO and other representatives.

cc. Mrs. Louise Arbour, The High Commissioner for Human Rights
Ambassador Makarim Wibisono, Chairman, Commission on Human Rights (61st session)
Mrs. Renata Bloem, President, Geneva-based Conference of NGOs (CONGO)
Mr. Peter Prove, President, Geneva-based Special Committee of NGOs on Human Rights

Transcript from UN tape: UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion & Protection of Human Rights: 57th session, plenum (26 July 5:43-6:03 pm). Four interventions were made on “points of order” by three of the 26 members: Mr. Abdul Sattar (Pakistan), twice by Ms. Halima Embarek Warzazi (Morocco); and Mr. Miguel Alfonso Martinez (Cuba). Mr. Vladimir Kartashkin (Russia) was in the chair. The verbatim recording in each case is reproduced in English, with the comments of the chairman and speaker. (Current UN tape recordings are only provided in the original spoken languages, not the English interpretations as used to be the case). The interventions and the chairman’s remarks have where necessary been translated into English.

Mr David Littman:

Sir, this is a joint statement on behalf of the Association for World Education, the International Humanist and Ethical Union and the Association of World Citizens.

It is appropriate to speak out during item 2 against a taboo subject at the United Nations: the radical Ideology of Jihad that includes calls for killing and terrorism in the name of God.

On 18 July a fatwa was issued by the British Muslim Forum, approved by 500 UK Muslim clerics, scholars and imams. Before quoting the Koran, it stated that: “Islam strictly, strongly and severely condemns the use of violence and the destruction of innocent lives… Such acts, as perpetrated in London, are crimes against humanity and contrary to the teachings of Islam.” [1]

It has been argued that those who issue fatwas to kill innocent people in the name of Islam are not real Muslims. But just before the London massacres a major conference of 170 Muslim scholars from 40 countries meeting in Amman, Jordan gave an opinion in a Final Communiqué, dated 6 July: It is not possible to declare these people apostates – they are Muslims. [2] In this specific context, we advise members and others to read the report just published by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (CSS), entitled: “Islamic Legitimacy for the London Bombing.” [3]

On 18 April at the 61st session of the Commission, we organised a Parallel NGO Conference, entitled: Victims of Jihad: Muslims, Dhimmis, Apostates, and Women. The matters debated during eight hours at the conference by historians, writers, and human rights defenders are of crucial interest for the human rights of all. The dire effects of the extremist Ideology of Jihad presented at the Conference have been adapted as written statements for the Sub-Commission and are here available; these 10 statements and five other related ones are listed below with their titles [in the printed copy of the speech].

They include a background historical analysis of Jihad by Dutch academic Johannes Jansen of Utrecht University; of Negationism by Bat Ye’or: specialist on Jihad, dhimmis, ‘dhimmitude’ and author of a recent book Eurabia [2005]; of the treatment of Apostasy in Islamic law and its inconsistency with International Human Rights Instruments by Ibn Warraq; and of women in Islam by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Dutch Parliamentarian, writer of “Submission,” a TV film produced with Theo van Gogh, who was slaughtered in an Amsterdam street last November by a fanatical Islamist.

In our written statement E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/NGO/4, we provide a warning by Dr. Ahmad Abu Matar, a Palestinian academic residing in Oslo, published on a reformist website the day before our NGO Conference. He stated that many Muslims in Europe foster conflict instead of coexistence and that they are being influenced by an extremist fundamentalist brand of Islam – and moderate Muslims are not speaking out adequately against this activity. [3]

Mr. Chairman, the most essential and basic human right is the right to life! Several NGO appeals have been made to both the Commission and the Sub-Commission to condemn calls or references to God in order to justify any form of violence or hatred, and the use of any appeal to religion to kill civilians: men, women and children – but to no avail.

16 years ago [4] we warned both the Commission and the Sub-Commission on the lethal danger of the genocidal 1988 Hamas Charter. The slogan of that Charter in its article 8 – borrowed from the 1928 Charter of the Muslim Brotherhood – has since…

Chairman [speaking in English]:
Point of order: In accordance with the rules of procedure, there are two requests for the floor, because the rules of procedure have priority over others, I am sorry. Mr. Sattar, what kind of ‘point of order’ are you raising?

Mr. Sattar [speaking in English]:
I just want to recall the ‘ruling’ that was given by the Chairman last year that members of the NGOs will not engage in casting aspersions on other religions. We start with the statement this afternoon: “radical Ideology of Jihad.” Now this statement is totally unacceptable. First of all, Jihad is a concept, it’s not an ideology, and then calling it “radical” already condemns the concept of another religion and, therefore, I’m just reminding you of the decision that was made last year, and I hope that you will urge the members of the NGOs to observe the principle that was enunciated by the Chair last year. Thank you very much.

[Mr Sattar’s statement regarding the ruling given by Chairman Soli Jehangir SORABJEE at the 56th session is incorrect. See below.]

Chairman [speaking in Russian]:
Mr. Littman, yes, indeed, I want to remind you that during the 56th session of this [Sub-] Commission, in which you participated, there were questions that were raised in the [Sub-] Commission. It seems to me, if I am not mistaken, that those asking these questions were Ms. Warzazi, Mr. Sattar, and some others – concerning these questions that have just been mentioned by Mr. Sattar. Thus, a special decision was made on this issue by the Chairman. [See below what actually happened at the 56th session.] This is why I would like to ask you to stick to the decision of the [Sub-] Commission, and with this condition I allow you a chance to resume your statement, but take into consideration this condition in your statement. I allow you to continue.

Mr.Littman [speaking in French]:
Mr. Chairman, I shall continue, with the right of freedom of expression of all NGOs – on agenda item 2 – and I hope that I won’t be interrupted again.

Mr. Littman continued:
16 years ago [4] we warned both the Commission and the Sub-Commission…

Chairman [speaking in Russian]:
A point of order. Ms. Warzazi.

Ms. Warzazi [speaking in French]:
Mr. Chairman, I regret that the NGOs have joined in this sort of defamation… defamatory declarations. Freedom of expression has limits and in all the international instruments there are limits to freedom, when the freedom constitutes what is condemned by the United Nations; that is to say, an Islamophobic act – then no one can continue to speak! I believe that it is scandalous that Mr. Littman has never – since I have been here at this Sub-Commission – I have never heard him make a statement that did not take… which did not attack Islam. Never! If you look at all the statements that he has made, never! So, I think that it is necessary, surely, there should be a bit of decency and a little bit of respect for religions. Never a Muslim would dare take the Torah and begin to criticise the Torah – never! One doesn’t criticise Islam…one is incapable of doing it – actually, it is forbidden for us in our religion! One must respect religion. One doesn’t attack Catholicism either, or Judaism – no nothing, rather the contrary. We are respectful toward the great religions of the world – the three religions. And we are there to defend them. I am there to defend it if one attacks the Hebrew religion. I would be the first to defend it – but from there, to be obliged to participate every time – mathematically each time that Mr. Littman attacks Islam! And he believes… he always finds a way… to find an excuse, in order to speak of Islam. It’s surely enough! “Basta,” as one says in Spanish – “Muchos basta!”

[The UN summary records and tape recordings do not substantiate this gross exaggeration.]

Mr. Littman, I request you to take into consideration the remarks just made by Ms. Warzazi when you resume your speech. You are given the floor. Mr. Littman you can continue.

Mr. Littman:
Mr. Chairman, this is an argumentum ad hominem. The text that is before you, and our written statements, do not attack Islam… I will continue my text. There is no attack against Islam. This is an attack against me, as can be heard. I will now continue, and I hope I will receive some extra seconds, which have been taken from my time.

Mr Littman continued:
16 years ago [4] we warned both the Commission and the Sub-Commission on the lethal danger of the genocidal 1988 Hamas Charter. The slogan of that Charter in its article 8 – borrowed from the 1928 Charter of the Muslim Brotherhood – has since become the Islamist blueprint for global terror: “Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its Constitution; Jihad is its path, and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.”

[Point of order]

Mr. Littman [speaking before the chairman spoke]:
Mr. Chairman, I am quoting from the Charter of Hamas. I am not attacking Islam.

Mr. Littman, in accordance with the rules of procedure, I have to give the floor to any member of the Sub-Commission who raises a ‘point of order.’ It is the written rules. I cannot violate written rules. That is why I give the floor to Mr. Martinez on a ‘point of order’.

Mr. Martinez [speaking in Spanish]:
There are already two charges that we cannot tolerate by the speaker. First, citing something that none of us has the possibility of confirming if it is an accurate text [i.e. Hamas Charter, art. 8 quote], or if it is one more invention by Mr. Littman – it would not be the first time. [The Hamas Charter may be found on various web sites via Google; in 20 years no State or other delegate has ever been able to show that Mr. Littman has provided inaccurate data.] Mr. Littman is a person who has been coming to the Commission and pretending to speak for “all the Jews in the world” – but I can assure you that at least in the name of my Jewish wife he doesn’t speak for her! [The letter dated 2 August 2005 by René Wadlow and Roy Brown to the Chairman refers to this] But I want to say now that we are faced with another unacceptable question. Mr. Littman feels authorised not to listen to the chairman, who must respect the rules and may ask the speaker to stop his statement to listen to a point of order. [N.B. the speaker removes his earphone when he starts to read a statement, and often does not hear the first rap of the chairman’s gavel on a ‘point of order.’] Now, are we going to tolerate this kind of violence against parliamentary order? This is the question we must be asking ourselves and we should not simply tolerate this type of violation against the elementary essentials of…civilisation. Please, I would like once again to request that this matter be addressed with all the seriousness it deserves, and that the parliamentary rules of order should be followed by all who are taking part in this debate, and that the established order not be transgressed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You have some special proposal to make [Mr. Martinez] or not? [general laughter in the plenum – over 300 representatives]

Mr. Martinez [speaking in Spanish]:
Mr. Chairman, the order of debates is one of the basic responsibilities of the chair, much more than of any individual members, and you are making a point that in fact concerns you directly. I am calling attention to concrete facts. Thanks. [further general laughter in the plenum]

Mr. Sattar, on a ‘point of order’.

Mr. Sattar:
Responding to your question as to whether there is a suggestion. I wish to recall that last year the same gentleman’s written statement was first shown to the chairman and the chairman then suggested that certain portions which were objectionable … should be …should be deleted. And I suggest that this same practice might be followed this year, and in accordance with your own guidance those portions which you feel are unacceptable should be deleted from the statement before it is read. Thank you very much.

[Mr. Sattar’s reference was to a written statement by the Association for World Education: E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/NGO/27, entitled, Jihad and Martyrdom as taught in Egyptian primary/ preparatory/secondary school textbooks, which is listed as N° 13 in the oral joint statement read by Mr. Littman on behalf of the AWE, the IHEU, and AWC, under item 2. No suggestion was made by the chairman of the 56th session to delete any portions from AWE’s NGO/27 written statement, and no deletion was made. A joint written statement to the 57th session: E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/NGO/2 (N° 3 on our oral statement list) provides details, under the sub-heading Postscriptum: Accusations of blasphemy and “defamation of Islam” at the 56th session of the Sub-Commission (para. 16-20).

In fact, Mr. Sattar had unsuccessfully asked the Chairman (‘point of order’) to prevent an oral statement by AWE’s representative. After this failed attempt at censorship, Mr. Littman was able to deliver AWE’s statement on 9 August 2004, but the representative of Pakistan made a complaint at the plenum on 10 August when he referred to written statement NGO/27 as a “defamation of Islam.” He then announced that “his government would take steps to protect UN organs such as the Sub-Commission from being thus abused.” This gross calumny was repeated at the closing meeting on 13 Aug. 2004, when Pakistan’s representative spoke on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.]

Chairman [speaking in Russian]:
Mr. Littman, taking into consideration the wishes of the members of the Commission, and taking into consideration the fact that we have only two minutes left for this meeting, I think it will be very easy for you to exclude in your written [?] statement the passages which have provoked the disagreement of the members of the Sub-Commission. Anyway, I would like to remind you that we only have two minutes before 6:00 pm when the debate must terminate, and we have to finish. Under this condition, I give you the floor.

Mr Littman:
Mr Chairman, it is unacceptable that an NGO statement is reduced because of 10 minutes of discussions [by the members]. I will cut a little from my text, but I cannot finish in 2 minutes, and it is totally unjust and unprecedented. I have been here [at the UNCHR] for 20 years. I will continue, Mr. Chairman.

[These four ‘points of order’ by 3 members took over 6 minutes; the remarks by the chair and the speaker’s comments, a further 4 minutes. After the chairman announced that only two minutes remained for the meeting, the speaker felt obliged to make cuts. Thus, the 3 smaller passages below in bold brackets in the text were not read.]

[Regrettably, this and other extremist Jihadist interpretations of Islam have been approved by several Muslim clerics worldwide, including Yusuf al-Qaradhawi, dean of the College of Sharia and Islamic Studies at Qatar University.] [5]

[On 30 December 2002, before the war began, the then Hamas leader al-Rantisi posted a Hamas website appeal for Muslims to flood Iraq with martyr/shahid, Islamikaze [6] bombers. It stated that: “The enemies of Allah… crave life while the Muslims crave martyrdom. The martyrdom operations that shock can ensure that horror is sowed in the [enemies’] hearts, and horror is one of the causes of defeat.”] [7]

Only by an unambiguous public rejection of this murderous cult of hatred and death can the grave dangers of a clash of cultures and civilisations be avoided. On 24 October 2004 thousands of moderate Muslims reacted in both print and websites against this cult of death.

Such reactions greatly multiplied following the barbaric civilian carnage in London on 7 July. Amir Taheri, reputed author and columnist for a London Arab daily, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat made a crucial point: “Until we hear the voices of Muslims condemning attacks with no words [of qualification] such as ‘but’ and ‘if,’ the suicide bombers and the murderers will have an excuse to think that they enjoy the support of all Muslims. The real battle against the enemy of mankind will begin when the ‘silent majority’ in the Islamic world makes its voice heard against the murderers, and against those who brainwash them, and fund them.” [8]

This was followed on 9 July in the same Arab daily when Al-Arabiya TV Director-General Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed wrote, under the title Expel Extremism Today:

Sir, I will not read his words that can be found in our text.

[“For over 10 years now, I myself and other Arab writers have warned against the dangers of the reckless handling of the extremism that is now spreading like a plague within the British community. (…) Like many other diseases, extremism is a contagious one. (…) The British authority’s leniency regarding fundamentalist fascism has allowed many, including Arab and Muslim intellectuals and journalists, to adopt ideologies that promote extremism and defend criminals such as bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi. The situation has escalated to the extent that Arab and Muslim intellectuals fear the repercussions of condemning extremists. The battle we face is against the ideology, as opposed to against the terrorists themselves. (…) The time has come for British authorities to deal harshly with extremism, before complete chaos is un-leashed onto British society. In the past, we talked about stopping them. Now, it is time to expel.”] [9]

We agree with both analyses. Those who brazenly justify their indiscriminate killing sprees in the name of Allah threaten the entire world with their crimes against humanity, cloaked and justified under the guise of Islamist Jihad Ideology. [10] British Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking in the House of Commons on 13 July, referred to this “extreme and evil ideology.” We have seen its devastating results in two dozen countries from New York to Bali; in the ongoing and indiscriminate slaughter in Iraq and Israel; not forgetting the hostages in the Bolshoi Theatre, Moscow three years ago and the faces of the murdered children in Beslan.

Sir, all of humanity is concerned by these vile assaults on our common future. In the words of the English 17th century poet, John Donne, we are all “involved in Mankind.”

The time has come for the distinguished representatives of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Arab League, and individual Muslim religious and secular leaders to be heard at the United Nations, united in an unambiguous condemnation of those who defame Islam by calls to kill in the name of Allah, or of Islam – not just a condemnation of the acts, themselves. Indeed, the OIC and other States have an urgent responsibility to include such a condemnation in the resolution on the “defamation of religions” that they have sponsored since 1999 at the Commission.

After more outrageous bombings in London and the carnage at Sharm el-sheikh last week and more on the horizon, despite security walls even here, we solemnly call on all the members of this Sub-Commission to adopt a clear resolution by consensus, or a Chairman’s statement, in which any call to kill, to terrorise, or to use violence in the name of God, or of any religion, is categorically condemned.

In face of this gathering storm: a global Jihadist cult of hate, death and destruction against the “Other,” we are again reminded of the words of John Donne:

“And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.”

Thank you, Mr. Chairman

Chairman [speaking in Russian]:
Thank you. I would like to remind all the participants of this discussion – those who will take the floor under agenda item 2 on the issues raised by Ms. Warzazi and Mr. Sattar….

End of transcript.
[The UN tape provided ends here, as it was probably considered of no interest to record any more. The chairman probably went on to warn NGO speakers not to cover “issues” that could cause a ‘point of order’ (or reactions) from members.]

[N.B. This explanatory material has been prepared by David G. Littman, with help from others, especially in regard to the translations from Spanish & Russian, whom we wish to thank here.]



1. BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/4697365.stm. Published: 2005/07/19 15:41:43 GMT.

2. “Islam struggles to stake out its position,” by Judea Pearl, International Herald Tribune, 20 July 2005, page 8. This article first appeared in the Boston Globe. King Abdullah’s conference address is at: www.MaximsNews.com.

3. Dated 20 July 2005, prepared, edited and translated by Reuven Paz, Director and Editor of the Project for the Research of Islamist Movements (PPISM): http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/sib/7_05/london_b.htm

4. www.elaph.com (17 April 2005) http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP92105
MEMRI, Special Dispatch Series – No. 921, 10 June 2005.

5. 31 January 1989 at the 45th session UNCHR, holding Arabic & English texts of the Hamas Charter of 18 Aug. 1988.

6.”Britain acts to expel Muslim firebrands,” by Alan Cowell, International Herald Tribune, 21 July 2005, pp.1, 5.

7. Raphael Israeli, Islamikaze: Manifestations of Islamic Martyrology (London/Portland, OR: Frank Cass, 2003).

8. MEMRI Special Dispatch Series – No. 457, 9 Jan. 2003. Extracts reproduced in E/CN/Sub.2/2004/NGO/25*. See also E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/NGO/26 for references to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hizbullah, and Al-Qaeda.

9. Amir Taheri, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), 7 July 2005, translation in MEMRI Special Report, 8 July 2005 N° 36: http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR3605 Arab Media Reactions to London Bombings: “A Chapter in Word War III”. Also Amir Taheri: “And this is why they do it”, in TimesOnline (London), 8 July 2005.

10. Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), 9 July 2005. MEMRI: Special Report – Jihad & Terrorism, 12 July 2005, No. 37 (Arab and Iranian Media Reactions to the London Bombing – Part II: “The Attacks Were Anticipated Due to British Leniency to Extremists Acting in Britain”/”Expel Extremism Today”: http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR3705.

11. In early July, Le Temps (Geneva) published a fascinating series of six one-page articles from a forthcoming book by Sylvain Besson, La Conquàªte de l’Occident. (Editions du Seuil, October 2005) Earlier this year appeared: Frères Musulmans: dans l’ombre d’Al-Qaeda by Emmanuel Razavi. Two recent books by Bat Ye’or will help those trying to find their way through this Islamist labyrinth: Islam and Dhimmitude. Where Civilizations Collide (2002), and Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis (2005) (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press / Associated University Presses – both). For many articles by Bat Ye’or, and a whole section on “Human Rights and Human Wrongs at the United Nations,” (pp. 305-472), which includes four important texts on “Apostasy, Human Rights, Religion, and Belief: New Threats to Freedom of Opinion and Expression,” being the four presentations made at a Parallel Conference organised by the same three NGOs at the UNCHR on 7 April 2004, see Robert Spencer (Ed.), The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims (New York: Prometheus Books, 2005), pp.428-52.

WordPress theme developer - whois: Andy White London