Thursday, 13 October 2016

Blasphemy, Islam and dangerous Trump


A Donald Trump presidency would be 'dangerous', UN human rights chief Prince Zeid bin Ra'ad said yesterday. Because of his views on 'vulnerable communities' (he no doubt had in mind Muslims) and on torture (probably of Muslims).

He also said:
"Clearly I am not keen or intent on interfering in any political campaign within any particular country."
Last month the Prince condemned Trump and Farage to ISIS and said they 'wanted to roll back the past', by which I suspect he meant a past without (Muslim) immigrants in their respective countries.

As Jordanian Ambassador to the U.N., the Prince twice voted for blasphemy to be banned under international law.

I liked it when blasphemy was illegal in England, but that law existed to prevent offence to the Christian God. God, note, not people who believe in Him. It was almost never used - Mary Whitehouse famously but unsuccessfully brought a private prosecution - and, though I am sad that the frail links between Christianity and the British state are being, one by one, broken, it was outdated and, I suppose, authoritarian. 

And very much better it went than be extended to cover offending against other faiths. As nearly happened under Labour. Both Tony Blair and Ed Miliband would have liked to do so, to win Muslim votes, increasingly a key factor in elections.

Islam is hugely powerful in the post-colonial world and becoming more so.

By the way, the Prince is heir to the throne of Iraq, where blasphemy is already illegal. What a shame the Americans did not restore the Iraqi monarchy, but they are too prejudiced against monarchies. 


  1. That a Muslim is head of UN Human Rights is possibly the most laughable thing I have read in years.
    The UN (like NATO), is largely American controlled, and by American leftists.

  2. The Prince is from a country where human rights are very important. What a f***ing joke.
    David Mangan