UN attempts to criminalize criticism of Islam

[Cyranothe2nd]

Geneva, March 11, 2009 — UN Watch, a human rights monitoring organization based in Geneva, denounced a new U.N. resolution circulated today by Islamic states that would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law. (See full U.N. text below.)



UN Watch obtained a copy of the Pakistani-authored proposal after it was distributed today among Geneva diplomats attending the current session of the UN Human Rights Council. Entitled "Combating defamation of religions," it mentions only Islam.



"While non-binding," said UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer, "the resolution constitutes a dangerous threat to free speech everywhere. It would ban any perceived offense to Islamic sensitivities as a 'serious affront to human dignity' and a violation of religious freedom, and would pressure U.N. member states -- at the 'local, national, regional and international levels' -- to erode the free speech guarantees in their 'legal and constitutional systems.'"


Read on...
http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nln...871&ct=6829271

[uki]

more change we can believe in folks...

The idea to exclude Russia and China from global decision making is counterproductive. The expert added: “This community of democratic nations is like a new Holy Alliance [a 19th century alliance between Russia, Prussia and Austria meant to provide pan-European security and promote Christian values] and a very anachronistic idea.”

Barack Obama’s administration sees NATO as the nucleus for a global organization of democracies that will eventually replace the United Nations, believes an influential Russian newspaper.

Washington wants NATO to be expanded by inviting counties like Australia, Japan, Brazil and South Africa and become a global organization tackling not only security issues but also epidemics and human rights, reports Kommersant daily on Friday. The next US Ambassador to NATO Ivo H. Daalder is a great supporter of this idea.

Daalder, expert of the Brookings Institution and a foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama during the election campaign, is a strong proponent of the so-called Concert of Democracies.

Exclusive club for democratic nations

full article... http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=12705

[ARMAGEDDONUS]

Geneva, March 11, 2009 — UN Watch, a human rights monitoring organization based in Geneva, denounced a new U.N. resolution circulated today by Islamic states that would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law. (See full U.N. text below.)



UN Watch obtained a copy of the Pakistani-authored proposal after it was distributed today among Geneva diplomats attending the current session of the UN Human Rights Council. Entitled "Combating defamation of religions," it mentions only Islam.



"While non-binding," said UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer, "the resolution constitutes a dangerous threat to free speech everywhere. It would ban any perceived offense to Islamic sensitivities as a 'serious affront to human dignity' and a violation of religious freedom, and would pressure U.N. member states -- at the 'local, national, regional and international levels' -- to erode the free speech guarantees in their 'legal and constitutional systems.'"


Read on...
http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nln...871&ct=6829271

I really don't see the point here.

[Goldmoon]

Not surprising. We'd better be on guard for what is to come.

[Cyranothe2nd]

I really don't see the point here.

Is the article too obscure? Or is infringement of free speech immaterial?

[lycanox]

I neither see the problem as it is a non binding resolution.
Or are you suggesting that we should ban the free speech of muslims to complain about stuff?

[Traveler]

It is a ploy by one religion to dominate over the others but is in fact a non starter.

Yes you can outlaw any criticism of Islam but then you have to out law any criticism of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca and so on. In effect you end up with a situation where the Islamic fundamentalists are not able to say anything about the other religions either. So in the last they would have lost ground not gained.

[Nu Kua]

UN Watch, a human rights monitoring organization based in Geneva, denounced a new U.N. resolution circulated today by Islamic states that would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law. (See full U.N. text below.)

Well why not? It would only be fair, after all as long as people are condemned for speaking out against Israel, or the control the Israeli lobbies have on our own politics.
It is practically illegal to criticize Zionism- there is a false suggestion that to criticize Zionism is somehow anti-Semitic, even if one is merely critical of the political and military actions of the right wing hardliner zionist politics of Israel. Even when these actions result in the gross mistreatment of an entire race of people, even when actions fly in the face of international law and compassion.
It is actually illegal in some countries to ask questions and offer critique of the "official" story of the Nazi Holocaust- to do so not only gets one labeled a "Jew hater", but actually results in jail time- just for publicly doubting even one small aspect of the history as it is taught. Why are we allowed to offer this critique of any other event in history, but that one?

A foreign diplomat was arrested in the UK several weeks ago- well a couple or three months back, while Gaza was being leveled by the IDF- he was in the gym and became angry at what he saw. he shouted to the TV "fucking Israel! fucking Jews!" as he watched the footage of the white phosperous and such atrocities raining down on a largely civilian population.
His words did not contain threats to anybody- strong expletives, yes, but no threats. Just the same sort of words we here levied against Arabs and Muslims everyday, without censor.
but, because he was speaking out (admittedly in an uncouth manner) about "Israel" and "Jews", he was arrested.

Yet, we are allowed to go on media rampages touting all sorts of half truths and emotional based "arguments" about the 'evils' of Arabs and the Muslims in general- an unfair and dangerous lumping in of your everyday Muslim with the fanatic, angry extremists who are a danger. this has been Ok for decades, maybe longer.

In film, on the news, in books- Arabs are consistently displayed as sneaky, "dark", sinister, dirty, ect. This is not based on truth, this is the Hollywood version of Arabs and this has led to a misplaced hatred, based on mucho misunderstanding and outright lies, about another group of Humans, just as human and diverse as white people, black people, yellow people, you name it.

How is that right?


I completely agree this is a violation of free speech, but oh well, how can we make that argument when it concerns Muslims, but not when it concerns Jews? (or Zionists- I hate that the two have been incorrectly tied together in an automatic way- it leads to more misunderstanding, it is not right)

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. How would it be correct to not be able to speak out against one groups dogma, beliefs, culture, politics, ect, and not another?

[Cartesiantheater]

Well why not? It would only be fair, after all as long as people are condemned for speaking out against Israel, or the control the Israeli lobbies have on our own politics.

Israel is not the UN. And no, it wouldn't be fair. There are more than two sides involved in this discussion. It isn't just Israel and Muslims.

It is practically illegal to criticize Zionism

Which UN resolutions have done this?

- there is a false suggestion that to criticize Zionism is somehow anti-Semitic, even if one is merely critical of the political and military actions of the right wing hardliner zionist politics of Israel. Even when these actions result in the gross mistreatment of an entire race of people, even when actions fly in the face of international law and compassion.

What does Israel or Zionism have to do with a UN resolution to ban criticism of Islam?

It is actually illegal in some countries to ask questions and offer critique of the "official" story of the Nazi Holocaust- to do so not only gets one labeled a "Jew hater", but actually results in jail time- just for publicly doubting even one small aspect of the history as it is taught. Why are we allowed to offer this critique of any other event in history, but that one?

We? Or specific countries?

Oh, and a historical event and criticism of a government or religion aren't even close to the same thing anyway. Islam IS NOT an event in history where people were systematically slaughtered. It is a religion and a world view. Huge difference.

A foreign diplomat was arrested in the UK several weeks ago- well a couple or three months back, while Gaza was being leveled by the IDF- he was in the gym and became angry at what he saw. he shouted to the TV "fucking Israel! fucking Jews!" as he watched the footage of the white phosperous and such atrocities raining down on a largely civilian population.
His words did not contain threats to anybody- strong expletives, yes, but no threats. Just the same sort of words we here levied against Arabs and Muslims everyday, without censor.
but, because he was speaking out (admittedly in an uncouth manner) about "Israel" and "Jews", he was arrested.

Was it what he said or the way he said it? What is the official report? Because anyone screaming and making a scene anywhere about anything risks arrest. What was the charge?

Oh, and what does this have to do with a UN resolution to ban criticism of a religion and/or world view?

Yet, we are allowed to go on media rampages touting all sorts of half truths and emotional based "arguments" about the 'evils' of Arabs and the Muslims in general- an unfair and dangerous lumping in of your everyday Muslim with the fanatic, angry extremists who are a danger. this has been Ok for decades, maybe longer.

In film, on the news, in books- Arabs are consistently displayed as sneaky, "dark", sinister, dirty, ect. This is not based on truth, this is the Hollywood version of Arabs and this has led to a misplaced hatred, based on mucho misunderstanding and outright lies, about another group of Humans, just as human and diverse as white people, black people, yellow people, you name it.

How is that right?

How do two wrongs make a right?

And, of course, each of the other people you mentioned, save for white people, have had to deal with THE EXACT SAME TREATEMENT in media that today's Muslims have.

Oh, and again, what at all does this have to do with a UN resolution to ban criticism of a religion/world view?

I completely agree this is a violation of free speech, but oh well, how can we make that argument when it concerns Muslims, but not when it concerns Jews? (or Zionists- I hate that the two have been incorrectly tied together in an automatic way- it leads to more misunderstanding, it is not right)

Last I checked there isn't a UN resolution banning criticism of Jews. Sure, there are laws in some countries against denying the Holocaust, but the Holocaust IS NOT JEWS. It is an historical event.

Where, in any country that allows free speech, is there a law that forbids criticism of Jews?

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. How would it be correct to not be able to speak out against one groups dogma, beliefs, culture, politics, ect, and not another?

Unfortunately, what you have argued, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with the matter. In order for your argument to have weight, you would have to show where someone has made it illegal to criticize Jews in general.

Basically, comparing laws about the Holocaust and laws about criticising Muslim views is comparing apples and oranges.

[Nu Kua]

You obviously missed my sarcasm.

The reasoning for my angle in the argument was not an unwarranted association.

I never said there was an official UN resolution to ban critique of Israel- I see that aspect of my point was muddy and I should have made that clear- the facts are that nearly all critique of Israel is levied as "hate speech", anti-Semitic in nature. I guess I assumed that people could see through the sarcasm... but I stand by my comparison.

The lead post states that

"U.N. resolution circulated today by Islamic states that would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law."

It is my assertion that this is the same thing that happens in regards to Israel, (with or without UN backing). People are censored and/or jailed, for questioning the Zionist dogma, dissenting voices are ridiculed and silenced, and it encourages the forced imposition of Israel's breaking of UN law, actually, in regards to the agreement that Palestine was to remain autonomous- which was broken in 1967 and conditions have become worse then.
How is that any different from what was proposed to the Un in regards to Muslims?

Thing is, the UN thing is admittedly non-enforceable, is that correct, did I read that right? Nobody is going to be jailed for denying any of the positions held by Muslims in regards to their view of history, how they see the law, ect. Yet, thirteen countries do have actual laws banning any level of Holocaust denial. These countries include Germany, France, Austria, Israel, and Switzerland. The Czech Republic's law punishes any person who publicly denies or puts into doubt any aspect of the official story. In Israel, any published statement of "praise or sympathy for or identification with" the Nazis is a crime.
Germany requires that the statement be tied in with "public incitement"- and that has stretched to include expressing your questioning of any aspect, such as the number of people killed, or the methods used, on the internet as "incitement". Those found guilty of Holocaust denial are subject to jail time for up to 6 years, as well as a hefty fine.

Here, I found a WIKI that is sourced- listing the countries and the laws.

an interesting article, just to toss in here
Jewish Canadians Concerned About Suppression of Criticism of Israel

Over 150 Jewish Canadians signed a statement expressing their concerns about the campaign to suppress criticism of Israel that is being carried on within Canada. The signatories include many prominent Canadians, including Ursula Franklin O.C., Anton Kuerti O.C., Naomi Klein, Dr. Gabor Mate, and professors Meyer Brownstone (recipient of Pearson Peace Medal), Natalie Zemon Davis, Michael Neumann, and Judy Rebick. *

The signatories are particularly concerned that unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism deflect attention from Israel’s accountability for what many have called war crimes in Gaza...

In America, we are to accept, without questioning, the heavy sway of the Israel lobby over American politics and foreign policy. Everybody in politics knows that to question Israel's actions draws the ire of AIPAC in particular, among other Israel lobbies, and this is political suicide.

I have older stories archived, maybe I'll repost them for you, maybe not, but here is the most recent event of a well respected public figure speaking out against this, and what occurred when he did.
Here is the story of Chas Freeman- I'll share this version I posted because his letter in full is included:
Freeman: US run by Israeli Lobby

So what of a politician who questions Muslims? The "politics" of Sharia law? The beliefs and precepts of Islam?
It happens all of the time- where is the Arab lobby, bullying those people around?

Ok for some more background, you can jump from here
Can American Jews unplug the Israel lobby?

In regards to the British diplomat- he was arrested (but not jailed) on the condition he come back to the police station later and be questioned:

British diplomat arrested after "f*cking jew" rant

So if a person cannot shout "fucking Jews!" without making a threat, then people should not be allowed to shout "fucking Muslims" or "fucking Christians" either, now should they?

Hence my sarcasm, and how I made the association. Perhaps mentioning the Holocaust aspect of it was flawed, but I'm not so sure, since the whole thing is intricately tied together.

I'm not trying to "sell" any view one way or the other regarding the Holocaust or the Nazi Holocaust- my sticking point here, CT, my point was meant to be-

if this is going to be allowed world round- and it is- I can see not much difference, or reasoning to argue against, the Muslims or any other group to request- even demand, the same free reign to squash any questioning, no matter how reasonable or not, of their practices, ways, ect.

I honestly don't think any laws that do not allow a person to express doubt of a history as presented by anybody to be fair or right.

************

[Cyranothe2nd]

I agree that in the US we accept Zionism as a given (and I think that has a lot to do with Christian doctrine about the "End Times") but that's not the issue here.
In Britain, Muslims backed by the conservative party are trying to instate Sharia law. Then you have this news item--that the UN Human Rights Commission may try to pass a resolution condemning all criticism of Islam. It just seems like there is an encroachment happening here--where fundamentalist Muslims are trying to make the Western world more like their own countries and using Western laws to do it.
I think its important to be aware of this stuff.

[lycanox]

Its called Cultural exchange of ideas. We made the same fuss when the romans came to teach us the evils of civilization. And pissed our pants when the Arabic learned us numbers and that there is something nifty as science to explain and predict stuff.

Even the short lived Nazification of western Europe resulted in several improvements that eventually were continued after the war. Like the abolishment of bike tax. Animal rights, highways and the rocked that eventually brought us to the moon. Even do we completely hated anything remotely German after the war.

Eventually when two civilizations merge. They always adapt the good ideas of both, and do away with the bad ideas.
Freaking out and yelling over the bad ideas that each civilization suggest is just part of that process.

I don't see how a nearly powerless court that legally cant even sue Muslims for parking violations is going to change everything.
In fact, the UK just like the rest of the western world being an former Christian hotbed.
I think there are more oppressive laws from Christian origin active in the UK than of Islamic origin.

[Nu Kua]

I agree that in the US we accept Zionism as a given (and I think that has a lot to do with Christian doctrine about the "End Times") but that's not the issue here.
In Britain, Muslims backed by the conservative party are trying to instate Sharia law. Then you have this news item--that the UN Human Rights Commission may try to pass a resolution condemning all criticism of Islam. It just seems like there is an encroachment happening here--where fundamentalist Muslims are trying to make the Western world more like their own countries and using Western laws to do it.
I think its important to be aware of this stuff.

Yes, and I am sorry to have gotten it off topic, my first thought of Muslims standing up against being unfairly repressed led me straight to the comparison, because my mind lately has been swimming with knowledge of the Arab/Jew conflict, and that led to thinking of the other things I mentioned.

...
5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001; )

6. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general have, become aggravating factors that contribute to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of members of target groups, as well as to their economic and social exclusion;

7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism and in this regard regrets the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination they experience;

8. Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards any religion, as well as targeting of religious symbols and venerated persons; ...

These things are true, though. All Muslims had a helluva time after 9-11, even though it was noted at the time that only one of the most extreme and crazy sects were implicated in the act.
It is true that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism, and there are occurrences in which they are racially profiled and assumed to be dangerous, just for being Muslim, even innocent ones. There was a case in the states recently where a man and his entire family was detained at an airport, simply for nothing other than the name.

I don't see this as forcing anybody to accept Sharia law or to live as a Muslim. I see it as a reaction to some very valid concerns.

They are just asking for the same rights to live peacefully as accorded to everybody else. I don't see where it implies their religion should be imposed on the rest of the world.
To ask that shrines and places of worship be protected from harm is because many have been vandalized or worse. that still doesn't suggest that everybody must become a Muslim, or even approve of the religion. Just that they be left in peace.

What if the word Muslim was replaced with Christian, or Jew? Or to go from religion, to race?

9. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law including articles 19 and 29 of UDHR and 19 and 20 of ICCPR, everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference, and has the right to freedom of expression, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals, and general welfare;

10. Reaffirms that General Comment 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which the Committee stipulated that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred;

11. Strongly condemns all manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and migrants and the stereotypes often applied to them, including on the basis of religion or belief, and urges all States to apply and, where required, reinforce existing laws when such xenophobic or intolerant acts, manifestations or expressions occur, in order to deny impunity for those who commit such acts;

12. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, and to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs;

13. Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through education and awareness building;

14. Calls upon all States to exert the utmost efforts, in accordance with their national legislation and in conformity with international human rights and humanitarian law, to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are fully respected and protected, and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration or destruction;

15. Calls for strengthening international efforts to foster a global dialogue for the promotion of a culture of tolerance and peace at all levels, based on respect for human rights and diversity of religions and beliefs, and urges States, non-governmental organizations, religious leaders as well as the print and electronic media to support and foster such a dialogue;

16. Appreciates the High Commissioner for Human Rights for holding a seminar on freedom of expression and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence in October 2008, and requests her to continue to build on this initiative, with a view to concretely contributing to the prevention and elimination of all such forms of incitement and the consequences of negative stereotyping of religions or beliefs, and their adherents, on the human rights of those individuals and their communities;

17. Requests the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to report on all manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights by their followers, to the Council during its 12th Session;

18. Requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Council at its 12th Session on the implementation of the present resolution, including on the possible correlation between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world.

Islamaphobia is very real, and innocent people are targeted.

[Cartesiantheater]

This is an issue of separation of church and state, NOT an issue of Jew vs Arab.

If we let the boundary be broken for the sake of one religion, what about the others? And even worse, what about atheists and agnostics? What's next? It's illegal to be an atheist?


The founders of the US were genius to build a barrier between the church and the state. God knows religious people have tried to tear it down. But do we really want a GLOBAL legal system in which laws are made respecting certain religions? How long until we have a GLOBAL religion?


Sorry, but count me out. I am as opposed to this as I am opposed to corporate Christian prayer in our public schools.

[Nu Kua]

This is an issue of separation of church and state, NOT an issue of Jew vs Arab.

If we let the boundary be broken for the sake of one religion, what about the others? And even worse, what about atheists and agnostics? What's next? It's illegal to be an atheist?


The founders of the US were genius to build a barrier between the church and the state. God knows religious people have tried to tear it down. But do we really want a GLOBAL legal system in which laws are made respecting certain religions? How long until we have a GLOBAL religion?


Sorry, but count me out. I am as opposed to this as I am opposed to corporate Christian prayer in our public schools.

I have already conceded this was the wrong section for me to "go there", and again I do sincerely apologize for committing such a great sin.


I agree that we do not need, nor should we want, a global legal system in which laws are made respecting certain religions, as I explained up above. I feel that they are not trying to bend the world to their way of thinking, but are merely asking for the same protections that others are offered under the current trend towards "anti-hate" laws.

I do feel, and I think this has come up before in other topics, that many of the anti-hate laws are taken way to far, lead directly to censorship and thought-policing.

And, it saddens me that humanity is to the point that anyone would even need to consider a law to make it a crime to be cruel to another simply because of their religion or culture. It's bizarre, isn't it, that we'd think for a minute that we'd need to be "policed" to be tolerant of others who are not exactly like we are. Why doesn't that come natural?

But these things come up for a reason- because wrongs have been committed simply on the basis of a religious belief, of a race or a culture. Islamaphobia, again, is real, and that is the basis of this. I wish it were not real, I wish people would stop hating each other altogether.

Frankly, today, I think humanity is screwed on Earth because it seems to me it would be natural not to hate simply based on ones religious preferences. People are so quick to hate those that are different... so slow to work to get beyond the labels and skin tone and religions. Even among the religions themselves, there is discord.

Sure the actions of extremists of all religions, make the religion itself look bad to others, because, and especially in the case of Islam these days, the disturbing actions of the few are tied into the many, and the many (by this I mean your average everyday Muslim) have nor want any part of violence.
But because people seem to be half retarded when it comes to making that distinction, crimes and discrimination are committed against the innocent of the faith. And that is what this resolution is attempting to address, however misguided the idea of religious protection on a universal scale might be.

Also, to point out, I do not see in any of that where they are suggesting they, above all other religions, be given protection of any sort. Again, it looks to me like they, due to events that are taking place on a daily basis, and due to decades of misrepresentation, have found the need to make an official request that they be given the same respect afforded to other religions.


All the UN resolutions in the world mean diddly squat, because something on a piece of paper will not change the actions of the human beings who are locked into a perpetual circus of misunderstanding.

[Cyranothe2nd]

I think that Islam is a barbaric, woman-hating, homo-hating, child abusing religion. Would I still be allowed to say that under this prohibition? (Of course, I understand that it is only for show and wouldn't hold water in the US at all, but I think that its a step towards more drastic laws, categorizing criticism of religion as "hate speech".)
I see it as an assault on free speech and a way to, yet again, insert Islamic law into Western countries.

[lycanox]

Who cares. We have exactly the same problems with the current Jewish and Christian religion.

Offcource you have to set a border on criticism.
As currently it is being used more as an excuse for hate speech than as an attempt to promote an dialog.
An if you are just insulting them. You are not promoting a dialog and just part of the problem.

It is after all extremely hypocrite that the people that jell than an entire religion is evil and should be banned are whining about freedom of speech the most.

Its like we learned nothing from what happened in Germany at all.

[Cyranothe2nd]

Who cares. We have exactly the same problems with the current Jewish and Christian religion.

Offcource you have to set a border on criticism.
As currently it is being used more as an excuse for hate speech than as an attempt to promote an dialog.
An if you are just insulting them. You are not promoting a dialog and just part of the problem.

It is after all extremely hypocrite that the people that jell than an entire religion is evil and should be banned are whining about freedom of speech the most.

Its like we learned nothing from what happened in Germany at all.

First, I have the same problem with Christianity and Judiaism as I do with Islam, so there's a lot of blame to go around.
Second, I absolutely disagree with banning religion. I have no where stated that I think that religion should be banned outright. I personally feel that religion is harmful and stupid and that no one should believe in it, but I also recognize people's right to decide for themselves what they would like to believe and would defend that right with my own life, if necessary.
What I want to ban is the encroachment of religion into the political and public spheres are particularly the right of one religion (in this case Islam) to tell me what to say about it. I recognize that they have the freedom to practice their idiotic religion just as much as I have the freedom to criticize and mock it. I also want to ban the indoctrination of children into religious beliefs before they are old enough to make up their own minds because I think that in some ways this is tantamount to child abuse.
Thirdly, I don't think that criticism and mockery are necessarily being "part of the problem". After all, the biggest hold the religions have over their followers is fear. Fear that their God is angry or will smite unbelievers, fear that their very thoughts are being judged and found wanting. Fear that bad things will happen to them if they even dare to entertain a doubt about the validity of their religious dogmas.
Mockery and criticism can show people that there is nothing to be afraid of. After all, God hasn't finished me off with a thunderbolt and he probably won't do it to them either. One of the MOST important things for me as I was walking away was to have the space to be critical, to voice doubts, to mock my old beliefs...this is important to many people.
Also, I really disagree with the idea that I should "promote a dialogue" with religionists (particularly extremists) instead of pointing out the faults in their religion. I think its thinking like that that makes things like Sharia law in Britain possible.
People have this idea that religion should be respected or sacred or something. I think that's ridiculous. Any other belief--a political or social belief--I could roundly criticize and no one would have any problem. But point out that Islam is a woman-hating, gay hating barbaric religion and people say that saying that is "destructive". But there is NO REASON to think that religion should be treated with any more respect that any other idea. And in fact I think it should be treated with less because it is silly and stupid and hurts people.
Why would I want to "promote a dialogue" with such people? I would much rather mock them.