Is The US Criminalizing Free-Speech?
Submitted by Judith Bergman via The Gatestone Institute,
-
Is this House Resolution a prelude? Has Attorney General Lynch seen the potential for someone lifting her "mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric"? And what is "anti-Muslim rhetoric" exactly? Criticizing Islam? Debating Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Who decides the definition of "hate speech" against Muslims?
-
Of all 1,149 anti-religious hate crimes reported in the United States in 2014, only 16.1% were directed against Muslims, according to the FBI. By contrast, over half of all anti-religious hate crimes were directed against Jews – 56.8%.
-
Why this lopsided, discriminatory House Resolution in favor of a religious group that statistically needs it the least?
-
Are the Attorney General and the eighty-two House Democrats out to destroy the First Amendment and introduce censorship? A House Resolution could be reintroduced later as binding legislation.
Eighty-two leading Democrats have cosponsored a House Resolution (H.Res. 569) "Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States".
The Resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives by Democrat Donald S. Beyer (Virginia) on December 17, 2015 -- a mere 15 days after Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook gunned down 14 innocent Americans and wounded 23 in an ISIS-inspired terror attack at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, California.
The House Resolution states, "the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim," and the House of Representatives "expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes."
What victims? Of all 1,149 anti-religious hate crimes reported in the United States in 2014, only 16.1% were directed against Muslims, according to the FBI. By contrast, over half of all anti-religious hate crimes were directed against Jews – 56.8%. The fewest, 8.6% of anti-religious hate crimes, were directed against Christians (Protestants and Catholics).
The Resolution goes on to denounce "...in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim."
The House Resolution singles out Muslims in the United States as an especially vulnerable religious group that needs special protection to the extent that the Resolution "urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes."
The reason for the introduction of this House Resolution at this point in time makes more sense if seen in conjunction with statements made by Attorney General Loretta Lynch on December 3, at a dinner celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Muslim Advocates -- an organization that, according to its own website, has "powerful connections in Congress and the White House" and ensures that, "the concerns of American Muslims are heard by leaders at the highest levels of government." Muslim Advocates goes on to say, "As a watchdog of justice, we use the courts to bring to task those who threaten the rights of American Muslims."
At the dinner, Attorney General Lynch stated that she is concerned about an
"incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric... The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence. Now obviously, this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric -- or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much -- when we see that we will take action."
Is this House Resolution a prelude to the Attorney General taking that action? Has she seen the potential for someone lifting her "mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric"? And what is "anti-Muslim rhetoric" exactly? Criticizing Islam? Debating Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Who decides the definition of what is considered hate speech against Muslims?
Are the Attorney General and the eighty-two House Democrats out to destroy the First Amendment and introduce censorship?
 U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch (left) said on December 3, "[W]hen we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric... when we see that we will take action." |
A House Resolution could be reintroduced later as binding legislation. Americans should be deeply concerned about this. The part of the House Resolution that should most concern Americans is the urging of "local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes."
What is a hate crime in this context? The law already prohibits violence and threats of violence, and law enforcement authorities are supposed to prosecute those -- intimidation, destruction, damage, vandalism, simple and aggravated assault. However, as this resolution includes "bigotry" and "hateful rhetoric" in its title, Americans should worry that it is those that the House Resolution is really alluding to, when it urges law enforcement authorities to prevent and prosecute hate crimes.
Why would the House of Representatives find it necessary to make such redundant statements, if not in order to redefine the concept of a hate crime?
Notably, no similar House Resolution has appeared condemning the much higher percentage of hate crimes against Jews -- over three times as many as against Muslims. As long as the House is going down the road of condemning hate crimes, why does it not even mention once the much more widespread hate crimes that American Jews are experiencing? Why does it not mention the hate crimes against Christians, which after all are only 7.5% percent fewer than those against Muslims? Why this lopsided, discriminatory House Resolution in favor of a religious group that statistically needs it the least?
The House Resolution is unsettlingly similar to the UN Human Rights Commission's Resolution 16/18, which is an attempt to establish Islamic "blasphemy laws," making criticism of religion a criminal offense. The UNHRC Resolution would apply internationally (non-binding as of yet, except, presumably, for the countries that want it to be binding), and infractions would be punishable by law. In some Islamic countries, at the moment, the punishment is death -- a sentence often handed down in trials that use questionable jurisprudence. Last year alone, a Saudi court sentenced a blogger, Raif Badawi to 1,000 lashes ("lashed very severely," the court order read) and ten years in jail. Outside of any courts, in 2015 alone, in Bangladesh, four secular bloggers on four separate occasions were hacked to death by people who apparently did not agree with what they said.
The UNHRC Resolution, originally known as "Defamation of Islam," was changed in later versions -- it would seem for broader marketability -- to "Defamation of Religions."
Long sought by the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation, UNHRC Resolution 16/18 was co-sponsored by the United States, along with Pakistan. During a series of closed-door meetings over at least three years, it was spearheaded by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
"At the invitation of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton," begins the document of the US Mission in Geneva, "representatives of 26 governments and four international organizations met in Washington, D.C. on December 12-14, 2011 to discuss the implementation of United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution (UNHRC) 16/18 on 'Combating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping and Stigmatization of, and Discrimination, Incitement to Violence and Violence Against, Persons Based on Religion or Belief.'"
UNHRC Resolution 16/18, also known as the "Istanbul Process" (where the original meeting on the topic took place), is an Orwellian document that claims to protect freedom of religion, while attempting to criminalize internationally anything that might be considered "incitement to violence." The late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat used to tell his people, "I don't have to tell you what to do. You know what to do." Each word could be in Pat the Bunny. Would Arafat's statement be considered incitement to violence?
UNHRC Resolution 16/18 was passed on March 24, 2011, without a vote.
According to the journalist Abigail Esman, writing in Forbes:
Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as "discriminatory" or which involves the "defamation of religion" – specifically that which can be viewed as "incitement to imminent violence... [T]his latest version, which includes the "incitement to imminent violence" phrase – that is, which criminalizes speech which incites violence against others on the basis of religion, race, or national origin – has succeeded in winning US approval – despite the fact that it (indirectly) places limitations as well on speech considered "blasphemous."
In answer to a reproof -- from the U.S Department of State, no less -- Esman wrote, "By agreeing to criminalize 'incitement to violence' and to use all means at its disposal to prevent and to punish such actions, the US has – however unwittingly – enabled the OIC to use the measure against us – and other members of the free world."
Many extremist Muslims, however, seem to have no problem criticizing other religions, as well as other Muslims. Some "criticize" Christians, as we have witnessed, by slitting their throats, or by burning or drowning them alive. Many extremist Muslims also seem to have no problem criticizing Jews – starting with calling them descendants of apes and pigs (Surah 5. Al-Maida, Ayah 60). Some Muslims write that all Jews should be killed:
the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
One therefore cannot help wondering -- and one should wonder – to what extent H.Res. 569 is the "nose of the camel under the tent."
As of now, H.Res. 569 has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Americans had better hope that the House Committee will see it for what it is: An attempt to destroy the First Amendment, shield Islam from criticism, and bring "Death to Free Speech."
(17 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I'm sure President Trump will sign that into law.
/s
Yo Adelson, Loretta Lynch belonged to a jew-hating, pro-PLO group at Harvard. Ah yes, Affirmative Action.....http://gotnews.com/loretta-lynch-belonged-jew-hating-pro-terrorist-harva...
More laws equals more crime, so I see a bright future for private prisons and the legal system.
We're well past the time when 10 Laws sufficed (and that included some duplications).
The criminal justice industry
Moar blackmail for decades more of free shit, preferentail treatment and so on.
Even the far left-wing Alan Dershowitz writes these people are too extreme and criticizes the protesters:
Dershowitz, a leading proponent of civil liberties and a defense attorney who advised on the O.J. Simpson murder trial and numerous other celebrity cases, was commenting on what he has previously called a dangerous trend of "tyrannical students" on college campuses.
His comments follow high-profile incidents of racial discrimination at the University of Missouri which have spurred students across the US to protest racism on their own campuses.
For his part, Dershowitz argues that colleges are becoming dangerous places for free thought, and that students don't want to hear opinions that run counter to their own beliefs.
"They may want superficial diversity, because for them diversity is a code word for 'more of us,' he continued. "They don't want more conservatives, they don't want more white students, they don't want more heterosexuals."
http://www.businessinsider.com/alan-dershowitz-criticizes-student-protes...
they will soon find they don't want more jews which is why douchetwatz(the ethnic doucher) is concerned.
Fucking stupid Loretta Lynch shilling for Jews as they laugh at the demise of her race.
Just what we need, another protected species.
dont think for a second that this is about the muzzies
the duals at work
Yes, I find it odd the Jews are either supporting these extremists or at the minimum silent. Yet, the first people to be attacked by these extremists will most likely be the Jews. In Europe, esp France, the "refugees" are already attacking Synagogues and desecrating Jewish cemeteries my friend there says. The MSM has worked hard to keep any of these out of the news to avoid panic. He plans on moving either to Israel or back to LA where his relatives live.
It's odd the Jewish controlled media hides the stark and scary reality of these matters just as they tried to cover up the Muslim attacks on dozens of German women.
History shows that Jews love those such as fascist and communists who promise to round them all up and murder them. This is just the modern day version of this phenomena.
Just remember that Alan and people like him created the current campus climate. Oh and professor Dershowitz now likes in a nice house on Martha's Vineyard.
Normally I'd feel bad (or not even do) for thread-hopping. But not so much today, after leaving the funeral home.
Here's a link to a guy utilizing free speech. Re School closing at Burns Oregon. It's long. If it's too long for you, skip to Aprox 8 min 40 sec.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJznfE8t-58
Followed by another Vid from a Constitutional Atty. I would pay a retainer fee to her today, and as I told Wifey, well I'll not go into what else I'd give her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peoV2p4Eqwc
All of this just tells me that "Eighty-two leading Democrats" have no fucking clue what Islam is or who Mohammad was. If that isn't an indictment against "low-information" representation, I don't know what is. I'll venture they were all elected by low-information voters. Birds of a feather do stupid shit together.
Let me take a blind shot at some names:
Hank Johnson
Sheila Jackson
Elijah Cummings
Keith Ellison
The Denton Police Department obtained an arrest warrant for Cpl. Eric Jamal Johnson, 20, who allegedly shot and killed Sara Mutschlechner following a dispute between two people in different vehicles at a red light.
Johnson was arrested in Yuma, Arizona on a charge of murder.
A 20-year-old U.S. Marine was arrested Tuesday morning by the U.S. Marshals Service in Arizona and charged with murder in connection to the New Year’s Day shooting death of a 20-year-old University of North Texas student during a traffic incident, according to police.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/man-charged-with-murder-after-traffi...
http://heavy.com/news/2016/01/eric-jamal-johnson-santana-sage-marine-sar...
Incredible text message.
all fucking niggers must fucking hang.
But seriously, this kind of shit makes me ill. So sad. Really pretty girl and so young.
For total Jew control they need 2 things.
1st Amendment
2nd Amendment
It is obvious what they want, they want whites, blacks and Muslims to kill each other.
nothing less
buy a gun
buy 2 guns
It is impossible to win a confrontation being on defense. So people, what do you intend to do except of placing your messages on Internet chat boards?
In USSR, special forces were never taught how to defend themselves. They always were schooled only in an art of offense even in an event of being attacked.
You somehow think that just because a person is black they can't use any irrational fear or hatred against them? That they didn't help put those there also?
Why do you think so many believe Muslims are evil? Because MSM doesn't approve? Because Adelson and AIPAC and Israeli-Neocons are against it?
That particular meme is also good insulation against the obvious dislike of Jews and their policies that are building. If you have to label a religion as the bad guy here, it is Jewish not Muslim.
But forget religion, some of the US Neocons and zionists are not Jewish, and none of them are particularly religious, they are united by criminality, not religion.
Khazar pride!!
When is a beheading not a hate crime? When Democrats say so?
Loretta turns out to be just as bad as Holder even though all the info was out their when the majotiy of REPs approved her ? So why do many folks think the REPs are gonna save them ? Another bad joke on the masses, Hey ?
How would REPs save anything.
When people complain about a low information voter, the above is a perfect example.
Let's try a little quiz.
Who holds confirmation hearings to approve presidential appointment???
That's right, the Senate !!!!!
Let's try one more.
What is the difference between the words "there" and "their"??
IMHO, they are all the same peas from a single pod. Whatever they do, is for their own benefit;not for the people they claim to represent.
Ah I feel so bad ms bergenstein but that's what happens when you create your PC environment and then it comes back to bite you. Believe it's called law of unintended consequences. Enjoy as the muzzies feed on you
"Enjoy as the muzzies feed on you"
It would be even better if they move right in and make themselves comfortable with her.
How many more Affirmative Action fiascos can this country take?
"How many more Affirmative Action fiascos can this country take?"
Well pardner, as many as the PC brigade likes......................
Then when the minority intolerant ones get armed, they'll be throwing dem PC brigade off dem buildings.
Since you won't be allowed to smoke or drink, you'll just have to settle back with a bucket of popcorn.
So they hate the 6,000,000 that died too before WWII!?
Unbelievable!
Maybe just go with this: over half of all anti-religious hate crimes were directed against Jews – 56.8%. Subtle, Huh?
Then at least she did something good in the past, like supporting a secular movement for freedom.
I don't care for crazy Zionists, but the day these Femi-Nazi left-wing hags limit Free Speech, such that you cannot criticize Islam or Islamists, is the day I become a Kike, a Yid, a Red Sea Pedestrian (to quote Monty Python).
Fuck you, Wahhabist whackos!
What a total bullshit article. This isn't any law - did you even read the text you linked to. Holy fuck Tylers, why are you letting this AIPAC cunt post shit like this on your site. Fuck the Muslims, and fuck Israel. Get rid of this Alex Jones bullshit and get back to what this site used to be good at.
I reckon I'll be reporting to prison immediately.
The problem with tolerance is it only applies to the opinions at the top of the food chain.
Principled Muslims should come out in droves against this.
They should but I won't hold my breath waiting ;-)
Certainly not longer than waiting for all the other religions.
Although of course they have, if anyone cares to look.
So Demdere, I take it you're a Christian, a Buddhist or what?
/////
Well...I thought it was an easy question, apparently not.
Hiding...something? ;-)
Pastafarianism ain't nuthin' to be ashamed of! :>D
How about hate-speech against congressmen, senators, presidents, etc.? Is that next?
Why would anyone hate our leaders......?
Careful. The NSA has sarcasm detectors.
Will it still be legal to call Hillary a fucking bitch?
Yes, because in her case that is a compliment.
I upvoted you but the word fucking is misleading. Hillary likes girls to do her, I do not consider that to be fucking.
"Will it still be legal to call Hillary a fucking bitch?"
It ain't polite to call the next POTUS a fucking bitch. And dere's nuthing wrong with her cankles !
Don't forget it was the republican TRAITOR senate who confirmed this COMMIE BITCH
They're all traitors. Not one is making a scene trying to defend our rights.
If anyone reading this knows someone that would support a thing like this - please ostracize that person.
Bud: "I'm having a bbq next weekend"
Shylo: "Ooh, I'll bring the vegan veggie dip!"
Bud: "Sorry Shylo, you'll have to sit this one out. This bbq is for people that don't want to control the things I say."
LOL you think any of these R dickheads will do the right thing after Mr Conservative judge Roberts allowed Oblammycare go through. There all cut from the same cloth.... Money