Is The US Criminalizing Free-Speech?

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/05/2016 19:55 -0500

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."

Average:

Your rating: None Average: 5 (17 votes)

- advertisements -

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:31 | 7002586 MrNosey

Free speech and a free press are both dead!

This depraved and sickening incident took place in Germany over New Year and again was not mentioned by the MSM because it involved Islamic 'migrants'.....

http://beforeitsnews.com/global-unrest/2016/01/1000-depraved-migrants-ra...

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 23:48 | 7003266 newbie vampire

"This depraved and sickening incident took place in Germany over New Year and again was not mentioned by the MSM because it involved Islamic 'migrants'....."

The reason de MSM didn't run the story was becos dem migrants were not doing anything illegal. Dey is only practising dem human rites.

Yo all say "rape" but to dem, it means "free pussy" on tap.

BTW wat color is dem Islamic migrants ? We dun wan no anti-racial etc etc etc

Not to worry tho, the Attorney General can lock up all dem free pussy and invite dem Islamic migrants for a party at her house.

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:35 | 7002610 Demdere

More Gatestone Institute, Israeli-Neocon propaganda to the world.

Wed, 01/06/2016 - 08:50 | 7004101 vollderlerby

Another strong endorsement for The Donald. What have we come to that The Donald is all of the sudden the champion for the First Amendment? Jesus ....

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:00 | 7002448 ali-ali-al-qomfri

I can't wait for this to all change and we can make fun of each other again.

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:04 | 7002470 besnook

remember the old days and all the great dumb polack jokes? who would counter with greazy guinea jokes? who would insult that jive nigger's mother and then sit down to a beer while picking on the fem thinskinned jewboy until he was crazy with anger.

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:52 | 7002679 Dolar in a vortex

Pretty much worked that way where I grew up, except there weren't any Jews.

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:56 | 7002695 besnook

you can see from the downvotes to my post it still works with the jews.lol

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:06 | 7002475 I AM SULLY

ALERT!

You've been reported!

Please report to the Obama-Thinkery-Training camp - the one with the outdoor toilets ...

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:00 | 7002449 new game

i am a gringo, is that slanderous for dirty white boy?

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:01 | 7002456 besnook

you're a goyim first.

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:23 | 7002550 BarkingCat

that's filthy goyim.

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:54 | 7002688 RiverRoad

How come they can say honkey but we can't say nigger?

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:59 | 7002710 besnook

the difference is you won't punch anyone who calls you honky but you run the risk of seeing god if you call a nigger a nigger.

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 21:17 | 7002767 RiverRoad

Ahh....Sharia law.

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 21:32 | 7002820 847328_3527

You sound awfully close to being an Infidel. If your not careful, they'll break your door down at night and carry you away to be stonned or beheaded [your choice, but not both---too expensive].

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 21:43 | 7002853 RiverRoad

You better believe I'm an Infidel. Gonna get a bumper sticker for my car.

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:00 | 7002453 besnook

they are pushing the antimuslim meme to pass antihate laws aimed at antizionazi speak. muslims are a convenient diversion.

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 22:36 | 7003039 Tarshatha

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jews fighting for Muslim rights because it benefits JEWS, period!

+6 Billion million + infinity, because hitler is hiding behind every corner.

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:04 | 7002471 azusgm

Sharia law served up by a bunch of people who have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution.

Arrest them!

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:05 | 7002472 Ballin D

Any one else find it funny that Jews are so much more likely to have someone charged for a hate crime?

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:18 | 7002473 nmewn

Eighty-two leading Democrats have cosponsored a House Resolution (H.Res. 569) "Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States".

But of course white, southern Christian males (in fact ALL males cept muslim males) are still "fair game" cuz...?

/////

Wait...did you say eighty-two DEMOCRATS want infringe on free speech...again?

How very very odd ;-)

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:27 | 7002562 A Lunatic

Apparently they want to get into the Church/State business too.....

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:28 | 7002572 nmewn

Sharia American-style!

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:38 | 7002623 A Lunatic

Stop by for the Apple pie, stay for the Stonings.......

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:44 | 7002641 Proctologist

Only after your obligatory consumer spending binge at a big box store .....

Halal only!!

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:47 | 7002642 Proctologist

Damn double post!

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:14 | 7002489 BarkingCat

Let me be the first to say that what makes the USA great is the freedom to speak one's mined.

Freedom of speech is not something that is needed to protect topic that no one finds offensive.

It is there to protect the topics that are offensive and controversial.

So with that in mind, I want to say that the AG is a stupid nigger and those in the house who sponsored this piece of trash are moronic examples of kikes, niggers, crackers and whatever else they might be. Fuck them all with a dead leper's dick

Tue, 01/05/2016 - 20:31 | 7002592 TeamDepends