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 -
Lets get Navaho drunk! That's DRUNK....just so you know.
I know one and I have actually tried to get "Navaho drunk" before and this individual told me that I failed. At best I was half-breed drunk. That really offended me, serious micro-agression.
Hey, don't leave me out!! I demand equal time: You better throw in limey, mick, wop, frog, polack and kraut while you're at it.
Sorry Bud, ya got bad aim. You failed to hit BANKERS!
That one is covered under Hebrew slurs.
Free Francis Sawyer.......
Beyer may be "sponsoring" it. Wonder who really wrote it.
And why the esteemed congresscritter from NoVa was "chosen" as its sponsor?
seems like on of those "pseudolegislative distractions" they love to put on when they're really out to BF the Constitution in some other more serious, underhanded and real way.
I say we suspend government. We have enough fucking laws...
What a concept. I wish we could make it happen. I million upvotes!!
NOW yer talkin +1000
Niggardly
Another million or so, previously undecided now voting for Trump.
Yet another priceless FUBAR moment of the Obummer regime.
The way it is going we not only wont be able to talk about/refer to eachother but we wont be able to communicate with one another either. The other day I was going to refer to someone whose name I did not know that was black while speaking to a native and I didn't even know if it was okay to say black anymore.
So I said African-American and the Indian guy laughed his ass off at me. He said that if I used that term around anybody black he knows that they would laugh or see me as some type of socially retarded sucker.
Politically correct has us all screwed up or at least me anyway because I'm out of the loop.
You better BELEEEEEVE Obama doesn't want us communicating with each other. He HATES social media.
what do you get when you cross a Chinese with a African?
A Chigger.
http://www.medicinenet.com/chiggers_bites/article.htm
Your kids kids will eventually get raped and mauled. Fact.
It's hard to get raped by someone with their guts blown all over the place.......
Eighty-two leading Democrats have cosponsored a House Resolution (H.Res. 569) "Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States".
AND ALL 82 DEMOCRATS CAN TAKE A FLYING LEAP AND KISS MY ASS! BRING IT YOU BUNCH OF BLEEDING HEART PANSIES!
Serves you right. Kill all the Kuffars (infidels) is not hate speech, but saying you don´t like it.
We have a completely criminal Congress - both houses!
yeah,
"not to debate that last mass shooting" - Oblamma
“Obedience is not enough...Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.” GO 1984
Just watched The Manchurian Candidate on dvd. Couldn't believe it was made 12 years ago.
Get your hands on a copy and watch Meryl Streep. Her character must have been developed using Hilary Clinton as a guide. The makeup artist even gave her a fat face.
Creepy.
you watch crap made by the blood thirsty money junkies....and comment about it on zh?
be healed
nobody with half a brein gives a sh-t about their fiction
What a funny coincidence.
http://www.anti-piracy.nl/english.php
How 'bout that "freedom of speech" and "separation of church and state" stuff I've heard about? And how does this even deserve attention, unless you're not paying attention to the aforementioned "stuff".
And why can't we get an AG who knows how to indict banksters?
It's called the Gutless Wonder Affirmative Action Fiasco Peter Principle for starters.
Used to be the "Just Us" Dept., now "The LYNCH Mob". Democrap Libtard progress.
"And why can't we get an AG who knows how to indict banksters?"
Very short simple answer because everything is a corporate fraud, financial fraud or far worse and there are a huge number of people in on it covering for each other.
"The victims of Muslim terroristic hate crimes faced physical abuse, maiming and death because they were non-Muslim or believed to be non-Muslim," and the Democratic caucus of the House of Representatives "expresses its contempt for the victims of Muslim terrorism."
Islam=The boil on god's butt.
ZH: Please publish their names...so we know who to curse at if we see them. There must be a day of reckoning.
Speaking of social control did anybody notice Biden during that gun grabbing speech today? I was pissed but I couldn't stop laughing. Worst acting ever! Obama probably had to think about losing his presidential tee times to make himself cry but that was fake as hell too. Maybe he put something in his eyes because they looked weird even before his performance.
One of the main characteristics of a psychopath is their ability to mimic human emotions, which always appears to be an act by the rest of us. Of course it is an act, as they have no emotions.......
I noticed.I had to stop watching. Seeing someone feign empathy and force tears, is a sign of psychosis in my view. Pathetic. Biden looked like one of those toy dogs with the bobbling head , you used to see in the back window of cars.
Guten nacho Germany
Soon, like the HNHRC resolution, this one will also turn into a resolution "toprotet all religious hate speech".
Then it will be applicable to Scientology too.
However, i guess the Democrats have lost the support of a sizeable section of their own party members. Time to call their names, all 82 of them, so that people can single out them for special attention, the way Congressman Lamar Smith received.
In India, the then ruling party wanted to groom a muslim "vote bank", and did precisely same thing, till the discontent of the people formed itself into a party, and that captured power on its own in 2014 - a feat almost impossible, but for the blind policies of its predecessor.
Can someone explain to me why importing destitute Africans for labor purposes is a good idea this time?
You should not look at it that way. The business people want the cheap labour and the general population of naivlings only wants to save lives. They would starve/die in Africa or the ME, so their lives must be saved. By the time they wake up to reality they will wonder what on earth posessed them. But of course when you're in the middle of it all, you don't see the forest for the trees.
They're clearing out parts of Middle East and N. Africa for Greater Israel. The Zionists have been talking about this plan for over a 100 years. They are now realizing a lot of their plans.
Our current youngsters are pushing for tyranny.
It will be too late when they realize it.
It's a problem when they were taught authority is always right.
Devoid of critical thinking.
More and more laws directed at the citizens, but NEVER anything to stop the Banking cartel, the illegal wars, the arms dealers, or the many Politicians. No changes in laws regarding the STATE itself.
I don't hear much "hate rhetoric" towards Jews as Ms. Bergman explains, but I hear the anti-Muslim screams all the time. On the internet and off the internet.
The goal of this article was to get in some jabs on Muslims and then show how the JEWS are the victims....Same 'ol tactics.
Here's Max Berger of Nation Magazine writing Hate against White Males in America. He doesn't tell his audience he's a Jew.
http://www.thenation.com/article/how-to-understand-white-male-terrorism/
Who's behind the Central Banking scam? Which Dual citizens were all over in the Bush administration (and calling for war war war and more war)? Who is behind the Refugee Crisis? Who is behind CLEARING OUT THE MIDDLE EAST for Israel? Which Group is pushing Multi-culturalism on Europe and N. America BUT ADAMANTLY discourages it in their little illegal theocracy?
The answer is several groups, but Jews are among them and need to take their share of responsibility.
You're A NAZI! /s
If you don't agree why don't you just state why instead of acting like a moron?
A great financial plus for Muslims. Look at Europe. ANY criticism of any Muslim for any reason and you'll be taken to Court, maybe lose your job and your kids and the Muslim gets a large money settlement from the taxpayers. And we thought we were immune to this cultural suicide insanity? Well, It's here. This is the start of dismantling a civilization. Why would we copy the fascist Sharia hellhole of Swedistan?
.
1st amendment GONE.
2nd amendment UNDER ATTACK.
When the Dems last monopoized the House and Senate they pushed the most current Hate Crime laws which were of course pointed at straight white religious Men, although non Christian men were also targeted because the Dems consider them a throwaway demographic - compared to single women, blacks, transbenders and gay for instance. One of the worse side effects of these discriminatory hate laws is that the more protected victim class - like young blacks - are given an ethnic immunity from ever being able to experience hate. In effect they can never be hateful because they " Dont have the power."
Lib black leaders despite all their venomous hate speech and venomous foaming of the mouth against white conserves are never thought of in the context of being hateful, no matter how much they are the classic Angry Black Man. This anger sinks to the boys in the hood all the way down from the ABM in Chief to the Angry Black Men in the media, church, Hollywood, politics, and academia.
They will always be angry victims because the First Law of Affirmative Action says they must maintain that status in oder to gain that needed "boost" as promoted by the lib courts. And, they dont have the capacity to hate. The same is for libs in nearly every goverrnment position. Could it be that lib female lawyers could be qualified to sit and judge on the U.S. Supreme Court? Not likely without the help of Affirmative Action. Ginsburg, Sota Mayor, Kagan like the President must spend a lifetime proving their victimhood - as they victimize anyone not in their tribe.
And, of course, the Hispanics and Moslems have been invited into this exclusive club so that minorities can group en masse to form a majority of voters and finally take the power and wealth that they should rightfully have away from The Haters (straight, moral, white people).
hate crime rankings:
1. jew
2. gay
3. black
4. everything else
99. white
I can say what the Fuck I want to say about any Fucking body.....it is my right. It is not hate speech. If you don't like it, don't listen to my dumb as (I don't listen to dumb liberal fucks and the garbage that spews from their mouths). Censorship will only breed contempt.