Who decides the definition of "hate speech" against Muslims? ---- hate speech laws are unconstitutional in the USA.
fwiw ... Canada has eliminated their hate speech laws against the wishes of jews. On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 7:37:32 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > US Criminalizing Free Speech? > > > *by Judith Bergman > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/author/Judith+Bergman>January 5, 2016 at > 5:00 am* > > *http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7176/criminalizing-free-speech > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7176/criminalizing-free-speech>* > > 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 > <https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-resolution/569/text>) > "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 > <https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2014/topic-pages/victims_final>. > > 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 <https://www.muslimadvocates.org> -- > 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 > <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428048/san-bernardino-shooting-loretta-lynch-muslim-backlash> > 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 > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5949/badawi-lashing-saudi-arabia> 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 > <http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/fourth-secular-bangladesh-blogger-hacked-death-150807102408712.html> > by > people who apparently did not agree with what they said. > > The UNHRC Resolution, originally known as "Defamation of Islam > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/520/speaking-out-against-silencing-the-masses>," > > 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 <https://geneva.usmission.gov/2012/04/19/implementation1618/> 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* > <http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailesman/2011/12/30/could-you-be-a-criminal-us-supports-un-anti-free-speech-measure/> > : > > 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 > <http://www.alim.org/library/quran/ayah/compare/5/60/do-not-befriend-those-people-who-make-a-mockery-of-your-religion>). > > Some Muslims write that all Jews should be killed > <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp>: > > 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." > > *Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.* > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdnFmanBlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NTI0NjQzODI-> > > > - New Members > > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/members/all;_ylc=X3oDMTJnaGZrdjExBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxNDUyNDY0Mzgy> > > 1 > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNnZja29vBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ1MjQ2NDM4Mg--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
