By Meira Svirsky, Radical Islam
While testifying to the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, U.S. Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez refused to say that the U.S. would never advance a proposal that criminalizes the right to free speech in regards to criticizing religion.
When asked over and over again the question by Rep. Trent Frank (R-AZ): “Will you tell us here today that this Administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?” Perez balked at answering any such question.
Here’s the background:
For ten years, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) pushed for a U.N. resolution to make defamation of religion a criminal offense. The Saudi-based, 57-member group’s purpose was to make an international law that would criminalize freedom of speech and freedom of expression when it comes to matters deemed critical of or offensive to Islam or Muslims. Standards for the resolution were (naturally) drawn from Islamic, Sharia, law.
In March, 2011, the OIC finally got their way (partially) when the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted by “consensus,” but without a vote, Resolution 16/18. The resolution is titled, “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”
Although the resolution doesn’t mention any religion in particular, it’s intention remains that of the OIC: To curb criticism of Islam. The resolution is part of the so-called “Istanbul Process,” and aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam.
The Obama administration fully supported the resolution, whose mandate also calls for “a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures.”
Putting its full weight with the OIC, in December, 2011, the State Department and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hosted a closed-door conference in Washington titled, “Expert Meeting on Implementing the U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18.” The purpose of the conference was to establish international standards for criminalizing “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.”
Recognizing that the resolution has no weight unless backed by the West, OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu praised the role played by the Obama administration in adopting the resolution: “I particularly appreciate the kind, personal interest of Secretary Clinton and the role played by the U.S. towards the consensual adoption of the resolution.”
The European Union, was quick to jump on the bandwagon and offer the next international summit on the subject. According to OIC’s Ihsanoglu, the EU’s recent offer to host the next summit represents a “qualitative shift in action against the phenomenon of Islamophobia,” according to the International Islamic News Agency (IINA), the OIC’s official news and propaganda organ.
The Assistant Attorney General’s refusal to answer Rep. Frank’s question, which would guarantee Americans their constitutional right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, is a reflection of where this international resolution is heading.
To understand more fully the implications of the statements by the Assistant Attorney General, see the following articles by RadicalIslam.org.’s Senior Fellow Clare Lopez:
Criticism of Islam Could Soon Be a Crime in America
Muslim Brotherhood Takes Charge of FBI Counterterrorism Training
http://britishfreedom.org/british-government-to-allow-abu-hamza-to-return-to-uk/
British Government Will Allow Abu Hamza to Return to UK
“David Cameron’s government asked for assurances on the treatment of the Al-Qaeda extremist, who is charged with a string of terrorist offences.”
http://britishfreedom.org/british-government-to-allow-abu-hamza-to-return-to-uk/
Like parents worried over their favorite child’s welfare, Cameron’s government is extremely concerned that one of their top favorite Muslim terrorists is given the very best treatment. Are they also worried that when released he might get hurt when attempting, or succeeding, at blowing up hated non-Muslim infidels?
If you live in Britain: Save Britain, the Free World and Western civilization from cruel Islamic conquest. Every day, everywhere, pass out British Freedom’s 20 Point Plan! http://britishfreedom.org/
All of the Freedom Parties in Europe and British Freedom in Britain, are strong supporters of Israel. The two top leaders of the EDL (English Defence League) are now also leaders in British Freedom. The EDL hold both British and Israeli flags at their street demonstrations. I am very proud of British Freedom and the EDL.
The Free World’s non-Muslims must unite! We must fight back! Or future generations will never forgive us.
The British people never voted for massive numbers of Muslims to be imported into the UK. Brits did not vote to financially provide free housing, medical and dental services, and money, etc for these massive numbers of Muslims – an Islamic army.
Hardworking Brits are forced to pay for Muslim males and their harems of multiple wives and large numbers of children. Britain is Islamic paradise for Muslim males. All paid for by the British taxpayers.
Brits did not vote for over 85 sharia law courts to operate in the UK. They did not vote for the Islamification of Britain. They did not vote for British school children to be deceitfully converted to Islam in a mosque during school hours. Brits did not vote to surrender their country to the totalitarian, POLITICAL-religious system of Islam. As Islam is a POLITICAL system, where were the votes to surrender Britain to Islam? There were NONE.
It refers to one religion only. ISLAM.
Islamic sharia law is already being imposed on Brits.
In total rejection of British culture and Western civilization, UK leaders aggressively promote one culture: ISLAM. UK leaders believe that if you want to experience Islam, there is no need to visit one of the 56 Muslim nations, all you need to do is visit the new Islamic state of Britanistan. Tourists need to be warned that if they make a negative statement about Islam, they are in danger of being arrested and jailed. Should tourists not be warned about this with warnings posted at all UK airports?
One poor Brit, clearly alarmed over the barbarity and cruelty in Islam and the dreadful persecution, atrocities and murders perpetrated against non-Muslims in Muslim countries, put up protest signs against Islam in his window and was arrested and given a one year jail sentence. Leaving his very ill father to fend for himself. UK leaders and police believed that the ill father should be punished, along with his son. There is NO mercy in Islam.
@ Laura:
I absolutely agree with your statement one hundred percent!
@ Joe:
I wouldn’t call the Founding Fathers very religious. Most of them were Freemasons who believed in God but not necessarily the Old and New testaments. I have a theory on this. Many of the first immigrants to America were escaping the religious wars in Europe, including my mother’s ancestors. The wars pitted Christians against Christians, Kings against Popes, Protestants against Catholics. Millions were killed in the backyards of the English and Europeans. It’s interesting to note that none of them were following the religious teachings of Jesus.
The Founding Fathers were so appalled by this they wanted to make sure it couldn’t happen on America’s shores. According to experts, the First Amendment can also be interpreted as a separation of Church and State.
Joe Said:
This is not even half right. The people who founded the government of the United States came to the former colonies in pursuit of religious freedom. They understood that religious freedom could only be had if government had nothing to do with it. The first amendment is clear. Government has no role in religion and religion has no role in government. This itself was a radical concept at the time and remains a radical concept for many religions, especially Catholicism and Islam which both insist that in matters of authority, civil law follows religious belief and does not lead. Islam is more strict because scriptually, the Koran and the Hadiths, make reference to authority in government. Catholicism is an empire of priests who are the law, there is no scripture outside the Bible which is vague in matters of civil authority. The history of Catholicism is marked by constant struggles between itself and national authorities — monarchs — that the Church itself had put into place.
Of course Islam is a religion. Religion historically has always concerned itself with government even to the point of confusing itelf with government or, in the case of Islam, provides scripture as the legal basis of government. Human progress is characterized by the increasing tendency to reject spiritual authority with the more universally reliable authority of recorded experience. The history of Israel is a good example of this.
I haven’t even read this article because of the other big news story breaking about Perez. In a recent decision by District Court Judge Reggie Walton, the Judge seems to endorse the suggestion by the plaintiff, Judicial Watch, that Perez may have provided misleading testimony under oath to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission concerning the Justice Department’s decision not to pursue a case against the Black Panthers who intimidated voters in Philadelphia.
Whether the DOJ Inspector General will investigate remains to be seen. It is likely that Perez will at least be on the receiving end of some ethics complaints with the Maryland and District of Columbia bars.
This story is getting attention on the conservative blogosphere but very limited coverage in the mainstream media. Fox News has covered it on its website.
many of my posts are not coming up on the page???
I fail to find one thing good in it.
“I’m not saying that everything in Islam is bad but it is the only religion that justifies violence by its own Koran.”
Because it justifies violence–and a violence that is being perpetrated in a present day context–“everything in Islam is bad.” So soon as you begin to give rein to this enemy by saying that not everything in Islam is bad, you have just become an accomplice to the perpetuation of Islamic violence and religious intolerance. This is how Islam is being daily exculpated and disjointed from the violence of “Islamists” (this very term is a sophistic and apologetic bent) and veridical Islam: because journalists and pluralists have made it “taboo” to criticize the violence of certain religious, especially Muslims. Islam is definitely NOT a salubrious ideology as it is presented in the Koran. It’s many invented and typically simplistic concepts and beliefs are too obvious now for the modern world to ignore. “A little folly outweighs wisdom and honour.”
While I agree with Paul on his stance against criminalizing criticism of any religion and Islam in particular I have to say that there is no separation of church and state clause in our constitution. What we have is an anti-establishment clause. That is mandating one religion to be the “official” religion of the country or favoring one religion over another. The founding fathers were very religious people (some were Christian and some Deists) who were not thrilled with the idea of an official state religion like Anglicanism in England and greatly valued free expression even if it meant criticizing a particular religion.
Remember Islam is not a religion per se. It is a political movement that wraps itself in a religious garb. It is so obvious that I wonder why so many Americans are so clueless of this fact. I’m not saying that everything in Islam is bad but it is the only religion that justifies violence by its own Koran. You might point out Christian violence against non-Christians in the past but that violence was not and cannot be justified by the Bible. Many immigrants to this country including myself who have watched the Muslim minority in several countries pushing for this type of legislation are well aware of the dangers of such a law.
Now, does anybody now still believe that Obama is a Christian?
It is very important to notice that the question does not address the criticism of Islam alone, but the criticism of any religion. Criminalizing the criticism of a religion would be a serious violation of the separation of church and state. Our country was founded on religious freedom and what is the freedom to choose a religion except the criticism of other religions? To embrace one is to reject the rest and, more importantly, we are free to reject all religion and criticize religion itself if we choose. The freedom to believe what you want is a belief rejected by many religions, especially Islam and so we have an absurdity. If we are to criminalize criticism of Islam we are using the state to enforce religious belief which would be a direct contradiction of the separation of church and state.