Article by Robert Spencer in "PJMedia":
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is made up of 56 nations plus the Palestinian Authority, met Thursday
in Jeddah and called for the adoption of an international law
criminalizing criticism of Islam. But that kind of law could never be
adopted in the United States, could it? Think again.
The
OIC’s secretary-general, Dr. Yousef al-Othaimeen, called upon the
nations of the world, both Muslim and non-Muslim, to crack down on
speech that was “insulting religions or prophets.” It was clear,
however, that al-Othaimeen couldn’t have cared less about speech
insulting Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism or any of the
revered figures of those religions. He cared only about criticism of
Islam.
“There
are laws against anti-Semitism and racism,” said al-Othaimeen. “So we
request a law against mocking religions.” He didn’t explain why laws
against racism should lead to laws against criticizing belief systems,
since, after all, contrary to the assumptions of Rachel Dolezal, Shaun
King, and Elizabeth Warren, one cannot change one’s race, but one can
change one’s beliefs, including religious beliefs. Al-Othaimeen likely
knows this, but cited racism because he knows how to pull the right
strings to get the Western intelligentsia to do what he wants.
“Islamophobia,”
he continued, “is a sentiment of excessive fear against Islam that is
transformed into acts of intolerance and discriminations against Muslims
and even violent crimes against people with Islamic attires.”
No
one should discriminate against Muslims or anyone, and genuine
intolerance, when it shades over into illegal activity, and violent
crime should always be prosecuted. But the OIC wants to go much farther
than that, and get Western societies to criminalize criticism of Islam
altogether.
Al-Othaimeen
added: “These issues are of great importance, to be worked on in
collaboration not only with governments, but also with people and
non-profit organizations, to prove to everyone that Islam is the voice
of mercy, moderation and coexistence with Muslims and non-Muslims.”
Yes, everyone who
remembers 9/11, and the Fort Hood jihad massacre, and the Boston
Marathon bombings, and a host of other jihad attacks, all carried out in
accord with Islamic teachings, knows all about Islam’s “voice of mercy,
moderation and coexistence with Muslims and non-Muslims.”
But
this muzzling of criticism of Islam could never happen in America,
right? Wrong. In fact, this is a lot closer to happening than most
people realize. In October 2009, the Obama administration joined Egypt
in supporting a resolution in the U.N.’s Human Rights Council to
recognize exceptions to the freedom of speech for “any negative racial
and religious stereotyping” (a highly subjective category). Approved by
the U.N. Human Rights Council, the resolution called on states to
condemn and criminalize “any advocacy of national, racial or religious
hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or
violence.” Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton affirmed the Obama
administration’s support for this on July 15, 2011, when she gave an
address on the freedom of speech at an Organization of Islamic
Cooperation (OIC) conference on Combating Religious Intolerance.
“Together," she said,
“we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious
sensitivities against freedom of expression and we are pursuing a new
approach. These are fundamental freedoms that belong to all people in
all places and they are certainly essential to democracy.”
But how could both religious sensitivities and freedom of expression be protected?
Clinton had a First Amendment to deal with, and so in place of legal restrictions on criminalization of Islam, she suggested
“old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people
don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.” She held a lengthy closed-door meeting
with OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in December 2011 to
facilitate the adoption of measures that would advance the OIC’s
anti-free speech campaign. But what agreements she and Ihsanoglu made,
if any, have never been disclosed. Still, the specter of an American
Secretary of State conferring with a foreign official about how to
restrict the freedom of speech in order to stifle communications deemed
offensive to Muslims was, at the very least, chilling.
Nor was that a singular case. In July 2012, Thomas Perez — then the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, was asked by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.):
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 could
have simply answered yes, and maybe even cited the First Amendment.
Instead, Perez refused to answer the question directly. Franks
persisted, ultimately asking it four times. Perez at one point responded
that it was a “hard question.” He simply refused to affirm that the
Obama Justice Department would not attempt to criminalize criticism of
Islam.
This is today’s
Democratic Party. If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2020 or
thereafter, will that president advance the Left’s assault on the
freedom of speech and move to implement Sharia restrictions on criticism
of Islam in the United States? You can bet on it.
In that eventuality, I hope some of y’all will visit me in prison.
