Free Speech vs. Islamic Law?

by Denis MacEoin
February 13, 2016 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7379/free-speech-islamic-law

The law regarding freedom of speech and of religion, as it exists in the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, is already compelled to protect all citizens and to extend that protection to non-citizens who come to American shores.
Are Muslims in need of greater protection? According to the FBI's 2014 Hate Crime Statistics, there were 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes in the U.S. that year: Of those, 56.8% were victims of crimes motivated by the offenders' anti-Jewish bias. 16.1% were victims of crimes motivated by the offenders' anti-Muslim bias.
"We cannot agree that prohibiting speech is the way to promote tolerance, and because we continue to see the 'defamation of religions' concept used to justify censorship, criminalization, and in some cases violent assaults and deaths of political, racial, and religious minorities around the world." — U.S. Ambassador Eileen Donahoe.
Again and again, Muslim individuals and organizations have released documents to define Islamic human rights, and in each instance, all rights are restricted to those given by God and are subject to the phrase "according to the Shari'a."

House Resolution 569 was introduced to the U.S. Congress on December 17, 2015 and was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The resolution is headed: "Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States." The problem is that the law regarding freedom of speech and of religion, as it exists in the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, is already compelled to protect all citizens and to extend that protection to non-citizens, be they businessmen or tourists who come to American shores: "Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." No democracy should believe otherwise.

The House of Representatives' Resolution 569 introduces the following Whereas clauses:

(1) expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes;
(2) steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;
(3) denounces 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;
(4) recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;
(5) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;
(6) 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; and
(7) reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.

The resolution seems above criticism -- every clause in it could seemingly have the wholesale approval approbation of anyone -- yet something feels incredibly wrong. That something is the question of why the U.S. House of Representatives has issued such a resolution for Muslims and Muslims only. They and everyone else -- Christians, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, and Scientologists, right through to the adherents of satanic cults -- are already granted the full protection of the law so long as they do not break it.

Are Muslims, then, in need of greater protection than everyone else? Are they more subject to assaults, hate speech, arson attacks than any other religious community? If they were, this resolution might be welcome, even though it would not add a single article to existing legal protections. However, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports: 2014 Hate Crime Statistics, of the 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes that year in the U.S.:

56 percent were victims of crimes motivated by the offenders' anti-Jewish bias.
16.1 percent were victims of crimes motivated by the offenders' anti-Muslim bias.
6.2 percent were victims of crimes motivated by the offenders' bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).
6.1 percent were victims of crimes motivated by the offenders' anti-Catholic bias.
2.5 percent were victims of crimes motivated by the offenders' anti-Protestant bias.
1.2 percent were victims of crimes motivated by the offenders' anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
11.0 percent were victims of crimes motivated by the offenders' bias against other religions (anti-other religion).

On that basis, we might expect there to have been quite a few House Resolutions concerning Jews. All I have been able to find are: H.Res.293 "Expressing concern over anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incitement within the Palestinian Authority" and H.Res.354 – "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the safety and security of Jewish communities in Europe."

Again, both Senate and Congress have issued resolutions to condemn the persecution of the Baha'i religious minority in Iran.[1] But as the Baha'is are not persecuted in the U.S., one might not expect a resolution concerning their protection under U.S. law. These might be worthy resolutions, but have no relevance for the United States as such.

Surely, then, there should be laws protecting Jews! However, neither H.Res. 293 nor H.Res. 354 addresses that issue in distinction to H.Res. 569, which specifically concerns Muslims "in the United States." The disparity between anti-Jewish hate crimes and the much smaller incidence of anti-Muslim crimes stands in stark contrast to the indifference of Congress towards Jews in an age of rapidly rising anti-Semitism and what appears excessive (though decent) concern for Muslims.

In reality, of course, there is no need for extra legislation to protect Jews. They are already protected by existing laws, as are all other religious communities, as noted above.

Why, then, did not a single member of Congress get up on the floor to point out this manifest discrepancy? Surely it must be obvious that, should the resolution pass into law, Muslims will be the only group (religiously, politically, ethnically, or what you will) in the United States to be ring-fenced from anything that might offend them.

We know that Muslims and Muslim authorities are not robust in taking criticism or satire, but are, rather, seemingly hypersensitive to almost anything non-Muslims say of them.

The only conclusion one can draw from this is that the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/1 seems to have influenced Congress. Do not forget that the OIC is the only international religious body to have campaigned ceaselessly for legislation to protect believers of Islam from physical and verbal abuse, with verbal abuse determined according to shari'a principles rather than the traits of international or national democratic values.

In Great Britain, a landmark judgement was passed on January 5, 2016, in a court in Belfast, Northern Ireland, when a judge ruled that evangelical pastor James McConnell was not guilty of hate speech directed at Muslims. McConnell had been arrested last May after remarks during a sermon about Islam at his church. In his sermon, he had spoken of Islam as "satanic," "heathen" and "a doctrine spawned in hell." These may be sentiments with which most of the world would not agree, but entirely within the bounds of evangelical Christian theology, not least in that frequently bigoted region of fundamentalist, belief, where even the majority of fellow Christians are despatched to hellfire, with Catholics at the bottom of the heap. It is also not that different from what many Muslim clerics say about Jews and others.

As his sermon had been posted online, McConnell was charged under the Communications Act 2003 of making improper use of a public electronics communications network and of causing a grossly offensive message through those channels. But even though the judge found his remarks offensive, he was exonerated and walked out of a court a free man.

In Europe, criticisms of Islam have been met with a range of penalties. Individuals have been prosecuted and sometimes been found guilty of "Islamophobic" speech or writing -- notably Elizabeth Sabatisch-Wolff and Susanne Winter in Austria, Geert Wilders and Gregorious Nekschot in the Netherlands, Lars Hedegaard and Jesper Langballe in Denmark, Michel Houellebecq and Brigitte Bardot in France, Oriana Fallaci in Italy, and others elsewhere. Some have been exonerated, others jailed or fined. Pastor McConnell has been fortunate in avoiding jail. So far the UK has been tolerant, but further trials -- very often for what really amounts to nothing more than blasphemy as perceived by Muslim groups or individuals -- are very likely. Today, more than ever, there are forces at work that seek to make these prosecutions a certainty, not just in Europe, but in the United States, Canada, and other countries in the West.

The threat to freedom of speech a comes mainly from one quarter: an international body known as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). In recent years, one of the core activities of the OIC has been repeated attempts to introduce via the United Nations Human Rights Council a law forbidding any form of blasphemy, criticism, or negative comment, especially about the Islamic religion. To understand this, it is important to note that, from the time of the prophet Muhammad to the present day (and more strongly within modern radical Muslim movements), the Islamic religion has been predicated on a call for domination over all other religions and political systems. Here, for example, are some explicit expressions of that demand in radical websites: a YouTube video and a website linked to the British extremist, Omar Bakri Muhammad.

In the video, Omar Bakri declares "We must live by and make a domination and die (?) on in our da'wa (missionary work) and jihad in order to spread it [Islam] all over. The video page is entitled "Proclaim openly for Izharudeen", meaning "proclaim openly for making the faith victorious over all others," and displays a photograph of several Muslims carrying placards declaring "Islam will dominate the world: Freedom go to hell. A website publishing extracts from the classical Qur'an commentary of Ibn Kathir is headed with the words: "Islam is the Religion that will dominate over all Other Religions" and below that cites a Qur'anic verse declaring that God will "make it [Islam] victorious over all religions" before quoting several traditions declaring the same thing in various formulations. Finally, a Facebook page titled "In sha Allah, Islam will dominate the world" from which several more sites with the same statement are revealed below the main heading.

Islamic policy from the time of the seventh-century Arab conquests through the later empires was to set Muslim rulers above native populations, even if at first Muslims were in a minority. Pagans could choose to convert or die, but Jews, Christians, and before long Zoroastrians, were treated (under the oppressive terms of the Pact of 'Umar) as dhimmi people, forced to pay a protection tax, the jizya, in order to preserve their lives and property. There were different laws for people of a different religion, in addition to numerous restrictive conditions for dhimmis, including these:

We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.

We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas [honorific name derived from one's eldest child, such as Abu, father of]

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.

We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

We shall not sell fermented drinks.

We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar [a kind of belt] round our waists

We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.

We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

A Muslim, under shari'a regulations, cannot be brought to trial or punished for killing a non-Muslim.[2]

Given this classic formulation, it is easy to see that non-Muslims living in Islamic states or empires risked their lives should they say anything whatever detrimental to Islam, considered insulting to the prophet, or thought derogatory of the Qur'an, the Hadith, shari'a law or the Muslim clerical elite.

This attitude -- that no-one is permitted to speak ill (however that be defined) of Islam or its many elements without facing condign punishment (which includes death even for Muslims who are deemed to have crossed the lines of offense and have thereby become "apostates") -- has in the past placed enormous restrictions on what may be said or written about the religion. These restrictions did not matter in the least to anyone living in a Christian country, where there was little likelihood of retaliation from Muslims. But today most Western countries have large Muslim populations, and relations between the West and the Islamic world are carried out on the world stage. The riots, assassinations, and death threats that followed Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa [religious legal opinion] in 1989 to kill the British writer, Salman Rushdie, for his novel, The Satanic Verses, were indicative of a new direction.

Since the Enlightenment, open debate and free speech have been enshrined in the laws and practices of all democracies. It is central to the American way of life since the 1791 first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which also guarantees freedom from religious coercion. To Westerners -- both legislators and the general public -- freedom of speech (and writing) seems axiomatic as a basic human right. But for Muslims, human rights are very differently understood. Again and again, when Muslim individuals and organizations have released documents to define Islamic human rights, in each instance, all rights are restricted to those given by God and are subject to the phrase "according to the Shari'a."[3] One of the best known statements of this kind is the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. Its last two articles read thus:

ARTICLE 24:
All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.

ARTICLE 25:
The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

In the present context, Article 22 is also of particular interest:

ARTICLE 22:
(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.
1. Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'ah.
(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical Values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.
(d) It is not permitted to excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form or racial discrimination.

It is on the basis of this attitude to human rights, including the supposed right to express one's opinion freely, that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation has tried many times to introduce legislation within the United Nations that controls free speech in accordance with the demands of shari'a. The OIC has advocated bans on the "defamation of religion" in general, but in reality, it is defamation of Islam that matters. In Geneva, from 19 to 30 October 2009, the Ad Hoc Committee of the Human Rights Council on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards met to update the measures for combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance that the Durban I conference had formulated. During the discussion, the United States, Sweden and France all agreed that legal protection could not be provided for systems of belief or religions. However, the Syrian delegate stated clearly that "in real terms defamation means targeting Muslims".

What is deemed to be defamatory is, of course, hugely restrictive, whether it be in the form of a novel, a cartoon, or even an academic study. As experience has shown, nothing is off limits.

Between 1999 and 2010, several Muslim states, at the instigation of the OIC and supported by a range of Third World countries, introduced resolutions at the UNHRC on "the defamation of religion" no fewer than 16 times. Initially, these resolutions were passed by majority votes, with delegates from Muslim states and developing countries supporting them. Western states for the greater part opposed them on the grounds that they threatened to restrict free speech. As time passed support for the resolution began to weaken. In 2009, for example, no fewer than 200 civil societies from 46 countries urged the UNHRC to reject an upcoming resolution on the subject.

In the same year, during the debate on another resolution, the European Union's delegate, Jean-Baptiste Mattei, declared that the EU "rejected and would continue to reject the concept of defamation of religions." He went on to say that "human rights laws did not and should not protect belief systems." In the same debate, Carlos Portales from Chile noted that "the concept of the defamation of religions took them in an area that could lead to the actual prohibition of opinions." However, the UNHRC adopted the resolution -- without taking a vote.

Again, in 2010, Pakistan introduced a resolution "Combating the defamation of religion" on behalf of the OIC. Once more Jean-Baptiste Mattei opposed it. He argued that the "concept of defamation should not fall under the remit of human rights because it conflicted with the right to freedom of expression." The U.S ambassador, Eileen Donahoe, declared with great clarity that

"The United States will vote against this resolution because we view it as an ineffective way to address these concerns. We cannot agree that prohibiting speech is the way to promote tolerance, and because we continue to see the 'defamation of religions' concept used to justify censorship, criminalization, and in some cases violent assaults and deaths of political, racial, and religious minorities around the world. Contrary to the intentions of most Member States, governments are likely to abuse the rights of individuals in the name of this resolution, and in the name of the Human Rights Council."

Despite these many resolutions, members of the OIC were possibly starting to see that they were getting nowhere and that opposition to their attempt to introduce a ban on free speech through the back door was growing. They had to find a formula that would deflect criticism and win the support of Western states for whom freedom of speech was a non-negotiable condition. The answer was simple yet immensely effective. Instead of a focus on the protection of beliefs, why not stress the need to protect individual believers? On March 24, 2010, the UNHRC adopted (again without a vote) Resolution 16/18, entitled "Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion and belief."

Overnight, everyone was playing a totally different ball game. Who could refuse to support a resolution with a title like that? The OIC had, as it were, slipped past customs checks and delivered something which apparently no one could reject.

A meeting was convened on July 15, 2011, hosted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation at the OIC Istanbul Office in the Yildiz Palace. The affair was co-chaired by OIC Secretary-General H.E Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu; U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; the Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs.[4] The OIC was home and dry, backed by just about everyone who had previously expressed concern about its plan. A joint statement was released, calling for international support for Resolution 16/18.[5]

Resolution 16/18 has since become the gold standard according to which the international community may identify religious hatred, stereotyping, or incitement to hatred on racial or religious grounds. Understood in terms of international human rights law as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the thrust of the resolution appears unimpeachable. It is hard, if not impossible, openly to disagree with it in that context without seeming opposed to such rights.

There are, in fact, serious grounds for concern. These relate in part to the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which entered into force ten years later, in 1976. This lengthy and important expression of human rights re-asserted the fundamental prescriptions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The rights it demands include:

physical integrity, in the form of the right to life and freedom from torture and slavery (Articles 6, 7, and 8);
liberty and security of the person, in the form of freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention and the right to habeas corpus (Articles 9 – 11);
procedural fairness in law, in the form of rights to due process, a fair and impartial trial, the presumption of innocence, and recognition as a person before the law (Articles 14, 15, and 16);
individual liberty, in the form of the freedoms of movement, thought, conscience and religion, speech, association and assembly, family rights, the right to a nationality, and the right to privacy (Articles 12, 13, 17 – 24);
prohibition of any propaganda for war as well as any advocacy of national or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence by law (Article 20);
political participation, including the right to the right to vote (Article 25);
Non-discrimination, minority rights and equality before the law (Articles 26 and 27).

Unexpectedly, the International Covenant came to play a role following the passage of UNHRC Resolution 16/18. Four months after the passage of the, the UNHRC itself adopted General Comment 34 on the International Covenant with respect to freedoms of opinion and expression. The Comment places strong emphasis on the importance of those freedoms. Paragraph 48 declares that:

"Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. Such prohibitions must also comply with the strict requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, as well as such articles as 2, 5, 17, 18 and 26. Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favor of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith."

These cautions certainly restrict the application of the OIC-instigated Resolution 16/18 from a Western human rights perspective. Viewed from that perspective, Resolution 16/18 is, at heart, hypocritical. On the surface, it makes it seem that the OIC has adopted a Western approach to human rights. In fact, it has not. Hidden from many people, including, I am sure, most of the Western members of the UN Human Rights Council is the OIC's real position on human rights. It relies solely on Islamic legal prescriptions to determine what is and what is not a right. This is easy to see.

On its own website, the OIC publishes the full text and advocates the use of the Cairo Declaration mentioned above as the basis for its actual understanding of such rights. However, as all rights under the Cairo Declaration are declared subject to shari'a laws, this can only mean that the OIC regards the Western interpretation of Resolution 16/18 as invalid. If we then add that the freedoms of opinion, speech, and other expression are nowhere permitted within the Islamic world and are often punished in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sudan and elsewhere by imprisonment, flogging, and execution, one does have to question the sincerity of the OIC in promoting freedoms that it nowhere actually recognizes.

In theory, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, Baha'is and some other religious communities will resort to the terms of the resolution when they are genuinely applicable to cases of being demonized and subjected to real incitement to violence. Unfortunately, for many years now we have seen that, in reality, it is most often Muslims who try to use anti-hate legislation to condemn perfectly reasonable criticism, satire, attempts to question shari'a, or to protest Islamic extremism. Resolution 16/18 will very likely assist many Muslims in bringing even more prosecutions against non-Muslim critics or even against moderate Muslims who oppose much that is done in the name of Islam.

There are, indeed, signs that Resolution 16/18 may already be bringing its influence to bear in some democratic states, not least that former bastion of free speech, the United States.

Our natural concern for the protection of the weak and vulnerable, a concern rooted in Western Judaeo-Christian and Enlightenment values, makes it easy for legislators from different political positions to sign a document such as the US Congress H.Res. 569. They may not have seen the hidden implications of their attempt to render it illegal to offend (as defined by Muslims) the members of just one religion. The legislators may not even have seen the exceptionalism granted to Muslims but to no other religious community.

Given the existence of the First Amendment, the United States remains capable of resisting attacks on free speech and expression. It would be regrettable if H.Res. 569 could prove to be a Trojan Horse, just as was Resolution 16/18.

Legislation such as H. Res, 569 would not only end America's long tradition of free and open debate; worse, it would reverse the protection of the First Amendment.

Denis MacEoin is a scholar of Islam and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.

[1] S.Res. 148 (also dated December 17, 2015) "Condemns the government of Iran's state-sponsored persecution of its Baha'i minority and its continued violation of the International Covenants on Human Rights." It was preceded by H.Res. 220 of May 20, 2015.

[2] See Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, 'Umdat al-salik, trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller as Reliance of the Traveller, Amana, Maryland, rev. ed. 1994, p. 584 o1.2 (2).

[3] A comprehensive, scholarly and eye-opening survey of these documents may be found in Ann Elizabeth Mayer's Islam and Human Rights. For a broader discussion of the many issues involved, see the essays in International Law and International Human Rights Law.

[4] Others attending the meeting included foreign ministers and officials from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Senegal, Sudan, United Kingdom, the Vatican (Holy See), UN OHCHR, Arab League, and African Union.

[5] "Participants resolved to... reaffirm their commitment to freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression by urging States to take effective measures, as set forth in Resolution 16/18... to address and combat intolerance, discrimination, and violence based on religion or belief.... Participants are encouraged to consider to provide updates... on the elimination of religious intolerance and discrimination."

© 2024 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Related Topics: Threats to Free Speech

Recent Articles by Denis MacEoin

Can Terrorists be Deradicalized? - Part II, 2020-08-20
The Future of Israel's Borders: International Law and Islamic Law. Part II, 2020-07-01
The Future of Israel's Borders: International Law and Islamic Law. Part I, 2020-06-30
Religious Responses to Coronavirus, 2020-06-14
'Political Correctness' in the UK: Shut Down Discussion Before It Can Start, 2020-06-09

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list.

Comment on this item

23 Reader Comments

James Sheen • Feb 27, 2016 at 17:04

Anyone who has read about the supposed freedoms guaranteed by shariah are no such thing. If one cannot deny Islam's prophet then you have no real freedom.

Reply->

Don • Feb 15, 2016 at 01:02

All references to culture norms are removed by the victor to separate a defeated enemy from their old culture.
Burning books for example and now the old Christian culture is in the process of being removed from our lives in order to transition to Sharia.
This is being aided by the lack of reporting by the media, assisting the culture shift by stealth.
Don

Reply->

debra • Feb 14, 2016 at 13:44

Why is it I must tolerate their opinion (lies) but they don't have to tolerate my opinions or my religion? Where is the equality in that?

Reply->

El Cid

debra • Feb 15, 2016 at 11:45

If the legislation passes, it will be a turning point because it will give legal cause for the familiar formula where anyone speaking against Islam is silenced.

Any public speaker today faces the 'security' concern. The venue can give the excuse that the public event will result in violence. If the law passes, the excuse can be that the event is 'illegal'. Never mind whether this is true or no.

If Islam is to be singled out for a Federal Law, the law should rather say that no state shall enact any legislation and no court shall act in such a way that Sharia Law is given precedence over US Constitutional Law and the protections of the individual given there.

This would make sense.

Reply->

William Lewis Wexler, Esq. • Feb 14, 2016 at 01:17

House Resolution 569 is clearly unconstitutional as it violates the 1st Amendment's protection of freedom of speech. It interesting that a body compose mostly of lawyers would vote for this obviously unconstitutional item. What is more interesting is that while Moslems want to restrict free speech they want its protection. Furthermore, it is a well known fact that, with the exception of Turkey (albeit the treatment of the Kurds has been a tragic exception), there is no free speech or protection of other religions in any Moslem dominated country. And in Turkey Erdogan is trying hard to turn the secular state of Ataturk into a Sharia dominated society. Hopefully this travesty of a Bill will die in committee.

Reply->

Dajjal • Feb 13, 2016 at 22:39

Outside of my own blog posts, I do not recall much mention of the ad hoc cmte. Its mission is to code a binding protocol to ICERD to be enforced in court. Bogged down in procedural matters, it may never bear fruit, but if it does, the fruit will be extremely evil.

The free speech vs Islam topic really requires reference to Reliance Of The Traveller O8.0....7 listing the punishment for and 20 examples of blasphemy. The same is applied to dhimmis through O11.5: "expresses anything impermissible". Those sections of Reliance should be quoted or linked.

It would be helpful to place the url or a description in the title attribute of external links.

I was brought here by this quote in the Google Alert: "We cannot agree that prohibiting speech is the way to promote tolerance, and because we continue to see the 'defamation of religions' "

Tolerance of the intolerant & intolerable should not be promoted. That misanthropic promotion is high on the list of objectives of 16/18.

Reply->

(Dr.) Sandy Kramer • Feb 13, 2016 at 18:41

Whatever the matter under debate, be it Israel or Islam, evolution or intelligent design, good or evil -- the free exercise of ideas is the foundation for truth.

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that . . . [i]f the opinion is right, [individuals] are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
( John Stuart Mill: "On Liberty". )

"Magna est veritas, et prevalebit."
( Sir Walter Scott, "The Talisman". )

(Dr.) Sandy Kramer
PrincetonUniversity@Cox.net

Reply->

Russell

(Dr.) Sandy Kramer • Feb 15, 2016 at 05:09

Free and open discussion on religious, secular and political topics very clearly leads to greater understanding, exposure of errors, lies and misunderstanding. Islam cannot stand such close scrutiny, hence anything that may bring out truth have to be silenced. That is why all other religions are banned in Islamic countries, why Christian Churches are destroyed, Bibles banned and Christians are persecuted, driven out or killed. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life". Islam is quietly building up strength in non-Islamic countries through such legislation in order to eventually ensure that the truth is withheld from the people. The RC's did this centuries ago by refusing to allow English language versions of the Bible. The Palestinians are doing this with UN support by educating their children on a false narrative and hatred of Israel.

The father of lies is behind all of this.

Reply->

Reform School • Feb 13, 2016 at 18:16

America, the idiots you elected to government have recently warned us of their intent to oppress us. By ignoring clear warnings THEY received, our German cousins ceded their liberty, precipitating the Second World War and the Final Solution. Fail to vote out ALL your elected officials at your peril!

Reply->

Harvey • Feb 13, 2016 at 17:29

This revealing article by Denis MacEoin brings light to what I and a lot of Western populations have long suspected. Islam's attempts to erode free speech in the West and change it to Islam's own agenda which is very different to what most Western politicians perceive.

Reply->

Peter Terry • Feb 13, 2016 at 14:30

Dear Dr. MacEoin -- I have just written my two Senators, my member of House of Representatives, and the Assistant Director of the Human Rights Office at the Department of State, voicing my objection this resolution...and I urge other American readers to do the same. Those readers who are not American citizens can register their objection to this resolution by contacting the U.S. Embassy in their country of residence. We should not allow this to pass unnoticed. Too much is at stake.

Reply->

Lofty Basta MD, FRCP, FACC • Feb 13, 2016 at 12:36

Why did we have the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" in 1954 and which became binding legally later on? My understanding is that it should apply equally to ALL humans regardless of their differences. There are 529 religions in the world, and to afford each of them different rights which are interpreted according to the whims and wishes of certain individuals at a given point in time is preposterous. All religions have doctrines that must be obeyed without questioning and certain beliefs and practices which are subject to human interpretation at the time. Didn't we want to get away from this dilemma when scholars from different walks of life drafted the "Universal Declaration"?

Reply->

steven L • Feb 13, 2016 at 11:45

What can be done to Jews can't and shall not be done to anyone else. For the Islamists, the dhimmitude has no rights and therefore the 85.9% HATE crimes committed against the dhimmies are meaningless.

Reply->

June • Feb 13, 2016 at 09:56

I dare the House Judiciary committee to find the hidden truth in this resolution and prevent its going forward.

Reply->

PAthena • Feb 13, 2016 at 09:21

1. As Tom Lehrer said, "I hate anyone who does not love his fellow man."
Since the Quran expresses hatred of anyone who is not a Mohammedan, it is "hate speech."
2. What is a "hate crime"? So far as I know, criminals do not love their victims? Or does it mean crimes of hatred against others, like those of Major Nidal Hasan massacring members of the military at Fort Hood or of that of the Mohammedan fanatics at San Bernardino, California?
3. What is "defamation" of a religion? The Quran defames all religions except Mohammedanism.
4. Why is Congress passing a resolution favoring Mohammedanism? Why does it include a provision praising the contributions of Mohammedans to the U.S.? Is this more of President Barack Hussein Obama's nonsense? What great contributions have Mohammedans made to the U.S.?
5. John Stuart Mill's ON LIBERTY should be on everyone's reading list, including those living in Mohammedan countries.

Reply->

Avi15 • Feb 13, 2016 at 09:07

When confronting a mugger, never, ever allow him to get you onto the ground. Once that happens, it's easy for him to deliver you a death blow - or kick, most likely. These efforts by Muslim organisations to restrict free speech are nothing so much as attempts to get Western civilisation onto the ground. They know perfectly well what they are doing. The death blow would follow soon after. It must not be allowed to happen.

Reply->

Michael Dable • Feb 13, 2016 at 08:29

What an astonishing article, Abraham Lincoln cannot stop turning in his grave.

You cannot apply common sense discussion to people who believe.............

THE KORAN

SURA 3 As for the Infidels, (US non Muslim citizens) their wealth, and their children, shall avail them nothing against God. (Allah) They shall be fuel for the fire.

SURA 5 But they who are Infidels (US non Muslim citizens) and treat our signs as lies - these shall be mated with Hell fire.

SURA 8 When thy Lord spake unto the angels, 'I will be with you: therefore establish ye the faithful. I will cast a dread into the hearts of the infidels. (US non Muslim citizens) Strike off their heads then, and strike off from them every finger-tip.

Must assume the White House bods cannot read!

Reply->

Gregory Bigelow • Feb 13, 2016 at 08:15

Excellent. Well informed. You are on the mark. It seems like the extremists are wearing them down one by one. Reality is those in position of influence; on (both) sides of the spectrum, are just gathering to themselves the most of whatever they can; money, influence, power, not realizing that they are truly fooling only themselves. That insulated security they're building for themselves will devour them in the end. We truly reap what we sow. And NOT A ONE of us is above that law.

Reply->

jeb • Feb 13, 2016 at 07:57

We need more laws to protect us from immoderate Muslims who will kill when offended by satire. The intent is to blanket any criticism of Islam as hate.
When a Crucifix was dunked in urine and presented in an "art museum" Christians protested but there were no deaths or riots in the street. Christians did not drag known "heretics" into the street torture murder them and ransack and loot them. That is exactly what happened in parts of the Islamic worlds when a Florida minster promised to burn a Koran in public. Were his intentions hateful or intended to create hatred? We don't know if that was the intent of the "artist" dunking crucifixes in urine. We do know the difference in responses and we cannot give in to this form of religious blackmail.

Reply->

Jeff Page • Feb 13, 2016 at 07:56

Western politicians are drifting aimlessly and in a complete state of stupor towards the abyss. No longer can the person in the street talk freely about what they believe or what they feel about how their world is changing in front of them. That is of course unless you are a Muslim! No one can take the mickey, no one can denounce, no one can openly criticise Islam, no one who isn't Muslim has no voice and is not at liberty to protest about how wrong this all is. Haven't the politicians realised what's happening? Have the lost all common sense and why do they refuse to grasp the gravity of the situation?

Gaddafi once said that the West will be conquered without guns and swords and weapons of any kind, simply by the overwhelming numbers of Muslims producing more children than the Europeans. It's a fact, not imagination, and something that the politicians have refused to relay to their own people.

The rise in opposition to immigrants is growing hence the pressure put on police etc by governments to stamp out the same opposition and prevent this takeover by Islam happening.

We are being betrayed by politicians and to a lesser degree by some celebrities who just don't seem to be able to recognise the dangers of what they are doing. Hopefully, many more opposition groups will spring up all around the world and the established politicians who are guilty of forcing Islam upon our respective countries will be hounded out of office and condemned as the traitors they are. We are wide open to exploitation by Islam, the politicians don't see or hear what is happening on the streets, they are ignorant and in many ways guilty of extreme cowardice. We must have change or we will be ruled by Islam and governed by sharia law. Wake up!

Reply->

Albert • Feb 13, 2016 at 07:31

It is amazing to see how the world is blind and deaf. Muslims believe that all non-Islamic religions must be subdued into Islam, that is what the name depicts. Europe is just about done and the do gooders in the House are passing laws to help Islam in it's religious war. The Chief Islamist in Washington is pushing for the recognition that The Muslim Brotherhood, the grand daddy of all Islamic terror group anywhere is a moderate. He even invited some of the Brotherhood leaders in the White House. Europe is just about conquered by Islam, should the House and the president help Islam conquer the USA too?

Reply->

lyn uzelac • Feb 13, 2016 at 07:02

Neither the Jews nor people of other faiths need special protection. The only reason the Moslems seek it is because they wish to destroy your culture.

Reply->

Allen Vergakis • Feb 13, 2016 at 06:49

Speak freely all you wish, as long as it doesn't offend the offenders, Islam. Here's some free and acceptable examples: "Kill the Jews! Kill the Christians! Burn the churches and synagogues! Rape their boys, girls, and women. Beat them! Behead them. Burn them alive! Death to America! Death to Israel! Where's my government-assistance check?!"

Reply->