The Democrat Sharia Bill: Criminalizing Criticism of Islam

Pamela Geller ^ | 2/2/2016 | Pamela Geller

[HomerBohn]

This is why the party of treason must be stopped. Hillary Clinton has long been agitating for Islamic restrictions on free speech. Perhaps she hopes to silence all of the whisperings about her and her long-time love, Huma Abedin.

During her times as Secretary of State, Clinton met behind closed doors with the notorious Islamic world body, the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), in order to work towards American worldwide sharia adherence. Here is the poison fruit of the party of jihad's leadership.

"House Democrats Move to Criminalize Criticism of Islam," By Robert Spencer, FPM: Lumping together violence with "hateful rhetoric" is a call to destroy the freedom of speech. December 17, 2015 ought henceforth to be a date which will live in infamy, as that was the day that some of the leading Democrats in the House of Representatives came out in favor of the destruction of the First Amendment. Sponsored by among others, Muslim Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, as well as Eleanor Holmes Norton, Loretta Sanchez, Charles Rangel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Kennedy, Al Green, Judy Chu, Debbie Dingell, Niki Tsongas, John Conyers, José Serrano, Hank Johnson, and many others, House Resolution 569 condemns "violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States." The Resolution has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. That's right: "violence, bigotry and hateful rhetoric." The implications of those five words will fly by most people who read them, and the mainstream media, of course, will do nothing to elucidate them. But what H. Res. 569 does is conflate violence -- attacks on innocent civilians, which have no justification under any circumstances - with "bigotry" and "hateful rhetoric," which are identified on the basis of subjective judgments.

The inclusion of condemnations of "bigotry" and "hateful rhetoric" in this Resolution, while appearing to be high-minded, take on an ominous character when one recalls the fact that for years, Ellison, Carson, and his allies (including groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR) have been smearing any and all honest examination of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to incite hatred and violence as "bigotry" and "hateful rhetoric."

This Resolution is using the specter of violence against Muslims to try to quash legitimate research into the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy us, which will have the effect of allowing the jihad to advance unimpeded and unopposed. That's not what this H. Res. 569 would do, you say? It's just about condemning "hate speech," not free speech?

That kind of sloppy reasoning may pass for thought on most campuses today, but there is really no excuse for it. Take, for example, the wife of Paris jihad murderer Samy Amimour - please. It was recently revealed that she happily boasted about his role in the murder of 130 Paris infidels: "I encouraged my husband to leave in order to terrorize the people of France who have so much blood on their hands [...] I'm so proud of my husband and to boast about his virtue, ah la la, I am so happy." Proud wifey added: "As long as you continue to offend Islam and Muslims, you will be potential targets, and not just cops and Jews but everyone."

Now Samy Amimour's wife sounds as if she would be very happy with H. Res. 569, and its sponsors would no doubt gladly avow that we should stop offending Islam and Muslims - that is, cut out the "bigotry" and "hateful rhetoric." If we are going to be "potential targets" even if we're not "cops" or "Jews," as long as we "continue to offend Islam and Muslims," then the obvious solution, according to the Western intelligentsia, is to stop doing anything that might offend Islam and Muslims - oh, and stop being cops and Jews.

Barack "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" says it. Hillary "We're going to have that filmmaker arrested" Clinton says it. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, certain that anyone who speaks honestly about Islam and jihad is a continuing danger to the Church, says it. And it should be easy.

What offends Islam and Muslims? It ought to be a simple matter to cross those things off our list, right? Making a few sacrifices for the sake of our future of glorious diversity should be a no-brainer for every millennial, and everyone of every age who is concerned about "hate," right?

So let's see. Drawing Muhammad - that's right out. And of course, Christmas celebrations, officially banned this year in three Muslim countries and frowned upon (at best) in many others, will have to go as well. Alcohol and pork? Not in public, at least. Conversion from Islam to Christianity?

No more of that. Building churches? Come on, you've got to be more multicultural! Everyone agrees. The leaders of free societies are eagerly lining up to relinquish those freedoms. The glorious diversity of our multicultural future demands it. And that future will be grand indeed, a gorgeous mosaic, as everyone assures us, once those horrible "Islamophobes" are forcibly silenced. Everyone will applaud that. Most won't even remember, once the jihad agenda becomes clear and undeniable to everyone in the U.S. on a daily basis and no one is able to say a single thing about it, that there used to be some people around who tried to warn them.

[nobamanomore]

The naivete of these liberals amaze me. They kill us at every chance, fly planes into our cities, declare their hate for us constantly, and what do they do?

Teach Islam in our schools, proudly declare the great things Muslims have done for our society, protect them, welcome them into our welfare system, and empower them. Does this make sense to anyone?

Meanwhile, they bask in the joy of bashing Christians.

[i_robot73]

This is a NON-BINDING resolution...
This VOLUNTARY law...
Setup programs to greatly, but gently, URGE compliance...
Differing, small FINES for non-compliance...
Failure to comply may result in X yrs in prison and/or...

It’s the non-ending growth of govt, proven TIME and TIME again: seat-belts, income taxes (it was DEFT to think it would be as high as 7%), etc.

[veracious]

If they swore to uphold USConstitution then this is treason. You can’t play lawyer word games claiming that freedom of speech isn’t free, esp. if it is for the sake of a pieceful religious group.

Got tar?

[Bob434]

how about the republicans put forth their own bill to ‘criminalize criticism of Christianity’? Let’s see how well that is received by the left!

[Salvation]

So will they criminalize speaking against Christianity too?

Speaking against Catholicism?

[sergeantdave]

Everyone of these Marxists proposing to criminalize speech need to be removed from Congress and charged with sedition.

[HomerBohn]

I’m with you on this. Those voting records by leftists are a disgrace. Votes on issues conservative and of importance to decent Americans show ALL Democrats seriously lacking while the same can be said for the ‘moderate’ to left RINOs.

[Mark was here]

Any thing that makes a protected group feel bad is illegal hate speech.