House Democrats introduce resolution condeming violence against...Muslims??
Naturally you don't believe that, and I don't blame you. Most of you literally cannot believe that "your" representatives would introduce a resolution that would further the goals of turning the U.S. into an Islamic state. It's crazy talk! Tinfoil-hat territory!
That's because you don't know how liberals use the legislative process (and the executive, of course, but that's documented elsewhere) to advance their agenda incrementally, and by burying language deep in a bill or resolution that can be used later "because the 114th congress agreed that..." whatever they want.
So since you can't see it, here's the resolution. And I'll show you the language that they'll use later to make it illegal for Americans to criticize any aspect of Islam--as is already the case in Canada.
Hey, who could possibly object to any of those ideas, right? All of them seem to be very affirming of American founding priniciples, right? I mean, declaring that civil rights and "civil liberties" of ALL U.S. citizens should be protected is pretty unexceptional stuff.
House Resolution 569, December 17, 2015
Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.
Whereas 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;
Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles;
Whereas there are millions of Muslims in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native-born citizens;
Whereas this Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;
Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Muslims are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;
Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;
Whereas Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances; and
Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Muslim speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(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.
But in (6), resolving that "hate crimes" should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Where does the resolution define a "hate crime," and how is that defined?
It's not there, of course. Nor does this resolution reference any other legislation or court decision defining a so-called "hate crime." That's because the term "hate crime" is infinitely malleable, and can be used to fine or imprison anyone who dissents from whatever liberals and Democrats want to do.
And as if on cue, the Muslim Student Association at San Diego State University has demanded that the university ban “Islamophobic speech.”
To see how laws regarding "hate crime" or "hate speech" can be used for...anything the government wants, consider the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)). This law made it a federal crime to injure, intimidate or interfere with another person, by force, because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin, if the victim was attempting to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities such as attending school, "patronizing a public place/facility," applying for employment, voting, or acting as a juror in a state court.
On October 28, 2009 the emperor signed a law hugely expanding federal hate crime law, adding crimes motivated by a victim's "actual or perceived gender," sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, and dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity.
While no rational person wants to see people attacked for their race or sexual orientation, clearly any such attacks were already unlawful under all existing state laws. Thus one might wonder what the rationale for an expansion of federal "hate crime" power was. In weighing this question it's worth noting that the Democrats had to attach this law to the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2010 to pass it. (Of course the practice of attaching a controversial or unconstitutional provision to a must-pass bill is a well-known legislative tactic.)
In nations as modern and civil as Canada such language has been used to levy huge fines against anyone criticizing Islam in even the mildest way. For example, a Canadian "rights" commission charged commentator Mark Steyn with a hate crime for writing a book with parts critical of Islam.
After the popular Canadian magazine Maclean’s reprinted a chapter from the book, five Muslim law-school students, helped by the Canadian Islamic Congress, demanded that the magazine be punished for spreading “hatred and contempt” for Muslims.
The Muslim plaintiffs claimed Steyn and Maclean’s had claimed that Islamic culture is incompatible with Canadian and western civilization. They insisted that magazines and authors be barred from publishing such opinions.
Two separate panels, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, agreed to hear the case.
Canadian "human rights" tribunals had a 100% conviction rate when they'd brought "hate speech" charges. They had banned a Christian preacher for life from ever citing Bible verses regarding homosexuality in his sermons, or "in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet."
Canada's liberal mainstream media--all politically-correct and not wanting to cross the human-rights warriors--shrugged.
Unable to refute Steyn's statistics and facts, or to deny that the portions of the article they found most offensive were in fact chilling quotations made by radical Muslims themselves, Steyn's accusers condemned his "tone," use of "sarcasm," and reliance upon "subtle intellectual arguments."
Of course that's Canada. Couldn't happen here, right?