Obama Wants To Make Muslims A Protected Class

tiredBill Killian, an US Justice Department attorney, claims that anti-Muslim speech violates Muslim’s Constitutional rights. Therefore, he argues, it should be illegal and punishable by law., “We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected.”

At this time, Obama’s DOJ is working to determine what, exactly, is considered illegal speech against Muslims. Guidelines and specific laws are expected to come soon.   Killian claims that he isn’t seeking to stifle the First Amendment’s protections on free speech. Rather, he’s concerned with the impediment on the free practice of one’s religion — another key aspect of the First Amendment.  “People are free to hate, as long as they don’t act on it.”

According to the ACLU, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content.  How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied.

Considering the left’s attack against Christianity, as well as their support for Muslims, no one should be surprised that Obama’s Justice Department is attempting to make Muslims a protected class, much as it has homosexuals.

Over the years Obama has embarked on a fervent crusade to befriend Muslims by creating a variety of outreach programs at a number of key federal agencies. He had Homeland Security meet with a group of extremist Arab, Muslim and Sikh organizations to discuss our national security.  Hillary, as Secretary of State,  sent a controversial, anti-America Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, to the Middle East to foster greater understanding and outreach among Muslim majority communities.  Homeland Security also hired a special  adviser with close ties to radical extremist groups, Mohamed Elibiary, who openly supports a radical Islamist theology and jihadist ideologues, while condemning prosecution of terrorists as  “politically motivated”.

Since the end of World War II, many European countries have enacted hate speech legislation designed to curb incitement to racial and religious hatred.  Though originally intended to guard against the kind of xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda that gave rise to the Holocaust, today, national hate speech laws have increasingly been invoked to criminalize speech that is merely deemed insulting to one’s race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality.  Under the guise of tolerance and co-existence, Islamists have often manipulated such laws in a bid to monopolize debate and define what is beyond the pale of permissible public discussion. 

The UK’s hate speech legislation has been used to arrest an Oxford student for calling a police horse “gay,” a Christian cafe owner was threatened with arrest for displaying Bible verses on a TV screen; a teenager was arrested for holding a sign calling the Church of Scientology a cult; a Christian arrested for tweeting that government shouldn’t impose same-sex civil marriages on places of faith and conscience; an atheist was warned that he could be prosecuted for a sign calling religion a fair tale for grown-ups; and gays have been arrested for suggesting Islam is wrong on the subject of homosexuality.

Since Canada enacted “hate crimes” legislation  gave special protected status to homosexuals, and set up human rights commissions and tribunals, the persecution against Christians has grown steadily.  The Western Standard magazine was punished for publishing Danish cartoons of Mohammed, a City and their mayor were fined for refusing to proclaim Gay Pride Day;  a Toronto printer was fined for refusing to print homosexual-themed stationery; the Star Phoenix newspaper was fined for publishing an ad quoting Bible verses;  a private well-known organization was fined for refusing to allow its facility to be used for a same-sex wedding; a Catholic Bishop was targeted for defending traditional marriage; a priest fined for quoting from the Bible about homosexuality; and a weekly magazine fined for publishing excerpts from a book.

So why the rush  to make Muslim’s a special protected class?  A detailed analysis of FBI statistics covering ten full calendar years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks reveals that, on a per capita basis, American Muslims, contrary to spin, have been subjected to hate crimes less often than other prominent minorities. From 2002 to 2011, Muslims are estimated to have suffered hate crimes at a frequency of 6.0 incidents per 100,000 per year — 10 percent lower than blacks (6.7), 48 percent lower than homosexuals and bisexual (11.5), and 59 percent lower than Jews (14.8). Americans should keep these numbers in mind whenever Islamists attempt to silence critics by invoking Muslim victimhood.

With hate crimes befalling Muslims far less often than they do Jews or homosexuals and slightly less often than blacks, it is clear that anti-Muslim incidents are disproportionate to those targeting other minorities only in terms of the hype generated on their behalf.

The false picture of an epidemic of assaults on Muslims distracts us from Islamist hatred and enshrines Muslims as the country’s leading victim class, a strategy intended to intimidate citizens into remaining quiet about Islamic supremacism and lays the groundwork for granting Muslims special privileges and protections at the expense of others.  In short, anti-Muslim hate crimes are a powerful Islamist weapon against Americans.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *