At this moment, a filmmaker who is allegedly a Coptic Christian sits in prison after an amateur video he made allegedly angered Muslims in other parts of the world. Technically, the filmmaker didn’t go to prison for the film. He was put there for alleged violation of his probation.
Had the U.S. Dept. of Justice not chosen that route, they could have opted for tax fraud, an easy route for politically driven assaults on opponents.
Could you go to jail for insulting someone's religion?
Obama’s team deftly used the perp walk of the filmmaker to appease others who are incapable of understanding the U.S. First Amendment. After all, other governments have caved to demands to not “insult” the Muslim faith. Who cares what the word “insult” constitutes?
I guess you’d care if you were the one doing the perp walk.
Breitbart News said this week an Obama official “reportedly” attended a meeting with officials of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a “Symposium on Defamation of Islam.”
Few legacy media have mentioned this ongoing effort by the OIC to impose their standards on others, even those of us who live in relatively free countries.
The US Report began to warn readers in 2009, shortly after newly elected President Obama sought a seat on what the UN calls its Human Rights Council. You are permitted an LOL at that sham council.
The Council passed UN Resolution 7/19, Combating Defamation of Religion. Only one faith was mentioned—Islam.
As Obama’s first term progressed, so did the dialog between his administration and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. In December, 2011, The New York Post reported:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday ended the “Istanbul Process,” a three-day, closed-door international conference hosted by the State Department on measures to combat religious “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization.”
By then, Resolution 7/19 had morphed into Resolution 16/18.
Both resolutions are aimed at the same thing—restricting speech and expression that might defame or insult Islam. If at this point, you are weighing how the U.S. First Amendment figures in this political dance between East and West, congratulate yourself. Most Americans are completely unaware that the keystone to our freedoms is in peril. Many Americans probably don’t care—after all, academics and some media even advocated for the filmmaker to be locked up because he allegedly incited violence.
The dialog obviously continues, with the OIC secretary general making remarks on Nov. 16 at a session titled, “An OIC Approach for Combating Discrimination and Intolerance against Muslims.”
The secretary general claimed there was “an alarming upsurge” in Islamophobia. He cited one incident of actual violence, but he included the “burning of the holy Quran by a Pastor” and,”the release of the trailer of ‘Innocence of Muslims’ on YouTube.”
Don’t we all wish people respected the faith of others? I do. I wish Islamists didn’t routinely vilify Jews and Christians.
Here’s the most troubling aspect of that OIC address:
Freedom of opinion and expression is among the fundamental rights. It does not include a licence to hate mongering. Freedom of expression does not mean the right to vilify.
If you see the East body-slamming the West with that statement, you understand the concept of liberty.
Freedom of expression does indeed include a license to hate-mongering. And vilification.
The Left does this on a daily basis to the right when conservatives dare to disagree with abortion on demand at any point in a pregnancy.
Or alternatively, when conservatives rightfully point out that the government cannot compel a religious institution to pay for birth control no matter how cheap.
Many U.S women proudly voted in our last election on that single issue—well, not really that issue. Democrats messaged, with full assistance from legacy media, that conservatives wanted to take away their birth control. Considering the way many women voted, it’s obvious that simplistic albeit completely false messaging worked, at least it worked on the politically uninformed.
No U.S. president can upend the First Amendment. I don’t agree with burning anybody’s holy book, but I would fight for the right of an individual to do it. Same goes for satire—I’ve certainly seen myriad examples of satire pointed at my own faith over the years.
Thing is, even if the First Amendment stands, with the filmmaker’s perp walk, the Obama administration got across a key message.
If you insult Islam and somebody whips a group of protesters into a frenzy on the other side of the world, the U.S. Government will come after you.
That and that alone would prohibit me from even considering a vote for this president or, for that matter, any Democrat anywhere in the country.
When it comes to incitement, however, Dems also have a double standard just as the OIC does. How do you think the film about the Osama bin Laden takedown will go over in Islamist regimes? That film was done by major entertainment figures in the U.S., with a large amount of access to classified material granted by Obama.
In the absence of strong leadership and a commitment to American values and the Constitution, your rights are in danger. If you don't realize it, you don't deserve those rights.
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/Nov. 21, 2012)