Posted on 12/08/2008 6:38:12 AM PST by Mobile Vulgus
Apparently, if one calls an Arab-American an A** H*le, Reuters and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee want all Americans to know that this is to be considered a "violent hate crime." At least that is what it seems when looking over the very lose and sloppy definition of "violent hate crimes" in a recent story on the falling numbers of such crimes against Arab-Americans in the U.S.
While ostensibly a good story -- discrimination against Arab-Americans has decreased -- it is still odd that Reuters allows this Muslim advocacy group to define even name calling as a "hate crime" and "violent" at that. So many levels of behavior are categorized under the rubric "hate crime" here that it really makes a mockery of the term, if one is even disposed to accept such a term in the first place.
Reuters starts off saying that so-called "hate crimes" against Arab-Americans have "decreased steadily since the Sept. 11, 2001," yet it goes on to claim that attacks "are still more common than they were before the hijacking." It's as if these crimes are rampant here, or something. As to the presented stats, Reuters reports the following:
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee said it received an average of 120 to 130 reports of ethnically motivated attacks or threats each year between 2003 and 2007, a sharp decrease from the 700 violent incidents it documented in the weeks following the 2001 attacks.
Notice how these numbers all seem to be considered "violent incidents"? This is all well and good in a stand alone claim, but proves to be less interesting when viewed against a fuller range of statistics. Regardless of any fuller review of statistics, though, Reuters simply takes this Muslim advocacy group's word for how a "hate crime" should be defined and goes on as if all these are significant findings.
Incidents tended to increase after other terrorist attacks, such as the 2005 London subway bombings, the group said. Many incidents did not begin with a clear motivation of bias, but assailants would use racial or ethnic slurs as the situation intensified, the group said.
Incidents range from harassment and vandalism by neighbors to death threats from co-workers. One Arab American man in Alabama was shot by a customer who had been yelling racial slurs at a Middle Eastern restaurant in 2006, the group said.
So, using an "ethnic slur," even if the incident "did not begin with a clear motivation" is a hate crime? That seems quite over broad doesn't it? Sure it isn't civil to hurl an epithet at someone, but is it really so egregious that it can be legitimately considered a hate crime?
While this Reuters report talks of anti-Muslim hate crimes, it is instructive to see how these so-called crimes stack up against other religious discrimination in the USA. According to the FBI report on hate crimes from 2007, for instance, anti-Islamic hate crimes are few in number, when all is said and done. Especially when stacked up against such crimes against Jews.
Read the rest at Publiusforum.com...
“A hyphenated American is not an American at all.
This is just as true of the man who puts ‘Native’
before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or
Irish or English or French before the hyphen.
Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul.
Our allegiance must be purely to the United States.
We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any
other allegiance.”
Theodore Roosevelt, 12 October 1915
I wonder what's going to happen when the Muslim footbath at the new Indianapolis airport is used by non-Muslims. Or, what if someone mistakes it for a new type of urinal!
Free speech crime alert!
However - these are NOT hate crimes:
Saudi Arabia - Conversion by a Muslim to another religion is punishable by death. Bibles are illegal. Churches are illegal. Easter celebrations are illegal. It is punishable by death for a non-mulsim to enter the “holy” muslim cities of Medina and Mecca.
Yemen - Bans proselytizing by non-Muslims and forbids conversions. The Government does not allow the building of new non-Muslim places of worship.
Kuwait - Registration and licensing of religious groups. Members of religions not sanctioned in the Koran may not build places of worship. Prohibits organized religious education for religions other than Islam.
Egypt - Islam is the official state religion and primary source of legislation. Accordingly, religious practices that conflict with Islamic law are prohibited. Muslims may face legal problems if they convert to another faith (up to and including death). Requires non-Muslims to obtain what is now a presidential decree to build a place of worship.
Northern Cyprus - About 133 churches, chapels and monasteries have been converted to military storage facilities, stables and night-clubs. Seventy-eight churches have been converted to mosques, and dozens more are used as military facilities, medical storage facilities, or stockyards or hay barns, according to statistics from The Republic of Cyprus. Agia Anastasia Church in Lapithos was converted into a hotel and casino, while the Sourp Magar Armenian monastery – founded in the medieval period – was converted into a cafeteria.
Algeria - The law prohibits public assembly for purposes of practicing a faith other than Islam. Non-Islamic proselytizing is illegal, and the Government restricts the importation of non-Islamic literature for distribution. The country has passed the “Regulation of Religious Practice” law, which stipulates a punishment of two to five years’ imprisonment and heavy fines for anyone convicted of urging a Muslim to change his religion.
Syria - The constitution requires the president to be a Muslim and specifies that Islamic jurisprudence is a principal source of legislation. Sharing your Christian faith is discouraged as “posing a threat to the relations among religious groups” and carries a penalty of up to life in prison. A Christian is not allowed to proselytize – ever. Churches who want to hold an extra service must get a government permit. Sermons are routinely monitored, as is church fundraising.
Jordan - Has the death penalty for any Muslim selling land to a Jew.
Sudan - Conversion by a Muslim to another religion is punishable by death.
Pakistan - Conversion by a Muslim to another religion is punishable by death. Bans proselytizing by non-Muslims. Christians regularly put in prison for charges of blasphemy. Islam is the state religion, and in a court of law the testimony of a Christian carries less weight than that of a Muslim. Section 295(c) of the Penal Code calls for a death sentence for anyone who defiles the name of the Prophet Muhammad and requires the testimony of four Muslims for a conviction. This fosters an environment in which Muslims can feel free to use intimidation and violence against religious minorities for personal gain. Also, if any criminal Muslim rape with any Christian female and then take plea that she has accepted Islam and marry with him. Such person is not culpable under Pakistani criminal law
Qatar - Islamic instruction is compulsory in public schools. The government regulates the publication, importation, and distribution of non-Islamic religious literature. The government continues to prohibit proselytizing of Muslims by non-Muslims.
Malaysia - Under Malaysian law, any convert to Christianity must apply to a shariah (Muslim law) court to legally renounce Islam. Many Christians prefer to remain silent converts rather than take their battle to the shariah courts, where apostasy or conversion out of Islam is punishable by whipping, fines, imprisonment and—in the most extreme application—death. In a country where Muslims account for more than half of the population, conversion from Islam is punished with a 5-year prison sentence and a $3,000 fine. A Malaysian Muslim who marries a non-Muslim and who converts the non-Muslim to Islam is rewarded with an apartment, a car, a one-time payment of $2,700, and a monthly stipend of $270.
The Maldives - In the island paradise visited by tens of thousands of tourists each year, Christianity is simply not tolerated. While local Christians – said to number around 300 out of a total population of 300,000 – do get together to worship, they do so at the risk of imprisonment or worse if discovered by the Muslim authorities. Bibles are banned, and tourists can be arrested for trying to bring them into the country.
England - Bradford, Yorkshire, UK. Pop. 300,000 - 20% Islamic. Local police required to tell community elders the location of girls who run away to escape arranged marriages. Bars and liquor stores in the Lumb Lane / Manningham Lane area of the city ‘requested’ to close on Fridays. Schools, colleges, and health clinics have to have separate areas for women, with a copy of the Koran available. Public critcism of Islam or it’s adherents, such as letters to the local paper, emails to friends, speeches etc, can and has led to criminal charges ‘Using words intentionally and wilfully to cause fear, hate, or distress. Christmas decorations not to be put up, as this may make the Moslems feel ‘culturally overshadowed’. Shops ‘requested’ not to display easter eggs for the same reason. The term ‘requested’ means not legally enforceable but local police warn that they cannot intervene if your premises get ‘damaged’ somehow. Local councillors and MPs have encouraged all this for the past 15 years. Bradford Northwest MP Ann Cryer regularly appears with long sleeves and her head covered. She once stated that women in Islam are properly liberated and that Islam is an example to us all.
Calling Arab Murderers a bad name a “Hate Crime”, but shooting non-muslims is A-OK!
Or how about changing the words like the dims do or
do a Seinfeld move like, “You are so good looking”
or “Bless your little heart”
Now how could anyone say that was a VIOLENT hate crime?
Hey islam! You and your prophet (piss be upon him) are all sons of pig-f’n dogs (stating the obvious).
It has to be one of the paradoxes of modern history that we are shamelessly murdered by Muslim terrorists, and yet people try to persuade us that it’s our behavior that is shameful.
England is on the fast track to oblivion if it doesn’t put the brakes on killing its own traditions to accommodate the muslim infestation.
last i checked, i have a constitutionally protected right to hate someone and state it as such. this would be called the first amendment right to freedom of expression.
all i have to do is tolerate... which means i cannot hit them with a stick, i have to leave that up to the authorities when they see fit.
beyond that, i am allowed to voice my opposition to any group. i can even make signs to the effect.
and when i am not allowed to do such a thing... this would be an affront to my rights and the government should step in to make sure my rights are preserved
(yea.. right... that’ll be the day)
Soooo if a muslum calls me an infidel is it a hate crime? Personally I am proud to be an infidel.
Islam is evil. Not all muslims are terrorists. But all terrorists are muslims.
Gee, I hope so.
How about if I call the editors at Reuters a bunch of *ss-licking, dhimmi, Marxist babykillers? Does that qualify?I was going to ask the same question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.