Sharia Law USA: Efforts To Criminalize Speech Critical of Islam Now Underway

Secretary of State Clinton and Organization of Islamic Cooperation are meeting to discuss implementation of mechanisms to limit speech critical of Islam… in America.

Thanks to LMonty for the heads up on this story.

If you think your head is spinning trying to keep pace with the rapid and deadly threats to our liberty by our this government tyranny over us (just last night they passed the bill to indefinitely detain Americans without charge or trial anywhere in the world), then this news is not going to ease your dizziness – only accelerate it.

While this regime in power says it is working to fight “terrorists” (without mentioning Islam or Jihadists) – at the same time, they are working to CRIMINALIZE any speech critical of Islam under the justification that  such criticism “incites hatred and violence against Muslims” which they equate  to shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, and therefore have legal precedent to restrict.

The Islamists and their apologists seek to impose an aspect of Sharia Law here in the United States, where it is illegal to criticize Islam.  Of note, there is no effort whatsoever to extend similar protections to Christianity or Judaism.  It’s still open season on the biblical faiths in the West.

On top of that, obviously the First Amendment is now moot and abolished in the mind of this Obama regime, as prohibiting the free exercise of the Christian religion is their legal right, while establishing protections for Islam as a matter of law, is perfectly legitimate.

Read very carefully what Clare Lopez states here at the American Thinker about this ‘working initiative’ between the OIC, and Clinton.  Note at the link in particular, the statements of the OIC charter to impose global Sharia Law and what the Obama regime has ALREADY implemented in it’s ‘anti-terrorism’ efforts domestically.  It should chill you to your bones.

Islamic World Tells Clinton: Defamation of Islam Must be Prevented — in America

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomes Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu to Washington this week, it is critical that Americans pay attention to what these two leaders intend to do.  From 12 to 14 December 2011, working teams from the Department of State (DoS) and the OIC are going to discuss implementation mechanisms that could impose limits on freedom of speech and expression.

The OIC’s purpose, as stated explicitly in its April 2011 4^thAnnual Report on Islamophobia, is to criminalize “incitement to hatred and violence on religious grounds.”  Incitement is to be defined by applying the “test of consequences” to speech.  Under this twisted perversion of falsely “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” it doesn’t matter what someone actually says — or even whether it is true or not; if someone else commits violence and says it’s because of something that person said, the speaker will be held criminally liable.

The OIC is taking direct aim at free speech and expression about Islam.  Neither Christianity nor Judaism is named in the OIC’s official documents, whose only concern is to make the world safe from “defamation” of Islam — a charge that includes speaking truthfully about the national security implications of the Islamic doctrine of jihad.

Incitement to hatred under the OIC definition includes artistic expression like the Danish cartoons, literary expression like Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, or Pastor Terry Jones’ burning of his personally owned copy of the Qur’an.  According to the “test of consequences,” if Muslims feel compelled to burn, loot, riot, and kill in response to such exercises of free expression, under the laws the OIC wants the U.S. to enact, it would be the editor and cartoonist of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper, Salman Rushdie, and Terry Jones who would be held criminally responsible for any damage or deaths that ensue.

Last March, the State Department and Secretary Clinton insisted that “combating intolerance based on religion” can be accomplished without compromising Americans’ treasured First Amendment rights.  But if that were so, there would be no possible excuse for engaging at this level with an organization like the OIC that is openly dedicated to implementing Islamic law globally.  This is why it is so important to pay attention not only to the present agenda, but to a series of documents leading up to it, issued by both the U.S. and the OIC.  From 12 to 14 December 2011, the DoS and OIC working teams will focus on implementation mechanisms for “Resolution 16/18,” a declaration that was adopted by the U.N. Human Rights Council in April 2011.

Resolution 16/18 was hailed as a victory by Clinton, because it calls on countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization” based on religion without criminalizing free speech — except in cases of “incitement to imminent violence.”  But if the criterion for determining “incitement to imminent violence” is a new “test of consequences,” then this is nothing but an invitation to stage Muslim “Days of Rage” following the slightest perceived offense by a Western blogger, instructor, or radio show guest, all of whom will be held legally liable for “causing” the destruction, possibly even if what they’ve said is merely a statement of fact.  The implications of such prior restraint on free speech would be chilling (which is precisely the point).

In fact, the “test of consequences” is already being applied rigorously in European media and courts, where any act or threat of violence — whether by a jihadist, insane person, or counter-jihadist — is defined as a “consequence” of statements that are critical of some aspect of Islam and, therefore, to be criminalized.  ….. Now, if the OIC and the Obama administration have their way, it’s America’s turn.

I contend that is already well underway.  Consider Obama’s speech in Cairo that preceded the militant Jihadist overthrow of Mubarak.  Consider Obama’s celebration of every Muslim holy day with White House Pronouncements, but never once an address on Christmas or Easter.

Once it’s understood that under Islamic law, “slander” is defined as saying “anything concerning a person [a Muslim] that he would dislike,” the scope of potential proximate causes of Muslim rage becomes obvious.

….Consider what is likely to be a bloodbath for Coptic Christians that will occur as soon as the Muslim Brotherhood and its Salafist allies are firmly in control of Egypt.  This provision means that any Western media that accurately report that coming massacre could be legally charged with “incitement to imminent violence” under the test of consequences, in effect blaming those who raise the alarm instead of those who perpetrate the violence.

….It would not be overreaching to conclude that the purpose of this meeting, at least from the OIC perspective, is to convince the Obama administration that free speech that rouses Muslim masses to fury — as defined by the “test of consequences” — must be restricted under U.S. law to bring it into compliance with sharia law’s dictates on slander.

It is important to note this section in the article at the Thinker, and consider the NDAA bill they passed last night that gives government the authority to detain American citizens indefinitely:

…the White House published “Strategic Implementation Plan for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States” in December 2011.  The plan makes clear that “violent extremism,” not Islamic terrorism, is the primary national security threat to the homeland.  According to this “strategy,” the solution is partnership with “local communities” — the term used for the administration’s favored Muslim Brotherhood front groups, which already are using such relationships to silence their critics, both inside and outside government.  These new rules of censorship state that the term “violent extremism” can no longer be used in combination with terms like “jihad,” “Islam,” “Islamist,” or “sharia.”  And these new rules are already being taught to U.S. law enforcement, homeland security offices, and the military nationwide.

It is already policy in the Obama regime to strike and strip any reference to Jihadist Islam in conjunction with terrorism.  The entire focus of this regime is to paint Conservative Americans, returning vets and the TEA Party as domestic terrorists and extremists, with no reference to Islam whatsoever, AS POLICY.

The agenda of this week’s Department of State/OIC meetings may mark an important “milestone,” as Sayyed Qutb might put it, on the pathway to sharia in America.  If — under the “test of consequences” — those who speak truth about Islam, sharia, and jihad may be held criminally responsible for the violent actions of those who say they find such truth “offensive,” then, in the future, “violent extremists” could be just about anyone…anyone the government, in obedience to the sharia dictates of the OIC, decides they are.

Further, if the rubric is to be based on this “test of consequence,” then it creates a real temptation to any administration so inclined to “create” consequences that will justify a change in America’s free speech rights.  By way of example, analysts have suggested that the motive for the Department of Justice’s “Fast and Furious” scandal, now under congressional investigation, may have been to create a “crisis” — a “consequence” — caused by U.S. guns shipped across the border to Mexican drug-dealers (and used in multiple homicides, including an American Border Protection officer) to “nudge” public consensus to expand gun control laws.

Even if Obama’s State Department seems fully enamored with a “test of consequences” on speech critical of Islam, most Americans across the political spectrum will realize that this perverts the traditional understanding of the First Amendment.

Much more at link.