BACON IN A KORAN IS A HATE-CRIME??

Or just a waste of good bacon? Excerpts from two posts by different bloggers below. How can it be a crime when there is no law against it?

According to the Clarksville Leaf Chronicle, two hours before the 1 p.m. Friday service, the Koran was found on the front steps of the Islamic Center. Someone had written "Mohammad pedophile" on the front, and an (unnamed) expletive was on the inside, smeared under two strips of bacon. Not only did the local police report it as a hate crime, but they said they would contact the FBI. Mosque representatives are meeting with the City Mayor Johnny Piper to see what he can do as well.

This is a clear example of how hate crime laws are being used to impose sharia law, in the guise of religious special accomodations, and in place of U.S. federal or state laws. I'm not a lawyer, so correct me if I'm wrong - that's why we have a comments section - but under the current laws in Tennessee and the U.S., these are facts of the case:

1. The Koran - simply a book under our laws, rather than "Islam's revealed text," and therefore not subject to the special treatment required by sharia law - belonged to whoever put it on the steps. So no theft or defacement of someone else's property was involved. If I had left a Bible on their steps, would that have been a hate crime? Or a Koran from Yemen, not accepted by the Wahhabi cult?

2. Leaving a Koran on a property's steps - again, just a book like any other, under our law rather than sharia law - does not vandalize that property. Maybe you can define it as littering, but "hate crime littering" seems a bit of a dhimmitude stretch when it's a single book and two pieces of bacon, neatly placed inside the book.

3. Writing in a book, including a Torah, New Testament, Bible, Lolita, The Pentagon Papers, the Yellow Pages or the Koran (again, just a book under any laws other than sharia) is permitted under the First Amendment. Writing an expletive in a book is permitted under the First Amendment. Writing that Mohammed was a pedophile is permitted under the First Amendment, and is also amply documented by both Islamic and other scholars of the Koran.

Source

Bacon in a Koran? CAIR calls for an investigation into this "hate crime," despite, you know, that putting bacon in a Koran is not technically a crime, and therefore, you know, cannot be a hate crime, or any other sort of crime.

Malcious? Hostile? Intended to provoke? Yes. It's called speech. And we were allowed to engage in it, back in the days before Islam became the Official State Religion.

I'm not joking about this anymore: This is precisely the treatment a real official state religion would get. If there is no difference between how an official state religion would be treated, and how Islam is currently being treated, then we do, in fact, now have an all-but-declared official state religion.

Now the FBI has not actually begun a hate crime investigation. But I have little doubt they will. Thus acknowleging that the defacement of Islam's holy text -- and no other holy text -- is a crime.

Source



Stop pandering to Muslims

UK government initiatives to 'deal with' younger Muslims only leave them feeling more alienated from political life

Ruth Kelly, the UK secretary of state for communities and local government, has announced yet another scheme to help tackle extremism in Britain's Muslim communities - a 600,000 pound faith unit within the Charity Commission to help `moderate Muslims' strengthen governance and leadership in mosques. Mandarins at her department seem to generate a new project to tackle extremism every few months, each one looking strikingly similar to the last. In July 2005 we had the `Preventing Extremism Together Taskforce'; then in October 2005, the government called for a new imam national advisory council to train religious leaders to engage with younger Muslims. In February this year, it was announced that œ5million will be spent on funding projects in areas around the UK, to...well, engage with young Muslims.

Although these schemes are announced with great fanfare, they seem to vanish soon afterwards, only to be followed by yet another one. Part of the problem is impatience - the government wants quick results and is disappointed when its favoured religious allies are not delivering overnight success in the battle for hearts and minds. There is clearly frustration that mosques are not living up to their promise to deal with their young.

Of course, they are deluding themselves if they believe that `moderate' imams, with their old-fashioned, largely apolitical sermons, will have any greater success just because they speak English. It is precisely the promise of an otherworldly `radical' (albeit nihilistic) vision that attracts young people to Islamic extremism, rather than a strong adherence to Islam itself. The leader of the London bombers, Mohammed Sidique Khan, did not go to his local mosque but to another - the Tablighi Jamaat mosque in West Dewsbury - where he could get his extremist fix. Whilst a lukewarm, anglicised version of Islam, sponsored by the government, might pull in some young people, it may well compound the cynicism of those who see traditional mosque elders as tools for colonial rule.

Even less convincing is the aim of this new unit to get more women into mosques in the hope that they will diffuse radical views. Surveys show that of the regular six to seven per cent of Muslims who express support for acts of terrorism, over half of these are usually women. If the government looked at the website of MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Committee), the most vocal advocates of female prayer space in mosques, they will see that their views are not exactly simpatico. Some forms of contemporary Islamic feminism are perfectly compatible with radical views. That is certainly not an excuse to hold women back from mosques, just a caution to Ruth Kelly that Muslim girls are not necessarily the meek, mild-mannered types that will do her work for her.

Ultimately, the reliance on `the Muslim community' to manage the identity crisis amongst young Muslims is part of the problem. As long as mainstream political leaders view young Muslims as a troubled group outside of British society - to be outsourced to somebody else - the more they will find young people feel alienated from them. Like most people of their generation, young Muslims are confused about their identity and looking for a political vision to adhere to. Political parties need not fear this if they believe they have a political vision of their own to sell. But lacking confidence in their own ideas (if they have any at all), politicians have come to regard young Muslims as immovable; a group that is `at risk' and needs to be managed by carrots and sticks - give them jobs, give them youth centres, give them Arabic lessons. The message seems to be: `Let's send some nicer ones in to sort out the rotten few.'

Not only does this strategy usually backfire (the `nicer ones' turn out to whine just as much to the government, and struggle to guarantee their own grassroots support), it sends the message to young Muslims that `we can't deal with you'. In the eyes of mainstream politicians, places like West Dewsbury, Beeston and Keighley must seem like Mecca - only Muslims are allowed to enter. No wonder younger Muslims think that politicians are spineless and disinterested. They do not even dare to look them in the eye and tell them they have a better alternative in their own parties. Hysterical mullahs have managed to win some hearts and minds because there wasn't even a contest.

Paradoxically, being at the centre of attention with these endless schemes makes Muslims feel under even more pressure and scrutiny. Add to this the fears over counter-terrorism measures, and there is very little the government can do that will reverse the tide of distrust. Whilst the majority of Muslims will never be driven into the arms of extremists, they will be driven away from political life.

Although it seems counterintuitive, the way to `deal' with young Muslims may well be to stop `dealing' with them. The short-term, obsessive focus on them seems to be precisely the thing that alienates them even further. A long-term focus on politics elsewhere might at least remind them that Islamism is not the only game in town.

Source



ONE STEP FORWARD, ONE STEP BACKWARDS

The two stories below reveal that the Australian government's efforts to deal with Islamic hostility are being frustrated by its officials

Terror hate books to be banned

BOOKS and DVDs glorifying terrorist acts will be pulled from the shelves and prevented from entering the country under tough new Federal laws, to be unveiled today. Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has declared a "zero-tolerance approach" to material that "advocates" terrorism. Under the existing Classification Act, material can only be removed from sale if it is deemed likely to "promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence". But the amended law - to be discussed at a meeting between Mr Ruddock and the state attorneys-general in Canberra today - makes it an offence to circulate material that "advocates" a terrorist act. Imported material published outside Australia will be stopped at Customs if it is found to glorify, praise or encourage acts of terrorism.

"We are not going to allow material to be out there saying terrorism is a good idea," he told The Daily Telegraph yesterday. "This is a zero-tolerance approach to terrorism. "Terrorism acts are a specific and highly dangerous threat to Australian society. Material that advocates people undertake such acts should not be available for this reason alone." An example of material that could be banned under the law are the Death Series DVDs released by Sydney firebrand cleric Sheik Feiz Mohammed, in which he called for Muslim children to be recruited as "holy warriors".

The books of hate first exposed by The Daily Telegraph also would be targeted. Censorship authorities banned two of the eight books promoting jihad, or "holy war", being sold in southwest Sydney, but the other six probably would be outlawed under the changes. One of the books deemed acceptable under the existing Classification Act, The Criminal West, by Omar Hassan, depicts Australian police as rapists. "(Australia is) a country with a police force that, instead of providing protection, the police themselves pick up young girls from the streets around the city area and rape them inside police stations, and pick up young boys and bash them up to death inside police cells," Hassan writes.

Mr Ruddock said the changed law would aim at removing offensive material from the shelves, rather than seeking to prosecute the authors or speakers responsible for them. He said that the controversial sedition laws covered incitement of terrorism offences and required a "very high standard of proof". "The classification scheme targets the material, not the person who creates it. Sometimes it's hard to identify the right person, or they are outside our jurisdiction. "This proposal is intended to get inflammatory material inciting terrorism out of circulation without having to conduct a criminal prosecution."

Mr Ruddock will present his proposal of the amended law at a meeting with censorship ministers, who also act as attorneys-general, today. The plan is likely to trigger intense debate over the Government's role in determining what is fit for publication. The NSW and Victorian Governments are likely to oppose it, claiming current classification laws are strict enough. However, Mr Ruddock is determined to push ahead, claiming public safety overrides issues of free speech.

Source



Islamic hate film gets PG rating

A PRO-TERROR hate film that urges children to martyr themselves in Islam's war on the West and calls Jews "pigs" has been rated PG by Australia's censors. Sheik Feiz Mohammed's DVD box set, which also calls for the murder of non-believers, was initially seized by Federal anti-terror police. But the Office of Film and Literature Classification has ruled that The Death Series is suitable to be bought and watched by children.

The shock decision has seen the nation's peak censorship body slammed as weak and out of touch by family groups and the Jewish community. It has also made a mockery of the Attorney-General's plans to bring in tough new laws that ban material which "advocates" terrorism.

The PG decision comes as Australian-born Sheik Feiz, who is in exile in Lebanon, is still preaching to Australians by phone. The films urge parents to make their children holy warriors and martyrs, and praises jihad as the pinnacle of Islam. The radical sheik makes snorting noises on the films as he vilifies Jews as the "army of pigs". He blames a lack of courage for martyrdom on the battlefield for the "humiliation" of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Guantanamo.

The censors' finding means children of any age can watch the films - but it is advised under-15s have a parent present. The OFLC finding said the sheik's calls to "jihad" and "martyrdom" were ambiguous. And it found that comments vilifying Jews as an "army of pigs" and saying "behind me is a Jew, come kill him" were mitigated by the context.

The Australian/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council said the PG rating proved the current censorship guidelines had dangerous shortcomings. "In the Feiz Mohammed case, as well as others, there seems to be inadequate consideration to the dangers posed by the non-fiction advocacy of violence and bigotry, as opposed to its graphic depiction," AIJAC head Dr Colin Rubenstein said. He said he hoped that a review of the laws would deal with the serious problem of incitement. The Australian Family Association said the Sheik Feiz decision was just the latest ruling by a "hardened" OFLC detached from community values.

Source

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

***************************