Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Another Attack on Free Speech
Apparently, things have been too quiet for Rep. Ilhan Omar. And we’ve been free of Islamist attacks for a long time. So, it’s time to stir things up on behalf of Muslims. Omar has decided to stand up for Muslims by creating a position in the Department of State (without consulting the department) to protect beleaguered Muslims everywhere. She submitted a bill that passed in the House to establish the Office to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia. According to CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, there have been 500 documented complaints of “anti-Muslim hate and bias” this past year in the U.S. Given that CAIR is an outgrowth of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, I tend to be skeptical of this data. The bill passed in the House on a party-line vote on Dec. 14.
So why do I care? This bill isn’t intended to protect Muslims worldwide from acts of violence. Instead, I believe Omar plans to further destroy our already debilitated commitment to freedom of speech.
The incentive for this bill was probably a response to the “rude and ill-advised” reference to the “jihad squad” made by Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado. But the implications of this bill are much more far-reaching. Essentially, the bill targets those people who use “hate speech”; these statements are elevated into the category of “hate crimes”:
‘Hate speech’: this means that trivial incidents in which someone who is rude to a Muslim gets counted in as a hate crime, inflating the numbers of those crimes and contributing to the false impression that Muslims are victims of widespread discrimination and harassment in America today. With that low a bar, it’s no surprise that the press release at Omar’s site goes on to note that ‘in March, the United Nations Human Rights Council cited discrimination and hatred towards Muslims has risen to ‘epidemic proportions.’
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a practicing Muslim and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, has been sounding the alarm about radical Islam for many years and states the following:
The freest nation on earth is now unbelievably on the verge of creating a position in our State Department charged not with protecting inalienable human rights, but with protecting a faith ideology. This will be celebrated by our theocratic Islamist enemies across the world. The U.S. government will have a sanctioned ‘American Grand Mufti’ who will determine what is, and what is not, Islam. Every American Muslim, especially anti-Islamist (anti-theocratic) Muslims, will be marginalized by the new US government arbiter on Islam.
Any critic of radical Islam will potentially be accused of Islamophobia. Ironically, loyal Muslim Americans who attack Islamism are considered the worst Islamophobes. We have already experienced Americans accused of being racists and bigots, while the political left refuses to criticize (or comments lamely about) racist comments from Muslims in government positions. We have watched too many government agencies weaponized in the past five years: the departments of Justice (including the FBI and CIA), Education, Energy, Defense, and Health and Human Services. It’s the state’s turn.
* * * *
The Senate bill was presented on the same day, Dec. 14, by Sen. Cory Booker, ending with the following amendments:
(viii) wherever applicable, an assessment and description of the nature and extent of acts of Islamophobia and Islamophobic incitement that occurred in that country during the preceding the year, including—
(I) acts of physical violence against, or harassment of, members of the Muslim community, acts of violence against, or vandalism of, Muslim community institutions, instances of propaganda in government and nongovernment media that incite such acts, and statements and actions relating thereto; and
(II) the actions taken by the government of that country to respond to such violence and attacks or to eliminate such propaganda or incitement, to enact and enforce laws relating to the protection of the right to religious freedom of members of the Muslim community, and to promote anti-bias and tolerance education.
Of course, no one has described “hate speech,” “harassment,” “propaganda,” “incitement,” or even “Islamophobia.” We needn’t worry in the U.S. about the inappropriate or unlawful use of this bill because it is directed internationally.
Right?
Let’s hope the Senate sees through this malignant effort to further infringe on our rights to free speech.
Published in Foreign Policy
I wouldn’t be sure of that, from what I’ve heard/seen on TV, single/unaccompanied men are not that welcome. :-) (Which is probably why Jack Ryan wanted Jeri to accompany him.)
However anyone making even the slightest complaint against Israeli activities, or the US policy of continual handouts for Israel, is considered to be anti semitic. Which has put that term in the category of “racism.” If any term gets overused, then it becomes less likely to mean a thing.
On a range of social issues (gay marriage, pronouns, trans rights, school curriculums around sex education) conservative Muslims would align more closely with (broad brush) Republicans than Democrats in their beliefs. And yet, only about 10% of American Muslims are/lean Republican. (For Indian Americans the proportion is higher at about 25%, but it’s a definite minority and they trend pretty socially conservative as well.)
It seems that they don’t feel valued or welcome there – and perhaps that’s a reasonable perception, given the (just one example) consequences of Boebert’s “jihadi squad” comedy act (nothing negative within the party, probably gained her votes on the ground). It’s hard to square fund raising by denigrating a group of people with genuine puzzlement regarding why they don’t vote for you.
That’s linked to my somewhat conflicted response to Susan’s OP. On one hand, why should the US use this mechanism to monitor violence against Muslim groups around the world? On the other hand, if it monitors violence against Jews around the world, why not Muslims? Does one matter to America and the other not matter? At its heart it seems like a question about who and what America is, and that’s likely to be more deeply felt by Americans (Muslim or not).
Isn’t most anti-muslim activity – including most violence – committed by other muslims? i.e., sunni vs shiite, etc.
If you had that report handy you’d know! Without researching it I’m afraid we’re limited to conjecture (and perhaps confirmation bias?).
There’s also hindu vs muslim in India, for example. I expect muslims get a lot more mistreatment in India than in the US.
Which suggests that it’s India that needs an Office to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia.
I’ve already given you plenty of data to support my reasoning, Zafar. You just don’t like it, and reject it, and I refuse to make the same arguments all over again. Sorry.
It certainly does, but for that very reason it’s uninterested in establishing one.
Which suggests that, if the US were to establish such an Office, that proves we don’t really need one. QED.
You realise this office would monitor conditions overseas and not in the US?
So they claim. As usual.
That is indeed a problem with Republicans. They might be willing to “reach out,” but it doesn’t come naturally to them. And when they do reach out to you, they mean to keep you at arm’s length.
How many Republicans do you know, Zafar? Actually, I’ve found that they are quite sincere and devoted, where I find that Democrats present foolish dreams and lies to persuade us that they know what they are doing. Their reaching out is manipulative, grasping for votes. The working class has already figured out that that Democrats take them for granted and expect them to vote for them, even though the largest cities are disasters run by ” caring Democrats.” Their caring is all for show.
I’ve no idea, Susan. I presume (?) that some of the people I know here on Ricochet are Republicans, though there are also some who think the Republicans are a bunch of squishes.
Well sure, of course a political party ‘reaching out’ is about getting votes. If you tell me that Republicans don’t do that because they’re too sincere to engage in that kind of grubby behaviour I’ll have to believe you.
Identical laws can have very different effects depending on the interests of the people behind the law and the targets. In the United States the people claiming to be concerned about antisemitism have pushed their agenda in a very different manner than have the people claiming to be concerned about Islamophobia. Relatively recent history contains many examples that suggest people claiming to be concerned about Islamophobia are much more willing to use force and intimidation than are people claiming to be concerned about antisemitism. So, it is not unreasonable to think that laws directed toward Islamophobia might be implemented and enforced differently than laws directed toward antisemitism.
Please explain. One law sets up an office to report back on antisemitism outside America. Another law sets up an office to report back on Islamophobia (which amendments to the law define) outside America. If you swap Jewish and Muslim what’s the difference in the laws’ intents and in the interests of each of their supporters?
Can you give me some examples of where this has happened in America?
But the laws are implemented and enforced by the same Government. Are you arguing that the US Govt is biased either way when it comes to Jews and Muslims, and therefore will implement these two almost identical laws differently?
I don’t know about the difference in enforcement of laws regarding Jews and Muslims, but otherwise, the government enforces the laws as it sees fit.
Covid-related rules have been enforced differently depending on the interest group. Bans on large gatherings were enforced against people protesting for jobs and schools, while not against people protesting for “Black Lives Matter.” In New York City bans on gatherings were vigorously enforced against Orthodox Jews, but not against Muslims.
People protesting for “Black Lives Matter” and some Muslims have a recent history of using violence to get their way. People seeking to go to work and to school, and Orthodox Jews do not have a recent history of using violence to get their way*. Government reacts to enforce or not enforce laws depending on the government’s perception of the likelihood of violence. Some people may remember that ten years ago a man seeking to burn a large number of copies of the Koran was charged with an assortment of crimes that clearly never would have been charged had the man instead been seeking to burn Christian Bibles, American flags, or anything else. Many people think it was clear that the man was prosecuted because Muslims threatened violence, and some in other parts of the world did commit violence https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-pastor-arrested-before-he-could-burn-2998-korans . With an anti-Islamophobia law on the books, it is reasonable to expect that some Muslims will demand vigorous and perhaps excessive interpretation and enforcement, and may threaten to use violence to encourage such enforcement.
*Yes, there is an early 20th century history of terrorism violence by some Jews in the Middle East, but in the last 70 years there hasn’t been much in the U.S. or in western Europe.
Facts are stubborn things.
Yes, but the law would require an annual report to Congress of Islamophobia outside the US. That’s what the law is about. It isn’t about altering speech or behaviour in America.
The requirements of the law are not what the law is “about.”
We’ve seen it with the concept of hate crimes. We were assured that they were not for punishing “hate speech” or “hate thought.” However, we now see that “hate speech” and “hate thought” are precisely what those laws were about.
Fair. The law would require an annual report on this:
Which is a statement that:
The actions in section (I) are unacceptable to the US Government, that they are actually bad things that matter; and
The actions in section (II) are also important, in terms of how another government is perceived and dealt with.
It was saddening to see the law only passed Congress with Democrat support with all the Republicans voting against it. It’s like they were saying these may be bad things (or good things?) but they certainly don’t matter to us, and they should have no valence in how the US deals with other countries.
It’s hard to pick the exact point where hate speech slides into incitement. And it’s worth keeping in mind that incitement doesn’t work unless the ground has been generously watered with hate speech. This is not to argue that hate speech should be illegal, only that it can serve a dangerous end and is worth keeping a track of. How many years of calling Tutsis cockroaches preceded the call to kill the cockroaches?
To note:
Exactly why I don’t think this law is a good idea.
So they would report on some hate speech or incitement against Muslims when they wouldn’t report on the same sort of hate speech or incitement against Jews?
The law defines what the report would address.
Please explain. If there had been an equivalent law in place at the time Congress would have been aware that an ethnic group in Rwanda that was routinely being referred to as cockroaches for some years. (?) Would that have made a difference in the end? I don’t know, but it might have.
Congress’s job is to legislate. Foreign policy is the job of the President. There is some overlap insofar as Congress authorizes the money for foreign policy, but usually that’s done in response to administrative initiatives. If Congress doesn’t trust the information provided by administrative agencies, that’s a problem that it should deal with.
Congress could institute another round of neo-McCarthyism, which is where I expect this law would lead, but it might be argued that that isn’t the job of Congress.
So by that logic they should get rid of the Office Against Antisemitism (I paraphrase) and rely on the Administration for information on antisemitism around the world?
Annual reporting on (eg) the Rohingya will lead to politically correct trials in the US? I think it’s a stretch, fwiw, I don’t see how it would. It hasn’t happened with the Office Against Antisemitism, after all, and frankly the US public is probably a bit more open to show trials for antisemitism than anything else.
Can anyone point to any good it has accomplished?
Neo-McCarthyism consists of a lot more than show trials. Some people will try to make it lead there. Others will try to keep it from happening.
The website indicates that it provides input into two State Dept. annual country reports (religious freedom and human rights – for some reason two separate reports). They also have a link to an online antisemitism conference about online antisemitism, from which:
Which I think is useful, as violence begins with dehumanising words. More details in a July 2021 letter from Senators to an Appropriations Committee asking for increased funding:
Now you could be correct that it’s mission creep for Congress, and I don’t know the impact of these reports/appropriations on outcomes in the world. (Though perhaps the increased adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism in places like the UK might be one such.)
Honestly, it seems as if the only thing that is changing is the orthodoxy. Especially when it comes to Palestine, this isn’t new at all. Consider Norman Finkelstein or Steven Salaita or anti- BDS legislation. Constraining the boundaries of acceptable disagreement is not a new thing.
True. Stalin did it, Mao did it, the Spanish Inquisition did it. Not a new thing at all.