Another Hate Crimes Report Contradicts Islamist Claims

The Ongoing Erasure of Europe

20130721_IslamInEurope_LARGEby EDWARD CLINE:

In “The Regulator’s Cucumber Syndrome” I discussed how the EU is obsessed with controlling the European’s material existence. In this column the subject is how the EU is planning to control his spiritual existence.

The Gates of Vienna published a startling, translated column by German attorney Michael Schneider about an Organization of Islamic Conferences-approved (OIC) “framework” sponsored by the European Parliament, “which seems likely to be implemented across the EU. The proposed law would devise a draconian new form of politically correct ‘tolerance’ and impose it on European citizens and institutions by establishing bureaucratic bodies with the authority to enforce it.”

The irony in the title of the proposed legislation was obviously lost on its authors, “A European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance,” for it is nothing but a blueprint for imposing across-the-board “intolerance.”

Schneider opens his essay with:

Anyone who speaks and writes about the abrogation of freedom in Europe is accused of being a pathological conspiracy theorist. So it is advisable to be a little more specific, and name names.

The abrogation of freedom in Europe is not occurring naturally, but according to the planning of educated elites, who have been trained to replace civic freedoms – especially those of expression, of the press and of the airwaves – with ideological coercion, and thus smash civil society into microscopic shards, like valuable, defenseless porcelain.

Schneider writes that one of the chief culprits behind this legislation is a Professor Rüdiger Wolfrum, professor emeritus and one of the directors of the Max Planck Institute on foreign public law and international law in Heidelberg.

This honorable person is also in a dubious think tank, “The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation” about which one may find relevant information on the homepage of the president of “The European Jewish Congress” (EJC), Viacheslav Moshe Kantor. Among other things are those documents which describe the political intentions of the think tank.

The subject document closes with a reference to that think tank:

This text was prepared – under the aegis of the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation – by a Group of Experts composed of Yoram Dinstein (Chair), Ugo Genesio, Rein Mȕllerson, Daniel Thȕrer and Rȕdiger Wolfrum.

The Three Expert Horsemen of the European Apocalypse? Surely. Throughout his essay, Schneider repeatedly refers to Wolfrum as “Wolfrum in Sheep’s Clothing.” And when you read the European Framework (in English) yourself, you will see that his sardonic contempt for the man is fully justified.

Of particular interest are paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) under Section 1: Definitions:

(a) “Group” means: a number of people joined by racial or cultural roots, ethnic origin or descent, religious affiliation or linquisitc links, gender identity or sexual orientation, or any other characteristics of a similar nature.

(c) “Hate crimes” means: any criminal act however defined, whether committed against persons or property, where the victims or targets are selected because of their real or perceived connection with – or support or membership of – a group as defined in paragraph (a).

(d) “Tolerance” means: respect for and acceptance of the expression, preservation and development of the distinct identity of a group as defined in paragraph (a). The definition is without prejudice to the principle of coexistence of diverse groups within a single society.

Muslims, of course, would not be expected to abide by these rules. They can behead a British soldier in broad daylight in London and cite chapter and verse from the Koran, attack Jews in Malmo, rape as many Norwegian women as they like, and invade an auditorium and shout down any speaker who criticizes Islam, yet one may not take umbrage at their “religious affiliation” or ethnicity  without risking the charge of having committed a “hate crime” and being “intolerant.”

Muslims, however, can froth at the mouth in hatred and commit atrocious crimes, yet not be charged with “hate crimes.” They can publicly demonstrate carrying signs that read “Freedom of Speech Go to Hell,” “Islam Will Dominate,” and “Behead Those Who Insult Islam” with impunity, yet anyone who appeared in public carrying a sign that read “Sharia Go to Hell” or “Islam is Barbarism” would soon be handcuffed by the police and led away to be charged with a “hate crime” and with “inciting violence.”

Muslims are permitted to hate and express their intolerance. You, the non-Muslim, are not. “Respect, tolerate, and accept” the conundrum.

Schneider parses prominent sections of the European Framework law and explicates their meanings vis-à-vis EU-Speak. For example:

The basic consideration[s] of the document as read are attractive and allow no suspicion to arise – that is if you do not know what EU political-speak means – for instance, “human diversity” standing for the systematic destruction of the autochthonic population and its traditional canon of values. Whereas respect for human dignity is based on recognition of human diversity and the inherent right of every person to be different, etc. [Emphasis in bold is Schneider's]

All possible groups are supposed to be protected by this concept of tolerance – just not the majority population. With this policy, minorities are purposefully advanced at the cost of majority cohesion. This splits the society, thereby controlling it better and leading to the final goal. This becomes visible in the typical, EU-wide concept of the protected minority, which is inherently aimed at splitting the society - divide et impera:

In short – and because the chief beneficiary of this legislation will be Muslims – this means that the Muslim minority will be raised in status to that of the dominant Western culture. By effectively divorcing Muslims from secular Western society, and giving them a special, protected status, all the Dark Age practices inherent in Islam, including Sharia law, will be bestowed the same legal and moral status as the culture of the majority of non-Muslim Westerners.

However, the secular majority, in the name of “diversity,” may not impose its values and ethics on the Muslim “minority”  (that would be viewed as “oppression”), but the Muslim “minority” may chip away at the values and ethics of the majority in the name of “tolerance,” until they disappear like the Titanic and slip beneath the waves of history.

The goals of Islamic “cultural” jihad have been iterated repeatedly, among which are the dissolution of Western civilization. The Muslim Brotherhood‘s strategy is clearly stated in an American court document that outlines how Islam will conquer the U.S. (and presumably Canada). That strategy can be seen at work in Europe, as well.

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”

Read more: Family Security Matters 

FREE SPEECH SHOWDOWN IN SMALL-TOWN AMERICA

6a00d8341c60bf53ef01901d008e49970b-600wiby Pamela Geller:

All eyes are on Tennessee tonight, as the fight for the very soul of America comes to a very small town: Manchester, Tennessee, a town no bigger than 60,000 people. (Almost 2,000 people were there — that’s three percent of the local population.) This was the perhaps unlikely venue for a seminar led by a U.S. attorney and an FBI special agent on how “inflammatory” speech against Muslims violated civil rights laws. Nowhere was it ever explained how there could be honest examination of Islam’s teachings of jihad that wouldn’t be “inflammatory” — and that was just the point.

There were close to 800 people filling the small room to way beyond capacity. The lines were three deep along the wall, with folks spilling out into the hallways — plus many hundreds more outside. Those outside weren’t missing much — unless they were in the mood to be admonished and hectored as xenophobes, bigots and racists by an Islamic supremacist spokesman and two Obama officials who steadfastly refused to address the elephant in the room: the reality of jihad terror and Islamic supremacism, no matter how many times the boisterous crowd called them on their nonsense.

U.S. Attorney Bill Killian gave a power point presentation on hate crimes and hate speech. From beginning to end it was full of condescension, smears, charges that the crowd was racist, and thinly-veiled threats that truthful speech about Islam could be prosecuted. Never once did he address the fact that people aren’t concerned about Muslims because of racism and xenophobia, but because of the reality of jihad terror and the uniform denial and obfuscation, and victimhood posturing, that follows from Muslim communities after every jihad attack. Killian even stooped so low as to claim a sharp rise in “religiously-motivated hate crimes,” without ever informing the crowd that he was lumping in anti-Semitic hate crimes (which are at worldwide record levels, largely due to Islamic antisemitism) with anti-Muslim hate crimes. FBI special agent Kenneth Moore was little better. Both echoed the Islamic supremacist speaker’s opening remarks, all about how the people of Tennessee had to learn to be welcoming of people who were different.

Read more at Atlas Shrugs with more photos

 

Hate Crime Stats Deflate ‘Islamophobia’ Myth

Police investigate anti-Semitic graffiti in Edison, New Jersey, in 2009.

Police investigate anti-Semitic graffiti in Edison, New Jersey, in 2009.

by David J. Rusin
National Review Online
January 11, 2013

A detailed analysis of FBI statistics covering ten full calendar years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks reveals that, on a per capita basis, American Muslims, contrary to spin, have been subjected to hate crimes less often than other prominent minorities. From 2002 to 2011, Muslims are estimated to have suffered hate crimes at a frequency of 6.0 incidents per 100,000 per year — 10 percent lower than blacks (6.7), 48 percent lower than homosexuals and bisexuals (11.5), and 59 percent lower than Jews (14.8). Americans should keep these numbers in mind whenever Islamists attempt to silence critics by invoking Muslim victimhood.

The federal government defines a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation.” Though statutes mandating harsher punishments for hatred-inspired acts raise the specter of thought crimes, emphasize group identity over the individual, and seemingly favor certain victims over others, the FBI’s tracking of such deeds shines important light on the state of the nation. Annual reports assembled from local law enforcement data are accessible on the website of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Especially useful is Table 1 of each compilation, which summarizes the number of incidents, offenses, victims, and known offenders for hate crimes committed against members of different groups.

No class of hate crimes has seen more fluctuation than anti-Muslim ones. The norm was a few dozen incidents per year in the late 1990s, but the number jumped from 28 in 2000 to 481 in 2001, a spike attributed to post-9/11 backlash. However, it dropped to 155 in 2002 and held remarkably steady through 2006, before falling again to 115 in 2007, 105 in 2008, and 107 in 2009.

Anti-Muslim incidents rose to 160 in 2010, an increase that Islamists and their mouthpieces eagerly blamed on rampant “Islamophobia,” particularly opposition to a proposed giant mosque near Ground Zero. Based on freshly released FBI data, there was little change in 2011, with 157 incidents, 175 offenses, 185 victims, and 138 known offenders. Mark Potok of the reliably leftist Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which puts foes of radical Islam in the same category as Klansmen and neo-Nazis, has declared that “hate crimes against perceived Muslims … remained at relatively high levels” as a result of “Islam-bashing propaganda,” anti-Shari’a legislation, and ongoing resistance to new mosques, relaying that “several were attacked by apparent Islamophobes.” Note the key word: “several” in a country with at least 2,106 mosques, a few million Muslims, and 300 million–plus non-Muslims.

As hinted above, the dark portrait of America as a nation of violent bigots uniquely hostile to Muslims does not withstand quantitative scrutiny. To smooth out year-to-year variations, consider the past decade (2002–11) of FBI-recorded hate crimes. There were 1,388 incidents against Muslims during this span, compared with 25,130 against blacks; 12,030 against homosexuals and bisexuals; 9,198 against Jews; and 5,057 against Hispanics. Even majority whites endured 7,185 incidents, while Christians (Protestants and Catholics combined) were targeted in 1,126 incidents. Adherents of “other religions” faced 1,335, very close to the anti-Muslim tally.

Due to the different sizes of minority groups, however, raw numbers cannot tell the complete tale. More insightful are per capita rates. Some back-of-the-envelope calculations follow.

The U.S. Census Bureau derived the total, Hispanic, and black populations for 2000 and 2010 from direct counts. Approximating their evolution with linear models, one can obtain estimates for any non-census year and, most important, the 2002–11 averages: total (299.2 million), Hispanic (45.2 million), and black (37.4 million). Surveys indicate that around 3.5 percent of American adults identify as homosexual or bisexual; applying this percentage to the total population gives a 2002–11 average of 10.5 million. Two studies have pegged the number of American Jews at about 6.5 million in 2010. Figures for 2000 vary (5.3–6.2 million), so for simplicity we set the average Jewish population between 2002 and 2011 at 6.2 million to account for moderate growth. As for Muslims, whose population estimates have a convoluted history, reputable recent numbers have been provided by the Pew Research Center (2.75 million in 2011) and the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies (2.6 million in 2010; full data extractable here), which agree on the current size and growth rate (around 100,000 per year). The 2002–11 average is roughly 2.3 million Muslims.

Adding the FBI data yields per capita frequencies of hate crimes for the past decade. Of the five main minority groups discussed above, Jews were most likely to experience hate crimes, with 14.8 incidents per 100,000 Jews annually. Homosexuals and bisexuals (combined) came next (11.5), followed by blacks (6.7), Muslims (6.0), and Hispanics (1.1). Rates for majority whites and Christians were much smaller.

With hate crimes befalling Muslims far less often than they do Jews or homosexuals and bisexuals and slightly less often than they befall blacks, it is clear that anti-Muslim incidents are disproportionate to those targeting other minorities only in terms of the hype generated on their behalf. A closer look reinforces this conclusion.

First, despite claims about a surge of prejudice, anti-Muslim hate crimes in 2010 and 2011 merely returned to the typical post-9/11 (2002–06) pace of 150–160 incidents per year. Further, a similar number of hate crimes in 2002 and 2011 implies a lower per capita rate in 2011 because of strong population growth.

Second, what of the Muslim population estimate? In hopes of inflating their presumed clout, Islamist groups routinely assert the existence of around 7 million American Muslims, three times as many as the more objective measurements. Note, however, that this Islamist-promoted figure actually would weaken their narrative of anti-Muslim hate crimes, because a higher population reduces the per capita frequency, thus painting them as even less significant in a statistical sense.

Third, though 2001, whose rash of hate crimes against Muslims was an outlier tied to a unique event, has been excluded from the above analysis, the 2001–11 rate for Muslims was just 7.4 incidents per 100,000 per year, still far short of that applying to Jews or homosexuals and bisexuals. Self-pitying Islamists also want us to forget that in spite of 9/11-related anger, anti-Jewish hate crimes outnumbered anti-Muslim hate crimes that year by more than two to one.

Fourth, could incomplete data affect the finding that Muslims are victimized less often than many non-Muslim minorities? Theoretically, yes, but evidence for this is scant. SPLC talking heads regularly cite a 2005 Justice Department study, using surveys of victims’ perceptions of whether prejudice had motivated crimes against them, to argue that the FBI underestimates overall hate crimes by an order of magnitude. Yet even if those claims are valid, nothing suggests that anti-Muslim crimes are more or less likely to be ignored than others, which would be necessary to alter the relative frequencies of hate crimes against different groups. Another source of incompleteness is that not all local law enforcement agencies take part in the FBI’s tabulation, but once again there is no obvious bias here that would preferentially diminish hate crimes against Muslims. Also note that the percentage of participating agencies (see the FBI’s Table 12) is large and slowly climbing, covering 86 percent of the U.S. population in 2002 and 92 percent in 2011, meaning that improved reporting could have helped elevate the number of FBI-recorded hate crimes in later years. Although this impact is probably small, it further chips away at the meme of rising hate.

Fifth, consider hate crimes with the worst possible outcome: death. The subject has been in the headlines after a deranged woman suspected of murdering a Hindu man, Sunando Sen, by pushing him from a New York subway platform on December 27 told police that she “hate[s] Hindus and Muslims,” whom she collectively blames for 9/11, and that she believed Sen to be Muslim. Following the initial rush to label Sen’s murder a hate crime, journalists have learned that the alleged murderer had a long history of severe mental illness, had received only intermittent treatment despite numerous pleas for help and warnings from the family, and had repeatedly gone off her medication.

As the usual voices fault “our oversaturated Islamophobic environment” and “growing anti-Muslim hate,” they neglect to mention how rare it is for an actual or perceived Muslim to die in a hate crime. By the FBI’s count, 74 people were killed in hate crimes (“murder and nonnegligent manslaughter” in Table 4) from 2002 to 2011, but not a single one in an anti-Muslim incident. Indeed, the FBI lists no anti-Muslim fatalities since 1995, corresponding to the earliest report available.

Why do Islamists obfuscate? The false picture of an epidemic of physical assaults on Muslims distracts Americans from Islamist hatred and enshrines Muslims as the country’s leading victim class, a strategy intended to intimidate citizens into remaining quiet about Islamic supremacism and lay the groundwork for granting Muslims special privileges and protections at the expense of others. In short, anti-Muslim hate crimes are a powerful Islamist weapon.

At its extreme, the desire to achieve victim status in this manner has fueled the phenomenon of fake hate crimes, through staging, blatant misrepresentation, or both. An illustrative example is the March 2012 murder of Shaima Alawadi, a hijab-wearing California woman found beaten to death at home with a note calling her a terrorist beside her body. Islamists and their credulous media allies pounced at the opportunity to condemn the supposed tidal wave of “Islamophobia,” even as marital problems emerged as a potential motive. In November, police arrested Alawadi’s husband.

Genuine hate crimes committed against any group are deplorable, but they must be placed in the proper context. First, hate crimes are uncommon across the board. Second, despite hyperbole about “anti-Muslim violence spiralling out of control in America” and producing “one of the most hostile moments that the Muslim American community has ever experienced,” the real story is the amazing tolerance and restraint of the American people. Imported Muslim fanatics murdered thousands on 9/11, the threat of homegrown jihad has crystallized, and Islamists abroad continue to slaughter innocents daily. Though Americans could find no lack of excuses to strike out at their Muslim neighbors, almost nobody does — and thankfully so. As such, the annual victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes average between three and four per U.S. state and would have trouble filling a decent-sized jetliner.

Many Americans take a critical view of Islam, but virtually all restrict their negative sentiments to the domain of words and ideas, as civilized human beings should. People are free to have opinions, including anti-Islamic ones, regardless of how Islamists long to muzzle them. Islamists, in turn, are entitled to their own opinions about life in America. But they are not entitled to their own facts.

David J. Rusin is a research fellow at Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

Husband Charged in Murder Hyped as Hate Crime

by IPT News 

An Iraqi-exile woman’s murder outside San Diego last March now appears to be a case of domestic violence.