Muslims press to make illegal criticism of Islam in USA

More from source at http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/10/justice-department-meets-with-hamas-linked-islamic-supremacists-who-call-for-limits-on-free-speech-a.html

Top Justice Department officials convened a meeting Wednesday where invited Islamist advocates lobbied them for cutbacks in anti-terror funding, changes in agents’ training manuals, additional curbs on investigators and a legal declaration that U.S. citizens’ criticism of Islam constitutes racial discrimination.
The department’s “civil rights lawyers are top of the line — I say this with utter honesty — I know they can come up with a way” to redefine criticism as discrimination, said Sahar Aziz, a female, Egyptian-American lawyer.

“I’d be willing to give a shot at it,” said Aziz, who is a fellow at the Michigan-based Muslim advocacy group, the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding.

The audience of Islamist advocates and department officials included Tom Perez, who heads the department’s division of civil rights.

“We must continue to have the open and honest and critical dialogue that you saw in the robust debate,” Perez responded in an enthusiastic closing speech a few minutes after Aziz made her demands at the event.

“I sat here the entire time, taking notes,” Perez said. “I have some very concrete thoughts … in the aftermath of this.”...

Progressives ally with the Islamic lobby because “they think it will be a political voting bloc that will be reliably Democratic,” said Robert Spencer, an author and expert on Islam.

None of the Islamist advocates of civil rights officials in attendance, including Perez, objected to Aziz’s call for free-speech restrictions.

The event did not include Zuhdi Jasser, an Arizona Muslim, former naval officer and a co-founder of a coalition of modernist Muslim groups, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition. “The Islamist groups’ victimology feeds into the left’s propaganda that the right is anti-minority and anti-Muslim, so there’s a mutual political benefit there,” said Jasser, who clashes with Spencer over rival responses to the Islamist groups.

Nor did the conference include any influential critics, such as McCarthy and Spencer, who argue that Islamist terror attacks are partly motivated by Islamic texts. These texts include the Koran’s verse 9:5, which says “when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them.”

Aziz, however, used her invitation to argue that Americans’ fear of Islamists’ bombs has evolved into racism towards dark-skinned men.

The word “Muslim,” she said, “has become racialized. … I don’t accept this formalistic cop-out that this is all about religion.”

Aziz did not offer any evidence for her claim, which she said justifies the use of Title VI anti-discrimination laws against institutions and individuals who argue that Islamic texts spur Islamic violence.

This legal redefinition, she said, would also “take [federal] money away from local police departments and fusion centers who are spying on all of us.”

Aziz also argued against the commonplace police practice of informally talking with people in communities, including Muslim communities. “This has been a real problem with this outreach stuff,” she said. Muslims “are acting in good faith, and then they find their imams, who were going to outreach meetings, were being spied on,” she complained. “Some have been deported. Some have been prosecuted.”

In March, Afghan-born New York Imam Ahmad Wais Afzali was ordered deported after he admitted he lied to the FBI about warning a suspected Muslim terrorist that he was being investigated. That terrorist, Najibullah Zazi, admitted that he was planning to place bombs in the New York City subway. The imam learned about the investigation because he had offered to work with local police to help identify potential terrorists in his congregation.

“People are going in good faith” to talk with police, Aziz said. “They’re being very honest about what their grievances are. They’re telling the government, ‘This what we want you to do … [and] we want you not to spy on our community.’”

Dwight Holton, a Justice Department legal counsel based in Oregon, said the threat of criminal gangs or terror attacks justifies routine police contacts with locals. “When we go to a barber shop to talk to the community, we don’t tell them you can have a lawyer,” he said.

“You should,” Aziz immediately replied.

Aziz’s advocacy was supported by a second Islamist advocate, Islamic Society of North America president Mohamed Magid. He argued that “teaching people that all Muslims are a threat to the country… is against the law and the Constitution.”

Magid asked Perez to change the federal government’s rules governing terror investigations, for more private meetings with top justice department officials, for the reeducation of FBI agents, and for more people to oppose criticism of Islam, which he labelled “religious bigotry and hate.”

In 2009 the federal government named Magid’s organization an unindicted co-conspirator in the successful 2009 trial of three Muslims who smuggled $12 million to the Islamist terror group Hamas. Two of the smugglers received life sentences.

During his speech, Perez applauded the Islamist lobbyists for persuading government officials to end extra security checks on airline passengers from Nigeria and 12 Islamic countries. The checks were adopted in 2010 after a Nigerian Muslim tried to blow up a passenger aircraft on Christmas Day.

“What did we hear in the aftermath of that? We heard a lot of feedback from people in this room and from leaders across the country that we could be doing a better job [by ending the checks]… and a few month later, and thanks to you, we did just that,” Perez told the Islamist advocates....
:
:
Progressives, including Holton and Perez, choose to ignore the Islamists’ stated goals, Spencer said. “They assume — and force us to assume on pain of charges of ‘Islamophobia’ — that all Muslims are moderate, peaceful and have no intentions of bringing Sharia [Islamic law] here,” said Spencer. “No amount of evidence to the contrary, no amount of jihadi plots, and no number of demands for accommodation of Sharia’s provisions, ever disabuses them of this dogma.”

Hyatt in TX capitulates to Islamic interests and cancels event.

More from source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/10/hyatt-hotel-chain-red-faced-over-capitulation-to-islamic-supremacist-anti-free-speech-thugs.html
or click here.

The temperature is rising in the dispute that erupted earlier this week when the Hyatt hotel in Sugar Land, Texas, abruptly canceled a tea-party event at which author and Atlas Shrugs founder Pamela Geller was scheduled to speak on the dangers of Islam.
Geller has blogged about it ("The quisling cowards at the Hyatt Place Sugar Land caved to intimidation"), the story has spread to European media outlets (the Daily Mail of London) and a wave of emails and telephone calls has been getting the chain's attention.

Now the company has contacted reporters with a statement that claims an apology has been issued, but Geller says the apology wasn't delivered to her yet. The company didn't respond to a query from WND about to whom the apology was delivered.

The argument is over the hotel chain's decision that because of "security" issues it would not allow the tea party-linked event at which Geller was scheduled to speak Tuesday night to be held on its premises.

The "security" issues reportedly were telephone calls made by Muslim interests who opposed Geller's right to speak about her concerns regarding the advance of Islam, and specifically its Shariah religious law, inside the United States, she reported.


Geller likened the hotel's cancellation to the enforcing of "blasphemy" laws under Islamic Shariah, because she was prevented from expressing a negative opinion about the advance of Islam. In nations under Islamic rule, criticism of Islam is banned and sometimes is a death-penalty offense.

Geller, however, argues she has a free-speech right under the U.S. Constitution to express her opinion about the religion in America.

The hotel chain said in an initial statement that it was a "business" decision. Shortly, it expanded that to say, "In light of the business disruptions anticipated with this event, it has been moved to an alternate location. The hotel thanks the organizers of the event for their cooperation in relocating the event."

Not good enough, and not even logical, Geller told WND.

She cited a 2008 visit by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a Hyatt in New York in which thousands of people protested his presence. Yet, his visit was not canceled because of a "business" decision.

The Sugar Land decision was based on a handful of telephone calls to the hotel expressing opposition, according to her reports....

Jewish Group calls Sarandon to apologize for calling Pope a Nazi

If video fails, click here or go to

Sarandon also drew strong criticism from the Jewish community.

"Ms. Sarandon may have her differences with the Catholic Church, but that is no excuse for throwing around Nazi analogies. Such words are hateful, vindictive and only serve to diminish the true history and meaning of the Holocaust," The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which fights anti-Semitism, said in a statement while also calling on Sarandon to issue an apology to the Catholic community.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/10/18/susan-sarandon-under-fire-from-catholic-and-jewish-groups-for-calling-pope/?test=faces#ixzz1bQO4zLZK or click here