This video is from a July hearing, but it could not be more significant than it is right now. With the Obama administration digging in its heels insisting that a film is the cause of the ongoing unrest and attacks on US interests in the Middle East, would the administration ever entertain passing laws against blasphemous speech?
It’s a simple question. But the DoJ’s civil rights head, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, refused to give a simple, straightforward answer.
As Patrick Poole reported back in July when this exchange occurred, Perez understood fully the context of the question that was put to him. He had been meeting with Islamic groups that were requesting the administration use federal anti-discrimination statutes to stop criticism of Islam. The question was not one that came out of nowhere. It had a basis in Perez’s actions in office.
The fact that Perez refused to answer is itself an answer, and that answer is “Yes.”
The answer is “yes” we will entertain a bill that criminalizes someone running an ad to encourage people to burn down the First Baptist Church.
I am as disturbed as you are that Perez did not give a simple, unambiguous “no” in answer to the question.
However, in all fairness, he didn’t get the chance to answer the question. The questionner – I can’t make out his name because it is too small for me to make out – simply talked over whenever he tried to give an answer that went beyond “yes” or “no”. He never managed more than half a dozen words before the questionner interrupted him. Again. And again. And again.
I don’t know why Perez couldn’t answer the question with a single word. It’s just possible that if he had been allowed a minute, he would have explained why the question didn’t have a one word answer but we’ll never know since the Congressman/Senator just steam-rollered right over him.
I’d have been a lot more convinced that the Department of Justice really was morally bereft if Perez had been given a minute to answer and STILL hadn’t said anything of substance to convince us that the DoJ really was indifferent to free speech.
The only proper answer in “no.” How much time does he need to say “No?”
It is clear to me that this DoJ is committed to hate crimes legislation, especially hate crimes enhancements for sentencing. But making that commitment clear, as an exception to the general prohibition announced by the chairman, would be very unwise politically. Hence the stalling and stonewalling.
It is just sad that the Left-Lib-Prog-Dems cannot advance any policy except by subterfuge. They must mislead the public to accomplish any item on their agenda.
The problem with these kinds of anti religious laws are always aimed at criticism of islam. Yet from what I’ve seen in other countries is that islam itself is exempt from criticising other religions. Otherwise, the koran would be guilty of hate/blasphemy speech by referring Jews as descended from apes and pigs.
Why don’t the Europeans that have these laws, file a criminal complaint against the koran and anyone preaching the tenats of islam? Becasue they know the resulting riots would offset and social benefit.
Its a simple yea or no question. Criticism of any religion is free speech and protected.