Democrats who claim to be feminists endorse and promote the abuse of women.
64 out of 178 anti-Muslim hate crimes involve “Intimidation”. Most of the rest are categorized as “Vandalism”. Bias Intimidation is a fairly slippery and subjective category. Which is also why it’s one of the more common. Less than a sixth of anti-Semitic attacks are classified as Intimidation, but over a third of anti-Muslim attacks are.
If a prosecutor is being leaned on to fight the scourge of bigotry, he’ll find some crimes where he can attach Intimidation. And Intimidation is the single highest category for anti-Muslim crimes.
Here’s an example of how problematic bias intimidation became in New Jersey.
Likewise, if you commit a crime under circumstances that cause any target/victim of that crime to be intimidated and he reasonably believes that the crime was done for the purpose of intimidating him due to the fact that he falls into one of the above-mentioned protected classes, you could be convicted of bias intimidation.
This was one reason why that law was overturned. Meanwhile in New York, feeding animals in a public field became a hate crime because the food was bacon and Muslims were using it.
Muslims who gathered for prayer to celebrate the end of Ramadan in a city park found bacon scattered on the ground, CBS 2’s John Slattery reported Monday.
With Ramadan ending this past weekend, Muslims celebrated the end of fasting with prayer. On Staten Island an outdoor service was held Sunday on a New Dorp football field, attracting some 1,500 Muslims.
But before most of the faithful arrived for Morning Prayer, it was discovered that someone had scattered a quantity of raw bacon on the field.
“This has been determined to be a bias event on the part of our Hate Crimes Task Force,” NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly told reporters, including WCBS 880’s Rich Lamb.
Police computer experts are trying to locate the identity of that person, whom Muslim organizers of the prayer service said was clearly trying to taunt Muslims through intimidation, like other symbols disturbing to African-Americans or Jews.
Because dumping bacon was just as intimidating as a swastika or a burning cross. That’s ridiculous and insulting to Jews and African-Americans. It turned out that someone was just trying to feed bacon they couldn’t eat to seagulls.
Resolutions of this nature have a tendency to be reintroduced later as binding legislation to be forwarded to the Senate. The introduction of this resolution is not yet newsworthy, but it will be if it emerges intact from committee to be voted on by the whole House. One suspects that H.Res.569 was inspired by U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s promise to an audience of Muslim Advocates on December 3rd that she would spend efforts to combat and prosecute anyone guilty of anti-Muslim speech. I do not think the two-week gap between Lynch’s pronouncements and the introduction of the resolution is coincidental. It probably took two weeks to compose and fine-tune its wording.
Most of it is boilerplate stuff. “hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles”. That would have come as a surprise to men like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson whose views of Islam and Muslim countries were far closer to Pamela Geller than Barack Obama.
The “Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society”. Certainly 9/11 was a hell of a contribution. Just think of all the rebuilding money, two wars, the TSA and all the other annual contributions, like San Bernardino.
Then, since the Muslim Brotherhood has one obsession, it sneaks in some Hijab promotion. “Whereas Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances; ”
That’s interesting considering the origin of the Hijab and how it’s still used today.
The Koran states, “O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks all over their bodies that they may thus be distinguished and not molested.”
The obvious implication is that women who aren’t dressed in a Burka may be “molested”.
Or as the commentary states, “It is more likely that this way they may be recognized (as pious, free women), and may not be hurt (considered by mistake as roving slave girls.)”
Wear a Hijab and a Muslim won’t rape you. Don’t wear a Hijab and you might be mistaken for a slave. Is this really what Democrats in Congress want to endorse?
The Hijab is fundamentally oppressive to those women who wear it and those who don’t. Those women who wear it accept Purdah, segregation, on themselves. Those who don’t, become targets.
It’s deeply shameful that Democrats who claim to be feminists choose to endorse and promote the abuse of women. Because the Hijab is not just abusive in Muslim countries.
A French survey found that 77 percent of the women who wear Hijabs did so because of threats by Islamist groups.
More often the girls were under orders from their fathers and uncles and brothers, and even their male classmates. For the boys, transforming a bluejeaned teen-age sister into a docile and observant “Muslim” virgin was a rite de passage into authority, the fast track to becoming a man, and more important, a Muslim man…. it was also a license for violence.
Girls who did not conform were excoriated, or chased, or beaten by fanatical young men meting out “Islamic justice.” Sometimes the girls were gang-raped. In 2002, an unveiled Muslim girl in the cite of Vitry-sur-Seine was burned alive by a boy she turned down.
Every endorsement of the Hijab promotes such Muslim attitudes.