As ably explained in the article below, the bill would inhibit free speech regarding jihad violence and related issues, and effectively bring Sharia blasphemy laws to the U.S. If it ever passes, it will still be flagrantly unconstitutional. If the Court hasn’t been packed or otherwise reconstituted by then, this law would be struck down quickly.
“Islamists Try to Renew Push for Ilhan Omar’s Flawed ‘Islamophobia’ Bill,” by Ioannis E. Kotoulas, Algemeiner, July 14, 2022:
The Combating International Islamophobia Act, which appears stalled in the US Senate, is receiving a new boost from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), and other Islamist organizations. It was among the issues pushed last month when a coalition of Islamic organizations gathered in Washington, DC, to meet with elected officials and Congressional staffers.
The bill, introduced in October by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), would create a new special envoy to monitor and combat Islamophobia globally. It passed the House last December 219-212, with near-unanimous support from Democrats.
It has not moved in the Senate, however, because this is an ambiguous initiative that could create more problems than the ones it aspires to address. If this bill becomes law, critics fear it will contribute to weakening US support of Israel, and disable criticism of Islamist activities both abroad and in the United States.
In December, the White House issued a statement supporting the bill as a way to protect religious freedom. “The Administration strongly believes that people of all faiths and backgrounds should be treated with equal dignity and respect around the world,” it said.
But the bill as written does not ensure equal dignity and respect of religions.
“This bill doesn’t make it clear whether the term Islamophobia includes, for example, criticizing radical Islamic terrorist groups or calling out the persecution of Christians,” Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), said before December’s House vote. “Is it Islamophobic to oppose unacceptably intolerant blasphemy laws or criticize those who call for the destruction of Israel? What about criticizing the Taliban’s brutal repression of women or condemning those who deny the Holocaust, as Iran’s Supreme Leader has repeatedly done?”
Iranian journalist, author, and women’s rights campaigner Masih Alinejad opposed the bill in a January Washington Post op-ed, saying that it “might be creating precedents that could undermine our freedom to speak out.” The bill is too vague, with no clear definition of what constitutes Islamophobia, wrote Alinejad, who was targeted for kidnapping by Iran’s Islamist authoritarian regime last year. “Is criticism of the Taliban a form of Islamophobia? What about criticism of the Islamic Republic of Iran? Can one criticize Hamas or Hezbollah as terrorist organizations?”
Other Iranian dissidents worry about the bill’s effect on free expression….
In essence, the Islamophobia Act institutionalizes the undefined, non-legal concept of Islamophobia, while at the same time actually promoting the same distorted narratives put forward by the authoritarian regimes of Iran and Turkey. Secular think tanks have raised concerns about the vagueness of the very term. In a detailed 2019 report, the British group Civitas tapped secular, religious, and academic voices to critique a recent attempt to draft a definition of Islamophobia. They shared the concern that codifying the term could pose “a danger to civil liberties in the United Kingdom, particularly freedom of expression, and journalistic and academic freedom.”
If passed as is, this bill is likely to create a lot of problems. Would publishing images of Islam’s prophet Muhammad be considered a matter for the US State Department’s intervention? Will Israel’s and other Western states’ potential actions against Islamist terror groups be labeled “Islamophobic?” These are not just hypothetical mental exercises. In fact, such incidents have already happened.
When a CAIR official accuses Jewish organizations of driving “a well-funded conspiracy” to push “Islamophobia,” her bosses say her critics are not just mistaken, but are “smearing Muslim leaders who support Palestinian human rights.” When allied European nations impose bans on the hijab at work or in other public settings, would the State Department envoy be expected to act?
Fighting bigotry is necessary and noble. But the Islamophobia Act could be used to curtail free speech in the United States and worldwide, undermining the fight against resurgent Islamist terrorist activities and weakening established US ties and cooperation with Israel.
Wellington says
Again demonstrating two things: 1) The term “Islamophobia” is an entirely bogus term to shut up any criticism of Islam; 2) Islam is a mortal enemy of the First Amendment of the American Constitution; indeed, Islam is an enemy of the American Constitution in its entirety and which constitution is infinitely superior to the legacy of ALL Islamic law over the many centuries that Islam has, in full totalitarian mode, suppressed dissent and anything critical of Mo’s warped creed.
Leftism is the enemy within here in the West. Islam is the chief enemy without for the West (though parasitically becoming a secondary enemy within) although traditional authoritarianism as exhibited by the rubes running Russia and China is also a menace to what the ancient Athenians and the Founding Fathers of America attempted to establish.
mortimer says
Wellington’s point two is the important truth he correctly identifies: “Islam is a mortal enemy of the First Amendment’. (And of all freedom of expression as well.)
Sharia law in effect gives a MONOPOLY to the mullahs to talk about Islam. Everyone else is forbidden to ‘mention something impermissible’ about discriminatory Islam or its obviously false prophet. The mullahs alone determine what is ‘impermissible’ to say.
The vagueness of this Sharia wording makes it possible for the mullahs to object to virtually anything … as long as they say it is ‘impermissible’. Mullahs also use ‘MSU’ … making stuff up in order to hide any fact about Islam which is repulsive or impossible to defend.
This absurd provision of Sharia means the mullah is always right as the defender of Islam. The sheikhs have the authority of writing a fatwa to have the offender killed … any Muslim may carry out the lethal fatwa with total impunity guaranteed by Sharia law.
Islam is not just *opposed* to free speech, but contains a vigilante justice system to enforce it.
James Lincoln says
All true, mortimer.
somehistory says
It wouldn’t keep people from criticizing other religions or beliefs and this happens much more than do mozlums hear things said about them. and the Truth should always be allowed, even if the one being spoken about doesn’t like hearing it.
mozlums don’t want the Truth said about them and forbid criticism; they will accept lies told about them, but not the Truth. they wouldn’t complain if someone said they are “devout” and only want to be accepted and welcomed, but just say that they worship “devotedly,” a mass-murdering, raper of children. Or that many members of their cult engage in the same things, with a devoted, arrogant, and lying prevalence.
and, wouldn’t this “law” cause all of her fellow somalian mozlums to have been arrested for booing her and telling her to “go”?
she should “go” and take all c.a,i.rats with her. In a leaky rowboat so they’d have to do some work. africa is only a few thousand miles away and she’s fairly young.
mortimer says
We have to keep telling the Islamic propagandists (and Western people in general) that the right to free speech and their wish to never hear something offensive cannot coexist.
The price of free speech is that we must listen to a lot of nonsense and rubbish that we personally do like to hear from our political opposition and from people who dislike our religion. We have freedom to state where the other person is wrong.
Muslims from Muslim-majority countries may be used to high levels of censorship, but it is unrealistic for them to expect the First Amendment to be changed to suit the demands of Sharia law, because freedom of speech is one of the founding principles of the United States.
The United States constitution is egalitarian, so if one religion may be criticized, then all religions may be criticized. If one political party may be criticized, then all may be criticized.
That certainly disagrees with Sharia law, so we see that the US constitution and Sharia are incompatible on the issue of freedom of expression. That’s not going to change.
mortimer says
correction: rubbish that we do NOT like to hear from our political opposition
somehistory says
blah, blah, blah
are you even half-way aware that when people who used books to practice “black magic” accepted Jesus, they burned their books? Read the Bible for a change.
burn your books of evil, mortimer and stop telling me about a fake “law” and what it means. I took years of courses on anti-terrorism, including fighting the “subjugation” you preach. I don’t need what you are selling. I had 4.0 on the Law, and anti-terror. I don’t need your constant commenting on my comments. comment on those people’s posts who like what you’re selling.
mortimer says
We are all tested by different points of view. Terrorists are informed by Sharia law which they learn from the mullahs who study Sharia for 20 years.
Where did I ever preach ‘subjugation’? You will not find one example.
somehistory says
You can’t even read correctly. it’s futile to try to inform you of anything. You won’t even understand this.
mortimer says
SH,
!) What exactly are ‘my’ books of evil?
2) Which ‘book of evil’ are you commanding me to burn?
3) Why do you want to burn books?
livingengine says
As can be seen in this video, CAIR’s case for an anti-Islamophobia envoy is full of hoaxes, outliers, bacon, and, things that aren’t considered hate crimes by the police, or even the people affected –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihaRx7MLTq8
gravenimage says
Right you are, livingengine.
Walter Sieruk says
Ilhan Omar’s striving to push ‘Islamophobia’ Bill,” only further reveals that Islam ia such a weak and fragile religion that it can’t stand up or withstand criticism of any kind, no matter how how that criticism might be.
In addition, it’s also the reality that the people who have seriously and objectively studied and researched Islam and have come to the conclusion there are many agressive dangerous violent and even deadly essence of that religion don’t really have a case of “Islamophobia,” for a phobia is an irrational fear. There is nothing “irrational” and understanding the many terrible things about Islam.
What such people do have is a case of Islam-o.realism.
mortimer says
Though Walter is correct about the fragility and vulnerability of Islam to defend its amoral and opportunistic prophet, that is truly not why Muslims fight against ‘Islamophobia’. They are fighting with the POSITIVE goal of imposing Sharia law upon Westerners against their will. They are trying to ‘RAM SHARIA LAW DOWN OUR THROATS’ (to use a common expression).
Every Muslim knows that he/she is on a mission to impose Sharia law worldwide. They consider this a noble mission. They couldn’t care less whether Islam is ‘logical’ or ‘illogical’ or ‘irrational’.
Rationality has nothing to do with this violent death cult.
Marilyn Griffin says
This is just another example of America catering to the whims of muslims. The protection of all religions inside the USA is ensured by our Constitution, Bill of Rights and laws, but while this protection allows for the practice of all religions without interference of government or others, it does not protect any religion from criticism, disagreement or questioning from others, because freedom of speech trumps all. The muslims constantly villify all people who are not muslims, even declaring the death of all Jews, yet they cry foul if called on the carpet for any of this. They constantly exploit the weakness of today’s USA fear of not being politically correct, of not being loved by everyone, a weakness that allows this nation and its people to be used, scammed and exploited by other nations. This weakness is one of the reasons for the constant invasion of greedy, economic opportunist foreigners, with full support of their nations, into the USA daily, a fear of being called racist by the world, of shame every time someone chastises the USA about deporting anyone, about not letting everyone into our country, of not giving non-citizens everything, and of using the reminder that the USA is supposed to a welcoming, melting pot nation of immigrants. None of this is true, or anyone’s business, but over past decades our leaders have moved America from a strong, independent nation looking out for its own best interests to an America that willing to do anything for fireign nations and their people even though doing so us against the best interests of America, Americans and the future of both. And it isn’t just muslims blatantly exploiting us, it is everyone and no one more than Mexico and China. Yet the USA does nothing to stop this, but actually acts in assistance of this.
gravenimage says
I don’t think that CAIR is going to be successful here.
mortimer says
GI says CAIR will not be successful. They cannot change the US constitution. The First Amendment is carved in stone.
James Lincoln says
Yes, mortimer.
The First Amendment is “carved in stone”, but that does not stop “cancel culture”.
gravenimage says
Hamas-linked CAIR tries to revive Ilhan Omar’s ‘Islamophobia’ bill
……………………………..
Muslims are not going to stop trying to shut Infidels up who dare question any aspect of Islam.
mortimer says
Muslims believe they are on an inspired mission to impose Sharia law on the dirty kafirs whether or not those ‘wrong worshippers’ (mushrikoon) may be *averse* to discriminatory Sharia.
Koran 61.9 : “He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it SUPREME over ALL religions however much idolaters may be AVERSE.”
(Note: this verse refers to both the ‘kafirs’ (deniers) and ‘mushrikoon’ (wrong worshippers) … namely people who oppose Islam).
The method for IMPOSING Sharia is called ‘JIHAD’.
Ilhan Omar is on the JIHAD OF THE TONGUE (propaganda) and the JIHAD OF THE PEN (legislation).
Andrew Blackadder says
It seems to me that the average muslim is really not very devout in his/her/they/them faith as they believe my opinion of their nonsense is so important that they wish to cut off my head because I refer to it as a Fascist Religious Cult and yet they call it a religion of piss… oops I mean peace.
So my opinion of what they believe is so very important to them.
Their opinion of what I believe is of zero importance to me..
If I tell a muslim fellow that I think his religion appears to be very violent and he then turns around and attacks me very violently for saying this then is he being a good muslim by doing so?.
sally farmer says
We all have a right to be against an ideology which would transport every one of us that is not a Muslim and will not be a Muslim to the status of second citizen as is evident as intention in the Koranic texts, not to mention other expressively unfriendly texts against non Muslims.We are already experiencing an escalation in many countries as they fill up with Islamic imports, FATAL violence against the people of those countries stupid enough to have such a policy including the UK which is the stupidest of all, even changing their laws to protect the religious rights they have to do so.
mortimer says
sally farmer is correct. Americans have the right to criticize any idea under the First Amendment, and the people of the world are granted that right by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Since Islam itself defines Islam as a ‘DEEN’ (a system of governance which contains a religion), then by Islam’s definition, Islam is a POLITICAL IDEOLOGY.
Since I may criticize communism, fascism, Stalinism, Nazism, Maoism, raw-food-ism and any other ideology, I may also criticize the ideology of political Islam.
It should be noted the British House of Lords has in the past stood firm against the intended destruction of free speech proposed by the Commons. Good for them. But the Leftists in the UK don’t like free speech as long as they feel powerful. When Leftists are unpopular in UK they demand free speech for themselves. Right now, British leftists control the media and universities, so they don’t want their opposition to have the freedom of speech.
notnolib says
1.) CAIR is a terrorist organization. Its officers, its members, and its supporters are ALL terrorists.
2.) Ilan Omar isn’t even a “real” muslima. She is sporting a clitoris like some sort of western whore.
3.) (P)islam is a gutter cult. Invented (along with moon-god “allah”) by a pedophilic terrorist named “mohammed” the pig-faced dog.
Alfredo says
This bill would sneak in Sharia into the United States by stealth.
It is a direct attack against the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The United States must not allow the enemy within to dictate policy. “The representative for Mogadishu” (lol) must not be allowed to sneak in Sharia by stealth, because of the precedent it would set, and all the negative consequences for the US.
It would give authority to the Islamists to “correct wrong and enforce right” according to the Sharia of the “Apostle of Allah.”
Therefore if the United States is to remain a sovereign nation and not a dhimmi nation, this bill to sneak in Sharia by stealth must be defeated.
James Lincoln says
Anyone that does not fear the spread of islam in the West is not being rational.
Anyone that does not fear the spread of islam in the West is not being rational.
Anyone that does not fear the spread of islam in the West is not being rational.
OLD GUY says
Islamophobia law, let’s see you are going to arrest me and but me in jail for speaking the TRUTH about Islam. And you are going to allow criminals who loot, burn and steal to go free with no penalty at all.
How does that make any sense? Omar represents WHO?