Hate Speech Laws Revisited

Dave Petteys is a member of the Colorado chapter of ACT! For America. He is one of the hard-working members of the anti-sharia group that made such a difference at the OSCE conferences in Warsaw in 2012 and 2013. Below is his take on the continuing controversy over “hate speech” laws.

Hate Speech Laws Revisited

by David Petteys
ACT! For America, 5280 Coalition

Hate speech laws originated during debates in the United Nations immediately after World War Two. At the time, it was the Soviet Bloc versus Western Europe and the United States. The Soviets wanted “hate speech laws” to suppress the criticism of their totalitarian system as well as the calls for greater democracy. Their excuse was: “We cannot allow fascists to speak lest it lead to violence “. The same language is being used today.

Although the Communist totalitarian governments have disappeared, (at least we used to think so), the legacy of the notion that it is up to government to regulate speech remains.

Initially, “Hate Speech” laws addressed anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. But now the reach of these laws has steadily expanded to include any issue, provided its supporters have the political clout to influence legislatures.

Global warming advocates, homosexuals and Muslims are all demanding laws to protect them from “insult” and criticism. Priests and pastors have been arrested and prosecuted for preaching Christian doctrine that” hurts the feelings” of homosexuals[1]. Global warming skeptics are silenced.[2]

The Muslims are a particular case in point. They know they can’t confront our First Amendment directly. So what they are doing is drilling down into the definitions of words inside the laws: specifically, the definition of “incitement”.

Traditionally “incitement” resided in the content of speech or writing. The Muslims are working to refocus “incitement” from content to consequence. If I were a Ku Klux Klan leader addressing my followers, and I advocated that they march to another section of town and burn down houses, that would comprise speech with content that directly advocated violence.

But the Muslim strategy is more insidious.

Let us now move to the definition of “Hate Speech” in Forums such as “The Rabat Plan of Action”[3] (RPA). This was a document produced at a workshop put on by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) that met in Rabat, Morocco in October of 2012. The UN appears to have convened the Conference at the behest of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), mindful of its funding and its large voting bloc of 56 states plus the Palestinian Authority.

The subtitle of the document (“Conclusions and recommendations emanating from the four regional expert workshops organised by OHCHR, in 2011, and adopted by experts in Rabat, Morocco on 5 October 2012”) refers to the plan as adopted by “experts” without any disclosure of who these “experts” are. Within this document there is a six part “threshold test” to give “guidance” to law enforcement. The final test is “Likelihood, including imminence”. To quote:

“The action advocated through incitement speech does not have to be committed for that speech to amount to a crime. Nevertheless some degree of risk of resulting harm must be identified.”[4]

Thus, speech that “might” hurt someone’s feelings, or “might” lead to “discrimination or intolerance” becomes a criminal offense! Yet the argument that such speech “might lead to violence” has not been substantiated.[5]

Next, the Muslims claim the right to violence against anyone who “insults” the Prophet or Islam:

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”[6]

Therefore, Muslims hold that any speech that they deem an “insult” is illegal “hate speech” because it would trigger the violence that they themselves threaten and guarantee! It makes no difference that we have the constitutional right to say what we want to say, including criticism of Islam.

Islam is mostly a political movement, and not separate from religion, as the Muslims themselves assert. Yet they hold:

  • That since it is a “religion” it is beyond criticism and off the table. Any criticism is “insulting Islam”
  • And we guarantee any such criticism will trigger violence. Therefore, under the guidelines of the RPA the “likelihood and imminence of harm” renders the speech illegal!

This neatly finesses the First Amendment. Sadly, Western authorities are buying into this! It codifies into law the “battered wife syndrome” with its “blame the victim” premise.

Muslims settle in the West and claim the right to live under their Shari’a law. Their religious belief also calls for them to impose their Shari’a on others.[7] Their initial pitch is to say “as a Muslim community, we only wish to live by our own rules at no harm to anyone else”. The self-loathing multiculturalists in the West say “Oh, how can we impose our standards on anyone else!” and consent. But the women and children in the Muslim community are harmed. They are deprived of their constitutional rights when placed under the Shari’a. They are beaten, married off against their will, and killed with no recourse.

Their next step is to apply constant pressure for our host society to accommodate Islamic law in order to gain prominence and control in the host society. The Arabic word for this process is tamkeen. Muslim groups demand halal food for everyone in the public schools, that Christian holidays be replaced with Muslim ones, that “Islam Days” be instituted in middle schools, etc. (But if you try to bring in a Pastor to talk about the love of Jesus Christ, the ACLU is there to file suit, lest the “non-Christians be offended”). If society resists such accommodations and takes steps to preserve its own traditions, the Muslims howl they are suffering from bigotry, hatred, intolerance and Islamophobia!

The point is this: “hatred” and “intolerance” are not absolute evils per se. One has to ask what it is we are being asked to be tolerant and approve of. In the case of Islam, it is appropriate to “hate” and be “intolerant” of an ideology that approves of sexually enslaving and abusing marginalized non-Muslim teen-age girls. Or should we be required to tolerate and approve of an ideology that requires the killing of female members of the family in the name of a vague collective concept of “family honor”? Or is it really religious persecution of Muslims to refuse to recognize Muslim holidays in our public schools? I think not.

One also has to ask if freedom of speech is more important that freedom from insult. The answer must be that it absolutely is, since it is the incumbent powerful who will define what “insult” is in order to defend their position. The Bill of Rights exists to protect the individual from the State. Religions, prophets, or pressure groups have no such rights. We must all recall the catch-all charge of “Slandering the Soviet Union” that was used to silence dissidents in the Soviet era.[8]

The notion of “incitement to discrimination and hostility” is so vague as to be laughable. Nor is there any proof that such things “might lead to violence”[9], which is the catch-all justification used by authorities to deprive citizens of their liberty. Again, discrimination and hostility are not absolute evils. If I tell the truth about Jihad groups beheading innocent people, does this not invite hostility and discrimination against them? In the present Orwellian environment, the Jihadis would be labeled “Freedom fighters struggling against the occupation” and I would be imprisoned!

Another “hate speech” category is “incitement to xenophobia”. A “phobia” is an irrational dislike or fear of something or some group. The Muslims have tapped into this concept with their word “Islamophobia”. But in the case of the Muslims, given that their plan to take down the West by “Civilization Jihad”[10] is well known, it is not an irrational fear to oppose a flood-tide of Islamic settlers that would inundate Western Democracies. Muslims have written plainly they wish to destroy our Democracy, prosperity and liberty and replace it with an Islamic Caliphate. To oppose such an effort is not a “phobia” but a common-sense obligation of every citizen who cherishes our Western way of life.

In conclusion: Freedom of speech is essential to the democracies of the West. “Insult”, “hurt feelings” “discrimination” and “intolerance” are part of the rough and tumble of a free society and a price we are willing to pay. Governments have no business listening to the Muslims, homosexuals, ecologists and others who would restrict these liberties for their own purposes.


1.   “Censored” Paul B. Coleman, Kairos Publications, Möllwaldplatz 5,A — 1040 Wien, Austria, 2012 page 40
2.   http://www.akdart.com/warming5.html
3.   http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Opinion/SeminarRabat/Rabat_draft_outcome.pdf
4.   Ibid, page 6
5.   “Censored” Paul B. Coleman, Kairos Publications, Möllwaldplatz 5,A — 1040 Wien, Austria, 2012 page 76
6.   Qur’an 5:33 (Y. Ali)
7.   See Qur’an 9:5
8.   http://www.jta.org/1972/04/24/archive/yuri-brind-faces-trial-on-charges-of-slandering-the-soviet-union
9.   See footnote #5
10.   http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/20.pdf

9 thoughts on “Hate Speech Laws Revisited

  1. Fine job, Dave! Untwisting their twisty little pretzel-heads is quite a job.

  2. I didn’t see any mention of former SOS Hillary Clinton’s role in promoting the OIC’s agenda. I’d like that information incorporated into this article, if it can be done, is relevant (according to the author), and is considered helpful in our understanding of which political figures (with national ambitions) work quietly to undermine the West.

  3. “Initially, “Hate Speech” laws addressed anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. But now the reach of these laws has steadily expanded to include any issue, provided its supporters have the political clout to influence legislatures.”

    What would be the new proposed plan if ‘hate speech’ laws are retracted?

    To wit, would only the original group be covered by ‘hate laws’ – or would ‘hate laws’ be redefined – or would ‘hate laws’ be repealed altogether?

  4. The problem is, you’re speaking to the choir. Likely, the people reading this already agree with you. The people who happily welcome immigrants and support the vanguard of the left, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, only read their own propaganda. It’s a closed group, intellectually.

    I wonder if the Muslim conquests of vast Asian, Middle Eastern, and East European areas really came about through force of arms…or, did the Muslims then, as now, gain influence and power through quiet infiltration of a basically tolerant social system?

    I think we should take our playbook from the Muslim and leftists: instead of depending on open debate, work on infiltrating people into positions of power, with the covert objective of maintaining the present society, protecting freedom, and shutting out unsuitable people from entering. Right now, by simply fighting with facts and logic, we are clearly losing the war.

    • Muslims have murdered more people over time than any other group.

      Marxists have murdered more people in the shortest amount of time than any other group.

      The combination of Muslims and Marxists will be the most murderous yet.

      Infiltration will be ineffective. Here’s why: Western politics is now run by blackmail. No one gets in the door to the halls of higher power unless that person participates in some major sin that can be used to blackmail that person to tow the line at a later point. It is a well-guarded group – completely secured by sin.

      Word on the street is that, upon election, each new Congressperson is called to the office of their party leader who presents them with a thick book detailing every aspect of their – and their spouse’s and children’s – life that will be used to publicly discredit and destroy them should they fail to vote with the party line.

      • Word on whose street, Egghead? And what of those with no skeletons in the closet?

        • Well, Mark, for years rumors circulated that party leaders assigned committee positions based on fundraising results, and we finally got the copies of the actual lists this year.

          Statistically, there are NO high level people without skeletons in either their closet or their relative’s closets BECAUSE 1) there are SO many sins to choose from, and 2) the parties literally PICK people with skeletons in their closet in order to gain power over their future votes and/or actions.

          Ann Barnhardt gave the example from firsthand testimony to her that the highest level USA military school officers participate in wife swapping parties – everyone has the same sin and everyone can be controlled using that sin – the sin is the entree to power – but you only get invited to the ‘party’ if the powers-that-be believe that you will participate (based on psychological analysis performed via employment interviews and tests, background checks, and NSA information gathering).

          For the EXCEEDINGLY few who are personally immune to blackmail for various reasons, the powers-that-be can 1) threaten the reputation of your child as happened with former Presidential candidate Ross Perot, 2) murder your husband’s best friend and then threaten to murder your child as reportedly happened with Hillary Clinton during in the first Obama election, 3) threaten to ruin your state so that you resign your governorship as happened with Sarah Palin in Alaska after the first Obama election, 4) threaten to murder your child as I presume happened with Sarah Palin whose son was (is?) active duty military, 5) re-district you out of your seat and/or cheat the vote as happened with Congressman Colonel West in Florida (among others in other states).


          Failing that, the powers-that-be are fully willing to murder inconvenient people. It is claimed that JFK, Jr. was told to stand down from his plan to run for the same Senate seat as Hillary Clinton before he met his tragic end via plane crash.

          Sometimes, the powers-that-be will send warnings to high level people to play ball. Despite having ‘security’ details, several modern Supreme Court justices have been attacked.


          There are long lists of people who died at very ‘convenient’ times in the upward trajectory of the political careers of recent Presidents.

          As Hillary Clinton so famously intoned, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

          • I don’t have your knowledge of recent US political history (though I did check out your links), but it strikes me that it is easier to propose conspiracy theories than to disprove them, even if they (mostly) have no foundation in fact.

            People who feel disempowered because their particular viewpoint has been rejected at the ballot box may be especially prone to believe such theories. While there is a Democrat in the White House (whatever his virtues, or lack thereof), Republicans, Tea Party supporters etc may feel that the rug has been pulled from under them; if he’s replaced by someone from the Right, I daresay we’ll hear similar views from the Left.

            The system (democracy) is far from perfect, but as Churchill famously said, all the others are so much worse- although there is the plus (?) that with a dictator in power, you know for sure that they’re out to screw you!

          • Mark, The American system was NOT designed as a democracy which is mob rule. The American system was designed to be a republic with numerous checks and balances that ensured that the state governments would check the federal government from centralized power AND the three federal branches (legislative, executive, and judicial) would check each other at the federal level. The two party system is irrelevant to the intentions of the founders.

            The original American system has been distorted and destroyed by multiple federal legal changes that were designed and intended to achieve that effect.

            But, even democracy (which is a sad and sorry substitute for a constitutional republic) is a chimera as powerful corrupt people have figured out and implemented very effective ways to cheat the vote in Western lands including America and England.

            Thus, we have neither a constitutional republic nor a democracy. I do NOT ‘feel’ disempowered. I am disempowered – as is every other citizen who is NOT a part of the elite.

            P.S. If you cannot disprove conspiracy theories, then you have NO basis to say that such theories ‘(mostly) have no foundation in fact.’ You can only say that you do NOT know. But, the proof is in the pudding: It is murderously (!) dangerous to have been associated with the early careers of people who are ‘appointed’ to win the presidency. It is also murderously (!) dangerous to cross the wishes of the elites – and we only have one party – of elites. The opinions and actions of the leaders of our two parties are interchangeable for all intents and purposes.

Comments are closed.