The fire on Christmas Day at a Houston mosque attracted national attention as the latest hate crime directed against Muslims. However, police yesterday arrested the man allegedly responsible and it turns out to be a regular at the mosque, Gary Nathaniel Moore, 37, of Houston.
Police say that Moore told investigators he has attended the mosque for five years, coming five times per day to pray seven days per week. While he claimed to be the last to leave the mosque at 2 p.m., he said that there was no smoke or fire.
MJ Khan, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Houston, said he was unfamiliar with Moore.
We have often discussed the concerns over hate crimes in term of free speech and due process as well as its effectiveness. However, what if the mosque was torched by a Muslim. Is it still a hate crime or just a hoax?
Texas defines a hate crime as as crimes that are motivated by prejudice, hatred, or advocacy of violence. If it is true that the fire was set by a Muslim to appear like a hate crime, is it just arson?
Source: Chronicle
And as far as the FBI investigating bacon left at a mosque as a hate crime, or any kind of crime for that matter, if those agents don’t have anything better to do with their time, then Congress should consider cutting the Bureau’s budget.
Tin, that insight would have been valuable last year… now it is just dated 🙂
The problem with “hate crimes” is made clear by all the speculation on this blog. The fact is, we have no idea why the suspect started the fire, or if he actually did so. The evidence seems rather thin. He was at the mosque prior to the fire – so what? He reportedly goes there 5 times a day, 7 days per week. The strongest evidence is reportedly that he had a bottle of lighter fluid in his apartment that matched the brand and size of the lighter fluid bottle left at the mosque, and the bottles were thought to have been sold in a two pack. That alone is not particularly compelling, without more. I’m sure everyone in Texas has a bar-b-que and lighter fluid in their homes. As to motive, the arsonist could have been attempting to cover another crime, such as theft, or it could have been personal retaliation if he felt maligned or ignored by the other members. Or old fashioned insurance fraud. The only reason for speculation as to a “hate crime” is that it was a mosque, but with the prime suspect being a Muslim, I think that theory is out the window….
http://fakehatecrimes.org/
Po,
Maybe from your perspective Christians get all the holidays but are we not threatened every day in our pursuit of happiness? Little Sisters of the Poor being forced to violate their conscience hardly seems like our government is concerned about their natural rights. We have allowed government to be the arbiter of rights which makes the fight for majority rule so critical. As long as we keep electing these progressives that believe they are the masters of our universe then we will continue towards our own destruction.
To reframe it, Olly, Christians are threatened less BECAUSE they are the dominant group.
Islam is not threatened in S Arabia because Muslims are the dominant group.
Government becomes more and more of a necessity the more minorities are threatened by other groups. If Jews and Muslims, did not feel threatened by neo-Nazism and the right affiliated Christian militias, they would not look to government for help.
Otherwise what is their option but to arm themselves and take a stand?
it is like during civil rights when blacks were being killed on a whim. When the federal government was deemed ineffective, Black Panthers sprung out.
Po,
If we take the Declaration of Independence on its literal meaning then the laws of nature apply equally to all. The fact they are not applied equally is the result of human nature and that is precisely the reason government exists. They are empowered to make laws that secure those rights equally for all; that is the framer’s vision for the United States. We began grossly imperfect and our constitution is the vehicle our legislators are to use to make us “more perfect”. It’s still the right vehicle but it has been carjacked by progressives in both major parties to serve their interests…power.
As long as those we elect deviate from their constitutional purpose then every constituency must fear that power being used against them.
Violations of unalienable rights, whether they involve life, liberty or property are equally unjust. I believe identity theft to be one of the most egregious of violations and should be treated as a capital offense. You are not only taking someone’s property, you are taking their life and making it yours.
I don’t believe after 200+ years we need more laws to secure rights. We need to remove the layers of laws we have in place and enforce just laws equally. Is that even possible?
Olly, the thing worth remembering however is that the more ineffective the laws, the more laws are tacked on to the existing laws.
Perfection is simple. Imperfection is complicated.
The sole, and surest, way to prevent tacking on more laws onto an ineffective one, is to make it effective.
How? That’s the problem!
Hate crimes laws are built upon the same structure as the death penalty. it is society deciding that both MUST be dissuaded as effectively as possible.
Since it knows it cannot stop hates crimes, it is erecting some stronger laws in order to act as a stronger deterrent.
What is the option? The principle of removing the layers and enforcing laws equally, I agree, is a worthwhile aim, but it will not happen as long as society is not equal or homogeneous, that simple.
When Black men are still targeted for their skin color and discriminated against, removing layers does not work for them.
When a hijabi woman is pushed into the path of the train, removing layers doe snot work for her.
When a Jewish cemetery is desecrated by neo nazis, removing layers does not benefit them.
The moment society becomes more equitable, less laws are needed. Until then, it is always odd for the dominant group to decide how much the lesser groups have to lose.
As for Christians having a thick skin? Pleeeeeeeeaaaase!!!!
They are the majority, have all the power, get all the official holidays, still bitching and moaning about war on christmas, demanding extra protection for Christians…yet they are ones leading all aggression upon other faiths, ethnicity and even against the federal government.
This country will self-destruct not because of a few Muslims but because of White Christians such as these
http://gawker.com/white-militiamen-are-trying-to-provoke-a-war-with-the-f-1750471652
po – the only Christian holiday is Christmas. And even that is open to non-Christians.
Lisa N, I do want to indulge you and discuss your assertions but…boy…you are way out there!
I don’t know where you get your news/facts but…man…
They are ALL wrong!
WoW!
As far as Clock Boy, the leftist media left out that this kids sister was expelled from the same school for making a bomb threat a few years back.
This kid could not get that supposed click through airport security, that I know. But the father is involved with CAIR and the mayor of Irving stopped a Sharia Court and this act was a calculated hit job on that city by CAIR.
1. It begins after 9/11. Including nearly 3,000 jihad deaths on 9/11 would make it look significantly different.
2. It does not include foiled plots, which also would make the jihadi line dwarf the non-jihadi line.
3. It does not include the global component of the problem. There is a global jihad. Jihadis have murdered people all over the world. There is no global “right-wing extremist,” “white male Christian” threat.
4. It ignores the fact that a minuscule part of the U.S. population — Muslims — is responsible for around half of the successful attacks.
5. It lumps together shootings by clearly deranged people such as James Holmes with those of other deranged people who seem to have some ideology, such as Adam Lanza, to create the impression that there is some ideological movement and threat equivalent to that of Islamic jihad.
“The mainstream media is no longer in any sense a news source. It is a propaganda arm for those who want you to think Islam is wonderful. Several days ago Robert Spencer was contacted by NPR for a show hosted by Warren Olney and also joined by Peter Bergen and Frank Rich, on “the San Bernardino mass shooting and the impact on Americans who according to the latest Quinnipiac poll feel that homegrown terrorists are America’s biggest threat. Will this increase gun sales and anti Muslim sentiment?” He was extremely surprised to be asked, since usually only one point of view is allowed on NPR. The producer called him to talk over the issue and soon realized that she wanted him to be the foil on the show, the ranting right-winger countered by cool and knowledgeable leftists. He explained to her why “Islamophobia” was a propaganda concept and why concern about the refugees was not racism and xenophobia. She seemed surprised that he wasn’t a ranting, frothing-at-the-mouth bigot, and in turn wasn’t at all surprised when he got the email saying they didn’t want him on the show after all, as they had “decided to go in a different direction.” Reasonable arguments for resisting jihad and opposing a massive influx of Muslim refugees are not allowed on NPR, or anywhere else in the mainstream media.”
Olly:
“I can see the whole “see something, say something” effort squelched simply because of the fear they would be unfairly labeled or prosecuted.” The urge to “see something, say something” creates a paradox. When a TX school teacher saw that a student had brought what appeared to be a bomb, he reported it. Saw something. Said something. It turned out to be just some clock parts put inside a little briefcase, with a bunch of wires showing. In response to actually seeing something, and saying something, the school is being sued for millions of dollars, the teenager got to meet Obama, and he’s an international hero. You are to recall that it wasn’t too long ago that pressure cooker bombs were used in the Boston Marathon Massacre, and that one of the perpetrators was a teenager. Or that teenage boys have been mass shooters at schools.
Maybe they should amend it to “See something, say something, but if you’re wrong you will be sued and possibly charged.”
Olly – if they truly wanted to reaffirm their support for religious freedom in general, they could have merely have confirmed their support for the First Amendment. Otherwise, to be fair, they should have listed all common religions, not just one. Christians get bashed every day, routinely on this very blog. But for the most part, they’re used to it. It’s all part of free speech. I think all religions need to desensitize themselves to hearing offensive things about their religion, just like Christians have done. If hate speech against Christians were ever criminalized, stand up comedians everywhere would cry.
I agree maplady. It is embarrassingly blatant but then again that stopped mattering along time ago.
Olly – that House resolution you cited is not only redundant, unnecessary, but reeks of political pandering and BS
Po,
We already have the 1st amendment that should apply equally to every belief. It’s therefore redundant to enact laws like this. But this is what we do; we ignore the natural right as it should apply equally to all and then empower the state to redefine the right as they see fit. This is how we get the natural right to life redefined to mean an actual growing human life is deserving of protection whenever the state decides it is worth protecting. This is what they are doing to property rights, 2nd and 4th amendment rights as well.
My Sharia question was not to be taken so literally. My concern is that we are carving out additional protections that would chill speech and other legitimate actions intended to draw attention to suspected acts of extremism. I can see the whole “see something, say something” effort squelched simply because of the fear they would be unfairly labeled or prosecuted.
Sure, Olly, however, and you know that, natural laws are not equal laws. In a country that is overwhelmingly white, Christian and where most Christians openly claim that their constitution is a christian one, where it is openly debated to subject some minority groups to circumstances that actually contradict the aim of the first amendment, to then say that the first amendment is protection enough is a bit frustrating.
All oppression happens in spite of the laws in the books. That is why some crimes have been designated extra- criminal, especially ones that target women and children…and cops…or any office holder.
That is also why there is a difference in degree between targeting someone for their property and targeting someone for their person. Kidnapping is a lesser offence than robbery which is lesser than murder, yet all three target natural laws protecting one’s property, freedom and life.Do you agree with that?
Additionally, though hate crime legislation apply to beliefs, they mainly deal with persons. When the white terrorist attacks a Sikh for he thought him Muslim, he matters little whether islam or sikhism is the religion, the person is harmed for who he is perceived to be.
Ironically, the first amendment itself came out at a time where the natural rights of many, non-white and women were suppressed.
But if Keith Ellison wants a bill that states that he as a Muslim, should not be subjected to mistreatment, it is because he feels to need that bill. That simple. And the aim of those bills, again, rather than give someone extra rights, is to make sure that their natural rights, which are being trampled on by other groups as part of their expression of their own natural rights, are respected.
Regarding shariah law, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, in spite of the fact that the link you made between that bill and shariah law creeping, and the language undergirding it is found within the enclaves of the usual suspects who are fully invested in spreading islamophobia through fearmongering.
All of them tie that bill to shariah law, which is exactly what you did. So yeah, I was tempted to take you literally…
po – if you believe in natural law, then those laws are the same for everyone.
KCFleming
1, December 31, 2015 at 3:06 pm
You misspelled “multiple” hate crimes found to be faked, po.
I don’t know what you mean there
In fact, this is so common that it is always best to assume that a hate crime is a hoax until proven otherwise.
I can guarantee you do not feel the same about hate crimes against Jews
No, you don’t understand or, more likely, you are misrepresenting my case
Then make it…
My reading is that in order to make the case that
A- hates crimes against Muslims (in the US) are hoaxes
B- Muslims (in US) are not deserving of protection from hate crimes
C- The hate crime is actually against (American) non-Muslims (by Muslims)
You offered this:
If Muslims can go one month without a terrorist attack, get back to me.
Weekly Jihad Report
Dec 19 – Dec 25 2015
Jihad Attacks: 47
Allah Akbars*: 8 (Suicide Attacks)
Dead Bodies: 224
Critically Injured: 273
A tally of attacks by extremist ABROAD, which is quite random because it does not support whatever premise you stated. matter of act, it comes out of nowhere.
So either you are being deceptive by using an international argument out of context to make a domestic point, or you are that illogical.
So, if we use the international argument, then we must tally every act of mayhem by every religious group internationally and compare and contrast them.
If, on the other hand, we are debating the domestic argument, then you must offer us the tally of Muslim extremism and compare it to the non-Muslim tally.
As of last count, it goes 2 to 351 🙂
po – it appears in this case the hate crime was Muslim on Muslim.
Seems like it, Paul, in this case.
Olly, I have no issue with your sentiment as to why exceptionalize islam, however a closer reading of that bill doesn’t seem to warrant either your fears or your conclusions. Though the bill specifically condemns hate crimes against Muslims, it also renews our commitment to the protection of the rights of everyone, no matter who they are.
Doesn’t seem either that Muslims are especially protected or are given extra benefits not available to anyone else.
it is not uncommon for western societies to extend protective rights to minority groups, especially towards Judaism. In many European countries, the mere denying of the holocaust may warrant a prison term. Do we deny the need to protect Jews from rampant antisemitism?
In light of the fact that Christians are always claiming to be under attack here, and are always decrying the lack of minority rights for Christians abroad, it sounds a bit hypocritical.
For someone who is a staunch advocate for natural rights, it is rather perplexing that you’d take such a stand against it, considering that its aim is to provide protection for life, liberty and property?
So I do wonder about your conclusion that to pass such resolution is to turn to shariah law. That is a leap that frankly I cannot grasp, and that’s the one I request supporting arguments on.
Should we remain silent before the rising islamophobia in the US? Or are you saying there isn’t?
Should we let every minority group handle the protection of their own natural rights?
KCF, Here are some telling stats. Since Federal Hate Crimes became law in 2009, there have been only 29 convictions. Here’s the biggest tell. While there have been 270 referrals to US Attorneys in those 6 years, 235 have been turned down, many because they were hoaxes. That’s 87% of referrals by various agencies being turned down by the DOJ. That stat for all other criminal referrals, only 20% turned down. And this is the Obama DOJ turning down 87%!!
Quite deceptive, Nick. That is YOUR reading of why the referrals were turned down…
Here is more of the report, and as we’d guess, it does not support your conclusion 🙂
Thank God for google
————————————————————–
Likelihood of Federal Prosecution
Figure 1. Outcome in Hate Crimes
Referred to Federal Prosecutors
Federal prosecutors, however, received many more hate crime referrals than they ultimately prosecuted. Indeed, prosecutors turned down 235 out of the 270 total hate crime referrals received since the law’s passage in 2009 — a whopping 87.0 percent, compared with only 20.0 percent of all referrals turned down in FY 2014.
As shown in Figure 1, only in 29 of these 270 referrals — about one out of ten — were individuals ultimately convicted in federal court. An additional six were prosecuted but were not ultimately convicted. Two were found not guilty after a jury trial, and in the remaining four the charges were dismissed.
Federal prosecutors gave a variety of reasons for deciding not to file federal charges (see Table 1). The three most common — accounting for 55.3 percent of these turndowns — were insufficient evidence, lack of evidence of criminal intent, and weak or insufficient admissible evidence.
The fact that the individual was not federally prosecuted did not necessarily mean that the person was never charged with the crime. While the federal records did not include what happened after they turned down the case, a number of the reasons given for declining the referral indicated that the matter was being turned over to state or local authorities, or that alternatives to federal prosecution were appropriate.
Table 1. Reason Given by Federal Prosecutor in Not Filing Hate Crime Charges
Disposition Reason Number Percent
Total 235 100%
Insufficient Evidence 50 21.3%
Lack of evidence of criminal intent 41 17.4%
Weak or insufficient admissible evidence 39 16.6%
Agency request 19 8.1%
Suspect referred prosecution decision by state/local/military court 14 6.0%
Matter Referred to Another Jurisdiction 11 4.7%
Suspect to be prosecuted by other authorities 10 4.3%
Legally Barred 9 3.8%
No federal offense evident 8 3.4%
No known suspect 7 3.0%
Prioritization of federal resources and interests 5 2.1%
Suspect being prosecuted on other charges 4 1.7%
Alternative to federal prosecution appropriate 3 1.3%
Office policy 3 1.3%
Declined per instructions from DOJ 3 1.3%
Petite policy 2 0.9%
Minimal federal interest or no deterrent value 1 0.4%
Civil, admin or other disciplinary alternatives 1 0.4%
Jurisdiction or venue problems 1 0.4%
Witness problems 1 0.4%
Unclear 3 1.3%
“If your understand your logic (lack of), KFC, you fly across the globe…”
No, you don’t understand or, more likely, you are misrepresenting my case.
“one hate crime to have been found not a hate crime causes us to believe no such thing as hate crimes exists? ”
You misspelled “multiple” hate crimes found to be faked, po.
In fact, this is so common that it is always best to assume that a hate crime is a hoax until proven otherwise.
Po,
Sure you do. We have a secular government securing the 1st amendment rights of all beliefs. Do we have laws on the books that protect specific religions as H.R. 569 does? Let’s try this H.R. Shall we do this for every supposed group that “feels” targeted?
H. RES. XXX
Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Christians in the United States.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 17, 2015
Mr. Beyer (for himself, Mr. Honda, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Ms. Norton, Ms. McCollum, Ms. Kaptur, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Peters, Mr. Ashford, Mr. Grayson, Mr. Takai, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Keating, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Gallego, Mrs. Bustos, Mr. Delaney, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Gutiérrez, Mr. Quigley, Ms. Esty, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Meng, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Farr, Mr. Pallone, Mr. McDermott, Ms. Lee, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Michael F. Doyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Sires, Ms. DelBene, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Mr. Polis, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Pascrell, Mrs. Dingell, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Yarmuth, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Takano, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Tonko, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Van Hollen, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Ms. Matsui, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Heck of Washington) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
RESOLUTION
Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Christians in the United States.
Whereas the victims of anti-Christian hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Christian or believed to be Christian;
Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles;
Whereas there are millions of Christians in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native-born citizens;
Whereas this Christian community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;
Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Christians are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;
Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;
Whereas Christian women who wear religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances; and
Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Christian speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Christianity, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Christian hate crimes;
(2) steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;
(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against churches, Christians, or those perceived to be Christian;
(4) recognizes that the United States Christian community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;
(5) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Christians in the United States, should be protected and preserved;
(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and
(7) reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.
Olly
1, December 31, 2015 at 11:23 am
Is Sharia Law our future? Check out House Resolution 569:
===============
Olly, I miss the connection between the resolution and sharia law being our future, would you please develop your argument