Los Angeles City Council condemns "Islamophobia," ignores hate crimes against groups victimized far more often

MPAC has skillfully played the victim card against the Los Angeles City Council, despite the fact that statistics show that hate crimes against Muslims are rare -- much rarer than the incidence of such crimes against other groups. "Hyperbole rules in Muslim debate," from the Los Angeles Daily News, December 26 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

WITHOUT serious debate or examination, the Los Angeles City Council recently passed a resolution that opposes "Islamophobia" and "repudiates" random acts of violence against Muslims.

This admittedly ceremonial resolution apparently accepts the premise that residents of the city commit acts of hate against Muslims so often that it warrants an official resolution from city leaders condemning and repudiating these acts. Is this really the case?

According to the latest hate crime report from the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations, 88 percent of all religiously based hate crimes in 2009 were against Jews. Hate crimes that targeted Muslims (3 percent) ranked slightly above those directed at Scientologists (1 percent). In fact, the commission found that attacks against Christians (8 percent) outnumbered attacks against Muslims.

In any case, the actual number of reported hate crimes based on religion is quite small. In a county that has more than 10 million highly diverse residents, only a total of 131 crimes based on religion took place in all of 2009. Of course, this in no way takes away from the emotional or physical harm that each and every one of these attacks causes.

Since only 3 percent of 131 hate crimes during 2009 was directed against Muslims, it's difficult to understand why city leaders would pass a resolution that zeroes in on the category that has the next-to-lowest numbers recorded by the County's Human Relations
Commission.

It appears that the City Council simply took information provided by an advocacy group, one that's hardly unbiased, and uncritically spat out a resolution opposing "Islamophobia" and "random acts of violence against Muslim-Americans."

This begs the question: Except for some Islam-hating cretins with sub-zero levels of intelligence, exactly who is in favor of random acts of violence against Muslims?

The term "Islamophobia" has crept into popular use, drummed into our consciousness by a sensationalized Time magazine cover story, and activists who exaggerate anti-Islamic bias for the causes they espouse. The term dominated the often angry debates that swirled around the plan to build a mosque 600 feet from Ground Zero in New York. While there are extremists at both the left and right ends of the political spectrum, the issues surrounding this controversial building project are far more complex than anti-Islamic bigotry.

Factually, there is no alarming number of attacks against Muslim-Americans. According to the FBI, the largest number of recorded hate crimes against Muslim-Americans took place in 2001. That year the number dramatically escalated from only 28 in 2000 to 481 in 2001 - the year that young Muslim men drove planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field outside of Shanksville, Pa., murdering 3,000 innocent Americans in the name of Islam.

Prior to the City Council resolution, the Muslim Public Affairs Council released a statement expressing skepticism about tactics used by law enforcement among Muslim-Americans. The statement referenced the recent and troubling incident where the FBI says a young Somali man in Portland, Ore., plotted to blow up a public Christmas tree lighting ceremony. The MPAC statement also mentioned a similar case in Baltimore, where the FBI says a Muslim convert planned to bomb a military recruitment center in that city.

This statement from MPAC is in effect a thinly veiled claim that government agents entrapped these wannabe-terrorists. But as we have discovered, this young man's dilemma in Portland was hardly entrapment - in fact, as we know, his father called the FBI to let them know about his son's growing jihadist views. Nonetheless, the claims from MPAC and other Islamic activists groups were taken seriously enough to cause a response from the nation's attorney general. Eric Holder gave a 20-minute speech in San Francisco at the annual dinner event of Muslim Advocates, an Islamic civil rights group....

| 10 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

10 Comments

Hmm

The article was fairly even-handed, even pointing out that there was a rationalization for a jump in anti-muslim bias crimes (was there really though? or were they just reported more?) in 2001 after 9/11.

But they didn't mention who or what is behind the wildly disproportionate anti-Jewish hate crimes. Dollars to doughnuts it's Muslims, the hands-down champions of whining and crying victim.

Oh the irony.

Let's run the numbers:

.03 x 131 = 4 "attacks"

Chances that any given anti-Muslim "attack" is a self-inflicted ruse: at least 50%.

0.5 x 4 = 2

2 attacks against Muslims. And based on passed experience, it's possible that at least one of those 2 was by some idiot who thought he was attacking a Sikh or Jew or something.

No matter how you slice it, it's just more professional victimhood mongering..

I'ts about time the L.A. City Council addressed the issue of predatory gangs of white conservatives terrorizing the local Muslim community. How does that gang colors thing work? Red for Rush,,Blue for Beck?

"...random acts of violence against Muslims."

It never ceases to amaze me that the above expression is never used when it's the Muslims using violence. The acts of violence must not be "random" but deliberate.

Goob wrote:

The article was fairly even-handed
........................

I agree, Goob. Despite the questionable assertion about a post-9/11 spike in anti-Muslim 'hate crimes', the Los Angeles Daily News story was excellent.

Here's how MPAC itself treats the story:

"Spread the Word: Los Angeles City Council Passes Resolution on Pluralism"

"Last Wednesday, the Los Angeles City Council differentiated themselves as national and international leaders. In a popular climate of xenophobia, the LA City Council unanimously passed a resolution that clearly admonished Islamophobia and affirmed America’s long standing tradition of pluralism and respect for diversity."

MPAC had the clueless and ever-hopeful "interfaith community" at the ready:

"The Progressive Jewish Alliance, MPAC’s main partners in advocating for this resolution in addition to a number of Interfaith Allies and organizations such as Progressive Christian’s Uniting, AllSaints Pasadena, NewGround fellowship alumni, and California Faith for Equality, all joined MPAC in showing their support for the resolution at the City Council meeting when the vote took place.

The resolution is significant because it puts Los Angeles in forefront of leadership, clearly articulating support for American values of pluralism and speaking against Islamophobia."

Now "speaking against 'Islamophobia'" is *an American value*. sarc/off

http://www.mpac.org/issues/islamophobia/spread-the-word-los-angeles-city-council-passes-resolution-on-pluralism.php

Here's the meretricious Eboo Patel—check the JW archives for more on him—chiming in in the Washington Post:

"After a summer of intolerance, LA leads the way"

"I used to get invited to speak with powerful people all over the world - government officials in Europe, university administrators in India, royals in the Middle East, about how America is a country where so many people of different religions live together in relative peace and trust.

After the madness of this past summer and fall ("Ground Zero Mosque," Shariah in Oklahoma), my guess is I might be invited back only to be laughed at."

Of course, I hope he *would* be laughed at, but not for the reasons he here implies. He goes on in the article to allege that anyone who has problems with Shari'ah being adopted in America hates Muslims.

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2010/12/los_angeles_leads_the_way.html#more

"It's about time the L.A. City Council addressed the issue of predatory gangs of white conservatives terrorizing the local Muslim community"

Whaaaaat? Provide proof, please. Waiting.

I suspect zardog was being sarcastic, myself.

I clicked on the link and read the original article, in order to discover the authors:

Joe R. Hicks and David A. Lehrer.

We are informed by the L A Daily News that "Joe Hicks is vice president of Community Advocates and host of PJTV's "Hicks File." David Lehrer is president of Community Advocates."

Kudos to Mr Hicks and Mr Lehrer for exercising their commonsense, and kudos to the LA Daily News for publishing what they had to say.

I advise American jihadwatchers - especially Californian jihadwatchers - to write appreciative Letters to the Editor of the LA Daily News, commending them for publishing this piece and allowing Mr Hicks and Mr Lehrer to have their say.

You might also like to contact Mr Hicks and Mr Lehrer themselves, and thank them.

You could refer them to 'Lorna Saltzman's Test for Islamophobia', a hilarious satirical pop quiz, usefully publicised by Dr Phyllis Chesler:

http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/08/26/are-you-an-islamophobe/
PHYLLIS CHESLER: CHESLER CHRONICLES - August 26th, 2009 10:17 am
'Are You An Islamophobe? - Take This Test To Be Sure'.

You could also send them each a copy of Mr Hugh Fitzgerald's 'Islamophobia? Really?'.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/fitzgerald-islamophobia-really.html

Send them the links for David Thompson's two incisive pieces which simply *skewer* Muslim grievance theatre:

1. It's OK to Dislike Islam

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2007/03/intimidation_re.html

and 'The Passive-Aggressive Jihad'

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2007/03/the_passiveaggr.html

Oh My God, it's like there's nowhere on the Planet left to live without Islam anymore. I hope these Muslims realize we may be forced to kill them to escape Islam when it becomes un avoidable to rid ourselves from suicide bombings and all the other nonsense that comes with Islam.

I guess you're right.

But with all the BS I hear from the mouths' of both Muslims and their Apologists it's easy to take that as a straightforward assertion.

Leave a Comment

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.

Site Meter