Thomas Perez
Asst. Attorney General
This week, Justice Department Asst. Attorney General Thomas Perez testified before a House Constitution Committee. Perez is one of Eric Holder's top henchmen in DOJ and is a driving force behind many of the Department's questionable activities. In this exchange, Trent Franks (R-AZ) asked him about whether DOJ would consider any legislation against speech critical of any religion. Vlad Tepes has posted Perez's lack of a response.
http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=50919
Of course, this exchange comes in light of efforts by the 56-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the largest voting bloc in the UN, to have a resolution passed that would call on all nations to criminalize speech that "defames" religion. Of course, the OIC really only cares about one religion since many, if not most, if not all of their own countries persecute religious minorities (which goes way beyond "defaming").
To our American ears, this would seem laughable given our First Amendment. Yet, with this current administration and Justice Department in office, Perez's previous endorsement of the OIC agenda (see link), as well as the fact that Hillary Clinton has already held two closed-door meetings with the OIC on this very issue, it seems that Rep. Franks' question is pertinent. I should add that Rep. Franks is one of the few in Washington who has spoken out on these dangers.
Perez, in typical Holder DOJ fashion, is evasive and cannot answer a simple yes or no question. He knows exactly what the issue is. I take his evasion as further proof that this administration and this Justice Department would love to find a way to silence their opposition.
Dial 911 Gary. Trent is correct, Perez should be fired. However, Trent should have asked, "Is there any basis consonant with the First Amendment's free speech clause on which the government of the United States COULD ever consider criminalizing speech critical of any religion."
ReplyDeleteAnd then he could have cited the Supreme Court case about the right of Jehovah's Witnesses to go door to door playing recordings of denunciations of the Roman Catholic Church.
Of course, the OIC might cite Justice Robert Jackson's dissent, which sounded reasonable at the time... the Witnesses were engaged in vicious provocative speech at people's front doors, municipalities have broad police powers to control such speech...
The First Amendment is what it is. Have a little more confidence in our Constitution.