As December came to a close, the media and the Obama Department of Justice reported on a case of a “hate crime” in the form of a “Koran burning” and anti-Mislim graffiti at a mosque in Springfield, Missouri. Unfortunately, it seems both the media and the Obama administration forgot to mention that the apparent purpose for the attack was based in criticism of Islam coming from gays.
On December 29 the Department of Justice put out a press release breathlessly reporting that a man in Springfield, Missouri, “Pleads Guilty to Defacing Islamic Center and Burning the Qur’an.”
Adam David Smock, 23, was arrested for spray-painting graffiti and burning the Muslim holy book at the Islamic Center of Springfield back in January of 2011, and this December he pleaded guilty to the charges.
Announcing the deal, the DOJ noted that Smock pleaded guilty to “conspiracy to oppress, threaten and intimidate worshippers at the Islamic Center of Springfield in the free exercise and enjoyment of their constitutional right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs.”
The DOJ reported the incident, saying that Smock’s “graffiti included explicit and offensive language in addition to such statements as ‘Bash Back,’ ‘Now is our time!’ and ‘You bash us in Pakistan we bash here.'”
The media followed the DOJ’s template and reported the incident strictly as a “hate crime” based solely on anti-Islamic sentiment. Outlets such as UPI, Reuters, and local media such as the Springfield News-Leader, and Springfield’s KY3 News all followed suit with the DOJ’s story line.
But as Eugene Volokh noted at The Washington Post, the story is being misreported.
The whole story about the “graffiti,” for instance, is not being told because the true ideological basis for the graffiti hasn’t been reported properly. As it happens, the anti-Islamic graffiti is not simply just anti-Islamic, but also pro-homosexual. The purpose of the graffiti is to criticize Islam for its mistreatment of gays.
As Volokh reports, the actual, full text of the graffiti tells a slightly enhanced story. According to court documents, the graffiti contais the following:
(i) “Allahu Fuckbar;” (ii) “Queer insurrection;” (iii) “It’s okay to be gay!” (iv) “Now is our time!” (v) “Bash Back;” (vi) “You bash us in Pakistan we bash here;” (vii) “Allah was gay;” (viii) “[illegible] unite;” (ix) “Satanic trans” (with circle around Star of David above); (x) “Fuck straights;” and (xi) “Bash Back lives.”
The latter bit–the “Bash Back lives” part–is of particular interest because it is a reference to a militant pro-gay group whose aim is to attack “gay bashers.”
What we have in this case is a militant gay attacking Islam. So, why has the homosexual agenda aspect of this case gone unreported?
Volokh also notes that the claims that burning the Koran was “vandalism” also don’t pass the smell test because the activists brought their own Korans. Apparently they didn’t steal the books from the Mosque. It should amount to free speech when you destroy your own book.
Volokh also seems to hint that there is an agenda to hide the facts from the public. And others are even more positive that this was the Obama administration’s goal.
In fact, the reporting has been so misleading that Professor Mike Rappaport thinks it might be purposefully misleading.
Rappaport, a Darling Foundation Professor of Law at the University of San Diego, says that purposefully misreporting the incident serves two ideological purposes for the PC Obama regime.
It seems to me there are two possible explanations for leaving out all of the clear gay references. First, it is possible that the Justice Department did not want to publicize that (some) Muslims are anti-gay and that gays groups are concerned about it. Second, it is possible that the Justice Department did not want to publicize that a gay activist group was engaged in anti-Muslim vandalism, because it reflects badly on (some) gays.
Why would the Justice Department have these motivations? One possibility is that both groups – gays and Muslims – appear to be part of the Democratic coalition and the Democrats seek to protect their coalition groups. Another possibility is that it better fits the typical Democratic narrative to suggest an unidentified individual engaged in anti-Muslim vandalism rather than to reveal an incident of gays objecting to Muslim anti-gay attitudes.
Regardless of the underlying reasoning, the Obama Department of Justice and the media have completely misreported the facts in this case.
Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston or email the author at firstname.lastname@example.org