Criticizing religion may become a crime

Radical Islam has this worrisome news:

While testifying to the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez refused to say that the US would never advance a proposal that criminalizes the right to free speech in regards to criticizing religion.
When asked over and over again by Representative Trent Frank, a Republican from Arizona: "Will you tell us here today that this Administration's Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?", Perez balked at answering any such question.
Here's the background:
For ten years, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) pushed for a United Nations resolution to make defamation of religion a criminal offense. The Saudi-based, 57-member group’s purpose was to make an international law that would criminalize freedom of speech and freedom of expression when it comes to matters deemed critical of or offensive to Islam or Muslims. Standards for the resolution were (naturally) drawn from Islamic, or Shari'a, law.
In March of 2011, the OIC finally got their way (partially) when the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted by “consensus”, but without a vote, Resolution 16/18. The resolution is entitled Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping, and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.
Although the resolution doesn't mention any religion in particular, it's intention remains that of the OIC: to curb criticism of Islam. The resolution is part of the so-called Istanbul Process, an aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam.
The Obama administration fully supported the resolution, whose mandate also calls for “a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings, searches, and other law enforcement investigative procedures.”
Putting its full weight with the OIC, in December of 2011, the State Department and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hosted a closed-door conference in Washington entitled Expert Meeting on Implementing the U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18. The purpose of the conference was to establish international standards for criminalizing "intolerance, negative stereotyping, and stigmatization of… religion and belief."
Recognizing that the resolution has no weight unless backed by the West, OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu praised the role played by the Obama administration in adopting the resolution: “I particularly appreciate the kind, personal interest of Secretary Clinton and the role played by the US towards the consensual adoption of the resolution.”
The European Union was quick to jump on the bandwagon and offer the next international summit on the subject. According to OIC's Ihsanoglu, the EU’s recent offer to host the next summit  represents a “qualitative shift in action against the phenomenon of Islamophobia”, according to the International Islamic News Agency (IINA), the OIC’s official news and propaganda organ.
The Assistant Attorney General’s refusal to answer Representative Frank's question, which would guarantee Americans their constitutional right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, is a reflection of where this international resolution is heading.

Rico says that, if criticizing any religion becomes a crime, he's doomed. (And as for 'intolerance, negative stereotyping, and stigmatization' of religion, if only they didn't make it so fucking easy...)