Last night, a jury determined that Reverend Terry Jones would have to post a "peace" bond so as to speak in front of the Islamic Center in Dearborn, Michigan. The judge reduced the bond to $1. The Reverend refused to pay and was sent to jail. He was later released after the bond was paid. That is the story up to now.
However, as Paul Harvey used to say, now for the rest of the story. Questions abound, some that immediately come to mind are: Why was he in court in the first place, before anything happened? Why did the judge have a jury trial? Why did the Reverend represent himself in court, without an attorney? How did the jury decide that he had to file a peace bond, in case of violence?
As I have said before, I believe that Dearborn is totally incorrect in their actions. Reverend Jones was arrested upon his arrival in Detroit, before any event had occurred. Is this pre-emptive justice? Since when can police arrest you by saying you are going to do something. The only exception is if you threaten to do bodily harm to others or yourself. This was not the case so where does Dearborn come off acting in this way?
During the Civil Rights era, cities tried to imprison and to fine leaders of the movement. Those actions did not stand up then and neither should this travesty now.
Ironically, the actions of the City of Dearborn illustrate what Reverend Jones was saying better than his words ever could. The city is composed of a significant number of Muslims (the largest outside the Middle East) and therefore the city fathers are sensitive to the Muslim issue. So, to placate the populace, the City took "decisive" but illegal actions against the Reverend. The Judge did not want to sound anti-Muslim, so he called for a jury trial. The police arrested Reverend Jones as he arrived before he could utter a single word.
The same type of actions occur everywhere in the West when Muslims cry they are being discriminated against. The powers to be act to "protect" them at every turn until Muslim power is so strong that government can do nothing about it. For example,there are parts of cities in France where the police will not go as the Muslims control the area and will attack the police regardless of the crime that was committed. So, do we want this for the United States? I do not think so.
The United States is different from most countries in the world. We have a strong Constitution that gives all o citizens certain rights. We must not give these rights away to placate a population of immigrants who have not embraced American ideals.
Rarely can I say this, but even the American Civil Rights Union (ACLU) are opposed to the actions taken by the City of Dearborn, its Mayor, its Judge and its police department. This is such an extreme case that conservatives can agree with the ACLU! That should be clear as it gets.
Dearborn should pay and it should pay dearly for this miscarriage of justice. It violated a man's right to speak, to assembly and to be free from governmental interference with his life. His arrest violated all three of these provisions of our Constitution. If these actions are allowed to stand, can any one's rights be safe?