Reverend Terry Jones Back In Dearborn

Just like the perpetual penny, the Reverend Terry Jones is back in Dearborn. Yesterday he spoke and then tried to walk to the Arab Festival. His walk was interrupted by protesters who attacked him as he made his way down the public streets wearing a bullet proof vest. 

Welcome to Dearbornistan.  In this suburban Detroit suburb known for the headquarters of Ford Motor Company, the largest group of Arabs outside the Middle East live.  Want to see what a burka looks like, go to Dearborn. Want to know what it is like to live in the Middle East, go to Dearborn.  Want to see politicians falling all over themselves to appease Muslims, go to Dearborn.

Now, as I have said previously in these blogs, Reverend Jones is not my cup of tea and I definitely do not agree with  him or his tactics. However, when one looks at the reception he has received in Dearborn, it scares me. Where has our ability to accept others gone?  Is this any different than Europe where Muslims are catered to and allowed to do things that others are not?

One of the strengths of this country has been the ability of people of varying religions to get along. It is sort of  "you have your religion, your native country, or your political beliefs and I have mine, just leave me alone and I will do the same." In this way Protestants and Catholics could live next door even though they would have been shooting each other in Ireland.  Pakistanis and Indians can live next door to each other, work together and have none of the problems that exist in their native countries.  This ability to accept the others in this country, has been unique in human history. Nowhere on earth does this occur but here.

So when I see the City of Dearborn prevent Reverend Jones from speaking--as he was last month (regardless of how anti Jones the populace might be) and see him physically attacked on the street--as he was yesterday. I am wondering if we are not losing something very special, that ability to accept others. 

On the other hand, one has to look at the combatants in this issue.  There is Christianity (which before the Reformation was very violent) and Islam which is now violent.  Now, I am sure there will be some who read this blog who will disagree with the violent issue, however, one only has to look around the world to see where violence is occurring (including 9/11) to see that Muslims have been involved in most of these actions.

Islam definitely is on the rise and its leaders are not afraid of killing, maiming, silencing,  or threatening its enemies.  Just look at the Muhammad cartoons and the world wide reaction to them including the newspapers in this country who refused to publish them in fear of reprisal. This my friends is scary.  When our freedom of speech is diminished, we all lose.

So I support Reverend Jones and his ability to speak, to tell the world what he thinks is going on and to freely walk the streets of Dearborn. I may disagree with him, his actions, or his words, but he has every right to peacefully express his opinions. If that right goes way for him, when will you or I no longer be able to express our thoughts?

Jerry Jones in Dearborn--An Update

Yes, I know that it occurred last weekend (April 29), however, my son graduated on Saturday and I was tied up with relatives during the weekend so I did not get to address the Jones Speech in Dearborn. What occurred is what I felt would happen. 700 angry protesters were on one side of Michigan Avenue and Reverend Jones was on the other side in front of the Dearborn City Hall with his 50 or so supporters.  Only once during the speech did the protesters come across the street and police in riot gear had to intervene. According to reports, a couple people were arrested (not Jones this time). There were no riots and property destruction was very limited.  So all in all, it was a success for both sides.  Jones got his free speech rights supported and the protesters were able to express their disdain for his opinions.

So, what do I think?  Well, first of all Reverend Jones has the right under the Constitution to speak his mind and that right should never be restricted by a City, State or Federal government edict. I think the "trial" he was forced to undergo during his first visit to Dearborn was wrong.  And lastly, I fear that he might have a point when it comes to Sharia Law in this country.

Item one. We have seen and heard reports of the  "honor killing" defense being employed by Muslim defendants in murder cases. To my knowledge (if you know different, please enlighten me) none of the killers have successfully employed this tactic.  However, I sure sometime in the future, someone will.

Item two. In business, if two Muslims have a disagreement and wanted to settle their claim against each other using Sharia, would I oppose?  Probably so.  My rationale would be that this is the United States and we settle our claims in US courts, using US laws and not any other courts.  Otherwise, it would be a slippery slope.

The natural extension of the above question is, what happens when a Muslim and Non-Muslim (aka Dimi) are in a business or other conflict and the Muslim wants Sharia Law to settle the case?  Will the courts allow this?  (If it happens in Dearborn, I am sure they would.)  Under Sharia Law the Muslim has superior rights to the one not of that faith, so this would not be fair to the Non-Muslim, who would lose.

In the United States we presume to have the right to have our case heard in court by a judge or by a jury of our peers.  We would not have the same right under Sharia Law. So in my, not so humble, opinion, ANY use of Sharia Law in our court system will erode it and will eventually result in the very destruction of our system of laws.

What occurred in Dearborn over the past three weeks is only the start. The city with its large Muslim community is the incubator for the Sharia movement.  Demands by its Muslim citizens are agreed to without disagreement. This only encourages the Muslim leaders to demand more and more from the city fathers.

In the past two years, Christians handing out literature on a sidewalk outside the Arab Festival  have been arrested. In both cases, Dearborn lost the case in trial, however, this should have occurred in the first place. How long will it be before the city wins a case.  What will be the chilling effect of that win?

If America is to maintain its system of laws and  the rights of its citizens, Sharia Law must be defeated.  Jerry Jones may not be your favorite preacher but he pointed out the issue, are we alert enough to understand it?

We welcome your comments.

Will Dearborn Pay For Its Miscarriage Of Justice

Reverend Terry Jones is changing his tactic from talking about Sharia Law in Dearborn to the First Amendment.  Is this smart or is he an opportunist? On both questions the answer is yes.  He is smart enough to realize that Dearborn grossly over reacted to his visit and he is lucky that the City was so stupid and ham handed in handling him.

In today's Detroit News (reproduced below), reporter Oralandar Brand-Williams, talks about the change in tactic by the Florida cleric.  I do not know this reporter, however, his last paragraph is  chilling. He writes:

"Redford resident Richard Fournier, who attended the first day of Jones' and Sapp's trial, says he doesn't believe their constitutional rights were violated because their protest could have created a disturbance and possibly a riot."

What? Their constitutional rights were not violated because their protest might caused a riot or disturbance?  I don't know where this reporter (and his source) gets his information but in this country we do not charge people with a crime for something that might happen. By ending the story in this way, the reporter (and his editor) are telling us their point of view. So much for balanced journalism!

The really scary part of the story is that Mr. Fournier could sit in a trial and know so little about American government to make such an ill-informed statement. Is Mr. Fournier an example of the education level of our public or is he an outlier? Unfortunately, I think that he is our star pupil and not one on the outside looking in.

What is your opinion?
 
Here is the Detroit News article:



.Jones: Return to Dearborn is 'battle to protect the First Amendment'

Oralandar Brand-Williams / The Detroit News

Detroit— Controversial Florida pastor Terry Jones told The Detroit News on Saturday that he plans to file a lawsuit against the Wayne County Prosecutor's office and other government entities in connection with his arrest Friday and the case the prosecutor filed against him in connection with his planned protest outside the Islamic Center of America.

"We were arrested for something we had not done," said Jones today from Detroit Metro Airport as he prepared to go back home to Gainesville, Florida.

"I was totally shocked. I could not believe it," Jones said of his arrest. "Even the police who put the handcuffs on us were shocked."

Jones said he is working with the Ann Arbor-based Thomas More Law Center to file the lawsuit for violation of his Free Speech rights. The Thomas More Law Center is nationally known conservative Christian law center noted for its religion-based First Amendment case. The law firm filed a suit against the City of Dearborn last year. That case involved alleged violation of the constitutional rights of Christian missionaries jailed by police at the city's International Arab Festival. The missionaries sought to pass out literature but police said they could only do so in a certain area of the massive event.

Constitution expert Robert Sedler said he is glad to see Jones is challenging the "bizarre" ruling by Dearborn District Court Judge Mark Somers.

"The Supreme Court says you cannot deny a permit because of the message," said Sedler, a Wayne State University Law School professor. "The U.S. Constitutional supersedes everything, which is why this is so bizarre."

Jones is coming back to Dearborn on Friday.

He said he will hold the demonstration at 5 p.m. Friday outside Dearborn City Hall. He says he wants to stay within the confines of the law. Jones said the issue has now shifted from "radical Islam" to a battle to protect the First Amendment.

"We're getting support from all around America," said Jones.

Jones and his associate pastor, Wayne Sapp, were briefly jailed Friday for refusing to post a $1 bond requested by Judge Somers after a six-member jury found that Jones and Sapp would likely create a "breach of the peace" if they were to go along with their demonstration outside the mosque on Good Friday.

Jones and Wyatt bonded themselves out of jail shortly after their arrests. Jones said Friday that he and Sapp "made it very, very clear that we posted this under the greatest protest,"

Jones said the "whole proceedings, were a definite violation of our Constitutional rights."

Legal observers said the judge's actions were unusual but Somers had followed the letter of the law."

The Wayne County Prosecutor's office had no comment on Jones plans to sue.

Redford resident Richard Fournier, who attended the first day of Jones' and Sapp's trial, says he doesn't believe their constitutional rights were violated because their protest could have created a disturbance and possibly a riot.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110424/METRO/104240314/Jones--Return-to-Dearborn-is-‘battle-to-protect-the-First-Amendment’#ixzz1KSTGZ4B0

Freedom of Speech Crushed in Dearborn

One of the major tenants of our Constitution was crushed under the weight of "people not wanting to upset others" justice.  If this type of justice continues to be administered, our rights to speak out, to write, to blog, to express our opinions will be dramatically restricted.

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?

Freedom of Speech verses Freedom of Religion Part II

This morning after reading over last night's posting, I realized there was an additional comment that I should make.  Regardless of the vileness of someone's speech, the very act of restricting that speech is damaging to all of our speech rights. We cannot have a free society when we limit someone else's speech.  This has to be the premise that the decision in Dearborn has to be made. If not, all of our free speech rights will be impacted.

The problem of limiting speech is that we do not know whom is the "all-knowing arbiter" of what is and what is not right.  What is disgusting and degrading to me, might be just your way of talking.  What causes me discomfort, could be normal for you. No two people look at the world through the same prism.  Our experiences, upbringing, and view of the world, colors how we interpret things.  Therefore, it is imperative that few limits (yelling fire in a crowded theatre, for example) should be placed on our freedom.

I believe the Skokie, Illinois issue mentioned last night is a great example of how free speech rights must be granted even to the most disgusting of our fellow citizens.  The last thing the Jewish population wanted was a Nazi Party parade down the very streets of their town. However, the Nazis had the right to express their opinions,  using their free speech rights.  Although I detest the Nazis and everything they stand for, I will stand by them and their right to express their ideas until my dying breath. You see, if I do not,  my own rights to say and yes to blog my opinion, very possibly could be impacted. Someone might not like what I said or wrote and would want me banned, fined, imprisoned or worse.  Where would have my rights gone?

There is an old joke in Russia. It goes like this.  An American and Russian are speaking about their relative freedoms in each country.  The American brags about his right to go to the White House and call the President all sorts of names, asserts that his mother and father were not married and nothing will happen to him.  The Russian says that he has the same rights. He can go to the Politburo and call the President of the United States all sorts of names and assert that his mother and father were not married and he will be given a medal.

Although the Russian said he had the same right as we do in the United States, he did not. If you talk to Russian emigres you will hear stories about the fear of saying the wrong thing to the wrong person. The fear of speaking your mind for the retribution would be great. I do not want that to happen here.

The freedom of speech is one of the bedrocks of the United States.  Should we lose it, have it minimized in any way, how long will it be before the other freedoms will be lost?  

So getting back to Dearborn.  Although Reverend Jones does not speak for me (nor I for him), I believe that he has the right to speak there. I do not think that he should have to post any "peace bond" to cover the cost of any riots that might occur for I doubt that he will start the riot.

As far as the Muslim population goes, my advice would be to ignore the  Reverend.  He speech will not endanger your rights as American citizens to worship as you wish.  Ignore him, don't give him an audience, go about your daily business as if he did not exist. Any attention given him will only encourage him.

The City of Dearborn should be on call but should keep a low key. The more attention you give both sides of this tinderbox will not be positive. Have the police available to step in, but only to act if violence occurs.  Hold both sides  equally responsible for any damage that does occur. 

However, my prognostication is that today the Court in Dearborn will tell the Reverend that he must post a bond before speaking, the Reverend will say no, tomorrow he will speak  in front of the Islamic Center and will be arrested for speaking without a permit.  When he is released several hours later after posting bail, I am afraid that Muslims will take to the street and demand severe punishment for his disrespect to their religion.

I sincerely hope that everyone will follow my "sage" advice, however, I am not hopeful.  If they do it will be a victory for freedom of speech, if not, we all will lose.

Freedom of Religion verses Freedom of Speech

Does someone have the right to protest anywhere he desires or can a City restrict the right to freedom of speech?  Can someone whose speech is despicable to another person, still have the right to talk?  Can some one's religion have rights that exceed another person's right of speech.  Those are the questions facing Dearborn, Michigan and Reverend Terry Jones.

Reverend Terry Jones is the minister who threatened to burn the Quran and is now threatening to do a protest on Friday in Dearborn, Michigan.  The City of Dearborn has refused to give him a permit to do the protest in front of the Islamic Center but has offered him a couple "free speech" locations, one of which is in front of City Hall. Should he accept the offer or continue with his protest?  That is the question.

Both freedom  of speech and religion are guaranteed by the Constitution and in the past have been in conflict. For example, the American Nazi party was given a permit to march through Skokie, Illinois, a predominately Jewish neighborhood. 

There are many, including Reverend Jones, who feel the Islamic movement throughout the world is the greatest challenge to freedoms of the western world. Should he be able protest wherever he wants regardless of the freedom of religion.

This issue is contentious due to the conflict of these two rights and the very nature of Dearborn which has the largest Arab population outside of the Middle East as well as a very large Muslim community.(Not all Arabs are Muslim, some are Christians.)  Additionally, last year Christians handing out religious materials during the Arab Festival were arrested even though they were outside the festival grounds, were on a sidewalk and were only talking to those who approached them. Additionally, their video camera was seized which backed up their contentions. Their trial resulted in a non-guilty verdict.  So, the City of Dearborn does not come to this event with clean hands.

The burning of ANY book regardless of the nature of that book is horrendous and should never be allowed nor should it be celebrated in any way.  A book should rise or fall on its own merit or lack thereof.  Therefore, I  am very disturbed by the threat of burning the Quran that Reverend Jones made.  So, neither does Reverend Jones come to this fight with the high moral ground.

To complicate things, there are Churches down the street from the Islamic Center. If the protest goes on as Reverend Jones has threatened on Friday, it would interrupt the churches Good  Friday services.  Now it starts effecting others.

In most situations in life, there is a lot of gray in between the white and black that makes up our days. This case is the same. Which way should the situation be resolved?

My opinion is that the Reverend should be given a permit to do his "show." If not, in front of the Islamic Center, somewhere within a  block or two.  This would allow him to have his "speech rights" protected in the proximity of the Islamic Center which he feels is vile.  At the same time, it would not be shoving the protest into the faces of the Muslims who might go to the Center.  Lastly, the churches down the street would not be effected.

Now is this a satisfactory result? I doubt that anyone associated with this case will be happy.  But in the end, the the freedom of speech would have been preserved as well as the freedom of religion.  I think that this is the best we can accomplish.  What do you think?

I have attached a copy of the latest from the Detroit News. It is the latest on the situation.


.Dearborn denies permit, says Quran-burning minister could face arrest

Oralandar Brand-Williams / The Detroit News

Dearborn — Dearborn denied a permit Wednesday for Quran-burning Pastor Terry Jones' planned protest outside the Islamic Center of America on Good Friday.

Jones could be arrested if he goes ahead with the protest outside the mosque without a permit, said city spokeswoman Mary Laundroche. She added that the permit had been denied for "public safety reasons."

Jones said he had not received notification that the permit had been turned down but that he was undeterred.

Jones is due in 19th District Court in Dearborn on Thursday to answer prosecutors' claims that his demonstration could cause a riot and demands he post a "peace bond" to cover police costs.

Dearborn officials said Jones can still demonstrate at one of two "free speech zones," including City Hall. Before denying the permit, city officials expressed concern about public safety, traffic and disruptions to nearby churches.

Jones isn't likely to relent. He's said for weeks that he plans to demonstrate outside the Ford Road mosque with or without a permit. Earlier today, Jones said the mosque is the ideal site for his protest against "radical Islam" and Sharia, or Islamic, law.

"There is no place better than there to present this message," said Jones, the pastor of the Dove World Outreach center in Gainesville, Fla.

Jones said he is planning to bring a pistol to protect himself in case of violence, but has no plans to burn an Islamic holy book.

"We are coming there totally in peace," said Jones, who said he will be joined by several other people including a rabbi.

Earlier today, Dearborn Mayor John B. O'Reilly Jr. released a copy of an "open letter" he wrote to Jones in a last-ditch effort to persuade him to cancel his protest.

In the three-page letter released to the media, O'Reilly urged Jones to conduct his demonstration at one of the city's "free speech zones." O'Reilly also questioned the logic of protesting Sharia in Dearborn.

"Our commitment to the Constitution is unwavering, not merely convenient, which makes your hyperbole about Sharia Law being practiced in the courts or civil law of Dearborn nonsensical," O'Reilly wrote. "So, you are coming to protest against an imaginary threat that doesn't exist in our community. Not in our courts, not at our City Hall, not on our streets and not in any of our places of worship."

The mayor also pointed out to Jones that several churches in the vicinity of the mosque will be conducting Good Friday services and Jones' protest outside the mosque will be disruptive to their traffic as well.

"The members of the Christian churches on Altar Road asked me last week if they should cancel their Good Friday services because of your planned visit. I assured them that they should not because the Constitution does not allow you to violate their rights. I don't know why you selected Good Friday but it wasn't very considerate of the significant Christian services being held at that time. I assure you that you will not make them forfeit their services," O'Reilly wrote.

bwilliams@detnews.com

(313) 222-2027

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110420/METRO01/104200413/Dearborn-denies-permit--says-Quran-burning-minister-could-face-arrest#ixzz1K726ABm7