Yesterday, Judge Mark Somers (the same judge whose blunder got Negeen convicted) put a price tag on Freedom of Speech. Pastor Terry Jones would have to post a "peace bond" ($100,000, according to Jones) in order to hold his planned protest against Sharia in Dearborn. When Jones refused to pay the bond, Judge Somers declared that Jones would have to face a jury. The jury decided that a protest outside America's largest mosque would be likely to "breach the peace." Thus, Jones is not allowed to hold a protest on public property outside the Islamic Center of North America.
Jones has repeatedly stated that he will protest there regardless of the court's decision. Hence, if police make the mistake of enforcing the court's ruling, Pastor Jones and Pastor Wayne Sapp will be the fifth and sixth persons arrested in Dearborn and sent to jail for exercising their Constitutionally protected free speech rights in Dearborn.
I feel a video coming on . . .
***UPDATE*** Just when you thought Dearborn couldn't make a bigger mistake, Judge Somers ordered Jones and Sapp to be taken to jail (since they each refused to post a $1 bond).
***UPDATE*** Jones and Sapp each posted their $1 bond and were released.
Total and utter contempt for the Constitution!
I have made a video abiut Sharia and Dearborn @ http://knowthetruthaboutislam.blogspot.com/2011/04/mayor-of-dearborn-has-decided-there.html
I hope this one goes all the way to the supreme court. don't agree with some of Jones's tatics but his rights to speak freely are certianly being denied by the Shariah police of Dearborn and Ayatollah O'Reilly.
Free speech is one of the greatest freedoms Americans' possess. It absolutely must be preserved. Free speech is a bedrock of American society. What happened in Dearborn is unbelievable. It is wholly against the Constitution. The Pastors must be allowed to speak as they planned.
Jizyah, Jizyah and Jizyah!
Michigan is a Muslim state!
David, could you get your legal team or maybe The State Rep from MI who comments on the blog to explain what happened.
My understanding is that Pastor Jones was told that in order to get his petition to protest he would have put up cash money for a BOND.
My understanding there is nothing unusual about this, for instance concert promoters usually have to post 1 million dollars cash money to cover the cost of any damage that the city's insurance company will not cover.
Now this is used to prevent groups from protesting like the KKK and such, so I understand it was a tactic to keep him from getting a perment.
So he gets a jury trial to see if he has to pay and how much. He is ordered to pay again nothing unusual about this. But he is ordered to pay $1. My understanding that this $1 was the peace bond.
So Pastor Jones refused to pay it. No big deal, he doesnt get his permit to protest, if he shows up with out a permit then he is arrested for protesting with out a permit.
So then why was he arrested on the spot. That's what I don't get, he just refused to pay the bond for the permit to protest. At that point he hadn't committed any crime?
Please splain lucy splain
Here's what happened. The judge ruled that Jones couldn't hold the protest without paying a peace bond. Jones refused to pay the peace bond, but said he was going to hold the protest anyway. The jury ruled that if Jones held the protest, it would be a breach of peace. Since he declared that he was going to have the protest no matter what, the judge decided that Jones was declaring that he was going to break the law (by holding a protest that would breach the peace). And if you declare that you're going to break the law, police can lock you up.
Hi RM,, I would like to point out that you used a categorical fallacy in your reasoning, IOW comparing apples with carrots,,, not even apples and oranges.
I know your just trying to understanding things but please remember that holding a concert, which is a revenue making enterprise, is not an exercise of free speech and it is not a constitutionally protected action.
In my eyes, there are only two reasons that Jones protest would have been a breech of peace. 1. Too many Muslims in America are just doing what Muhammad did, becoming victorious through Terror or the threat thereof. 2. Dearborn is already Dearborn-istan and Sharia is already enforced there.
Pastor Jones went about this in the wrong way, he should have not burned the Koran, he should of just held his protest and asked all of the so called peaceful muslims to join him, then we could have seen how many muslims are really against radical islam. I personally would have loved to have seen that!
Well then his motives are not pure. He could of gotten his permit if he would of paid a dollar.
I know people think you have the right to just show up and assemble. The truth is you don't. You have to petition for that. Now to petition to assemle is a relatively simple and painless thing. But you have to take into considerations.
1. How long will assembly be.
You can not have a assembly last forever, and if it is more then a few hours you need to provide things. Like sanitation, (porta poties) food and water etc...
2. How many people are expected to show up at your assembly.
You can not have a 100 thousand people show up in a area that can only fit a thousand people.
3. Traffic, your assembly can not reasonably interferer with the normal traffic of the area, if it is then you need to pay and or compensate or show just cause for a parade, or street closers etc... Or it needs to be done on a day when traffic or access to business will not be hampered, most marches or parades happen on a Sunday or in a area when normal business is low.
4. Tempory structures, are you going to set up a stage. If so it needs to be inspected to insure that it is up to code and can support the weight you need. Are you going to have a sound system, or use electricity or plumbing, pyrotechnics(burn something) then this needs to be inspected to insure you dont electrocute or blow up or burn your self or others.
5. Security, if it is going to be a large gathering then security is a issue, will your organization provide security or will you expect the municipality to provide that extra security. This is wear the "Peace Bond" comes into play.
5. Insurance, what if something goes wrong, who is responsible, another area where the peace bond comes into play.
6. Availability and access to medical, what are you plans to deal with medical emergency's etc...
So when he was told all he had to do was pay a dollar for the "Peace Bond" and he refused then he was just being disingenuous and stubborn. Now I do not think he should of been arrested. I think he should of been arrested after he showed up to assemble with out a permit.
I think Jones methods are wrong, he should not have burned the Koran and he should have held his protest and invited all the so called PEACEFUL muslims to join him and see how many of them are against radical islam. I personally would have loved to see that!!
Nonsense. Jones wasn't asked to pay a $1 bond in order to have his rally across from the mosque. They ruled that he can't go near the mosque for three years. He had to pay the $1 bond as assurance that he wasn't going to protest at the mosque.
The government can only stop you from having a rally on public property if there's a very, very, very good reason. There's a giant field right across the street from the mosque. There's no valid reason he couldn't have had his protest there.
Bottom line: The government doesn't grant us the right to free speech. We already have the right. The Constitution prevents the government from interfering with our right. Terry Jones said he wanted to hold a protest on public property. Dearborn threw him in jail. That ain't kosher.
I say we all protest across the street from the Islamic Center!
Damon Whitsell said...
" I would like to point out that you used a categorical fallacy in your reasoning, IOW comparing apples with carrots,,, not even apples and oranges."
Actually your wrong on that, what you need to understand is that everything other then yourself is assembly whether it is in your own home or back yard or out in public.
Different states and comunites define a "Assembly" in different numbers. Some like Chicago define it as no more then 4 or 5 people. Not sure of the number, but it is a tool that anti gang uses. More then 4 or 5 people on a street corner with out a permit that is a iliigal assembly.
If you have a Assembly at your house, and your house is over capacity you can be shutdown. Unless you have a wavier or variance i.e a petition. Case in point there is a capacity allowance that is enforced in Chicago on the number of people allowed on a balcony or a back porch. This was in effect but is now enforced after the tragedy were a few people fell to their deaths while on a back porch.
All business fall under the right to assemble. Bars, Resteraunts, Best Buy, Walmart etc...Thats how police can shut down the craziness on black Friday. They should do it more then they do, but there doing it now more then they used to.
Also a few communities have variances in place that stores have to follow in order to have a black Friday sale event.
Either way you have the right to assemble, but you must meet the regulations of the state in order to assemble. Which is the domain of public safety and well being.
David, now you have even confused me more. First you said...
"Here's what happened. The judge ruled that Jones couldn't hold the protest without paying a peace bond. Jones refused to pay the peace bond, but said he was going to hold the protest anyway. The jury ruled that if Jones held the protest, it would be a breach of peace. Since he declared that he was going to have the protest no matter what, the judge decided that Jones was declaring that he was going to break the law (by holding a protest that would breach the peace). And if you declare that you're going to break the law, police can lock you up."
So he was ordered to pay the peace bond in order to get his petition, he should of payed it and went on to protest.
But then you said...
"Nonsense. Jones wasn't asked to pay a $1 bond in order to have his rally across from the mosque. They ruled that he can't go near the mosque for three years. He had to pay the $1 bond as assurance that he wasn't going to protest at the mosque."
So which is it it. Was he ordered to pay the $1 peace bond so he could protest he refused said he was going to protest anyway and was arrested for declaring he was going to break the law.
Or was he ordered to pay the peace bond as a assurance that he wouldn't protest?
The question is what was the dollar for? Was the dollar so that he could protest in the giant field across from the mosque as I thought you said in your first response to me. Or was it a bond to insure he would not go on the grounds of the Mosque?
"The government doesn't grant us the right to free speech. We already have the right."
Actually the government is to protect that right of free speech. But that right is to be weighed against the public safety and public good.
For instance unless there is a fire, you do not have the right to yell fire in a public theater.
The Federal government has and does, declare state secrets, it also can shut down news papers in time of war, and local judges can issue GAG orders.
Reporters can and are ordered to reveal there sources and ohh they do, after spending time in jail.
The right of property, and free enterprise, the government can and does shut that down. They can freeze wages, they can even freeze your job, meaning you can not look for a job at another company or in another field\industry.
They can take your land for the public good, even if it is not for public use, but if Walmart wants it Walmart gets it.
The government can and has declared that people do not exist.
Classic point area 51, back in the 90's Area 51 not only burned it's own toxic waist, but imported from other projects for disposal.
Workers got sick, developed cancers, doctor after doctor testified that they had been poisoned but with out knowing what they were exposed to it was impossible to treat them.
The Supreme Court ruled that basically, since Groom Lake (Area 51) did not exist then the people working there did not exist. So there was no way to determine what they were exposed to, since they were never exposed in the first place.
The state has the right.
I'm glad you're not making the rules. According to you, the state can say to anyone, "We've got a nice little area in the back of the woods where you can hold your protest. So you don't get to hold it here, where you can be seen."
Any idea why no one can stop the Westboro whackos, even though they're protesting outside the funerals of soldiers? The government can't stop them, because location is important to their protest. That is, the government can't say, "We've got this lovely spot on the other side of the city for you to protest."
Jones wanted to protest at a mosque, because he wanted to say something to Muslims. I have no clue how you're comparing (1) yelling in a private theater to incite a stampede, with (2) peacefully protesting on government property.
You were right about one thing. The government is supposed to protect our rights. The only response to Jones should have been, "How many officers do we need to protect you?"
"I'm glad you're not making the rules. According to you, the state can say to anyone, "We've got a nice little area in the back of the woods where you can hold your protest. So you don't get to hold it here, where you can be seen."
The state has and done just that. It has that power, a case in point. During Gulf War 1, there was some kind of pro war rally(to be honest I forget if it was a rally, or a speech by president Bush the First) either way there was a anti war demonstration, they petitioned got their petition, but it was several blocks away in a alley I believe. This area was fenced in, they were in a cage away from everyone.
As far as the Nut Cases from the West Burro Baptist Church are concerened. I have often wondered that myself. I can only say it is week judges, or that by nature a cementary is off the beaten path.
However I do find it interesting that Judges are so willing to use the law to ban and block protesters but when it comes to those that clearly have a anti life, anti american agenda they are more then willing to bend over backwards.
But this does not answer the question what was he arrested for. Was he arrested as a pre emptive strike, since he refused to pay the $1 for the peace bond?
OR was he arrested because he refused to pay the $1 as a bond to ensure he will not step foot on the Mosque property.
If it was for the former, then he was wrong he should of paid his $1 and protested.
If i was for the later then the state was wrong.
The state has the power to do ANYTHING. Now does it have the authority is another question.
"I'm glad you're not making the rules. According to you, the state can say to anyone, "We've got a nice little area in the back of the woods where you can hold your protest. So you don't get to hold it here, where you can be seen."
No the question is WHO SHOULD PAY FOR THOSE OFFICERS. Thats the point of the bond.
I still love you bro :
What worried me the most with this footage was the usage of the Muslim guy:
'I asked him a question and he could not answer'
Honestly, I wonder how many would be able to answer any question being exposed to mob of such anger.
This is typical for Muslims, they thrive on mob-intimidation, and in this context they bring they tend to bring up the challenge and then they wonder why the victim was unable to deal with their challenge.
Hence this Muslim bragging about Islam in USA preaching peace, reveals nothing about himself but the typical mindset of an Jihadi-Sharia, al-muhajerum exponent.
How quickly the public is exposed to falsehood and how quickly they are lead astray.
First of all, someone needs to put a muzzle on little miss shrill voice. But I wonder what these people will chant if or when Sharia becomes dominant?
Black, Arab, Latino and White, we messed up now we cry each night?
The foolhearty nature of liberals is that they tend to team up with the enemies of freedom.
Rock on, Terry Jones. I may not agree with everything you say, but I will defend your right to say it!
Screaming sycophants don't impress me. I find it incredibly disappointing that despite what is happening around the world people still take up arms in the name of "tolerance" when they know nothing about Islam or the Qu'ran. Our nation is still so shell shocked about past racism that we now look for things to crusade for to make us feel just a little better.
The Last video is classic, the guy at the end "We do not preach hatred or violence" that crowd look pretty hateful and violent to me.
I'm hoping Jones doesn't end up doing the protest. All these stupid Sharia protests would just make American Christians look worse than they already do.
Your actually using a categorical fallacy again, but this time your comparing apples and Volkswagens. You need to understand the difference between private and public property before you go making blanket statements like “Either way you have the right to assemble, but you must meet the regulations of the state in order to assemble. Which is the domain of public safety and well being”.
I don’t know where your from but where I am from we call “everything other then yourself is assembly whether it is in your own home or back yard or out in public”,,, a private party on private property and no one dares say “If you have a Assembly at your house, and your house is over capacity you can be shutdown’,,, cause we don’t tolerate anyone, government included, peeing on our leg while telling us it is raining.
A revenue generating public concert would only fall under the first amendment if it was an organized public concert with politically minded musicians and fans making a political point. And no one has been able to “can shut down the craziness on black Friday”,, because for one Wall-Mart (which I am not a fan of) is not a private person, entity or group and they are not responsible for the bad behaviors of hordes of individuals that are just looking to save big bucks, are not trying to make a political point, not trying to exercise their free speech (your example here is another categorical fallacy but this time your comparing apples to Winnebago’s) and Wall-Mart is not assembling at all. The only ones that could be accused of assembly is the rabid hordes but in the lack of any evidence of attempts to structurally organize an “assembly”,, they are just a bunch of individuals trying “save big”,, as Wall-Mart puts it,, and not an “assembly“ at all.
I’m not trying to come down on you brother,,, just trying to point out that in this instance your being about as logical and oxymoronic as a small/large pizza, a jumbo/shrimp or a radical/moderate.
Dearbornistan takes the adage "You get the justice that you pay for" to a whole new level.
Well I don't know what to tell you, or what town you live in. But I guarantee, you have capacity limits, even in your own home. Put 50 people on a second floor balcony that is only coded for 20 people. Just because they do not enforce does not mean the codes do not exist.
Second there are limits on how many people can live in a dwelling.
Now all these things fall under freedom to assemble, because you have the freedom to assemble in your own home. However if the number of those assembled exceeds the capacity of the dwelling a long with sanitation, parking restrictions etc... Then that assembly can be broken up.
Now on to the issue I am still confused on what he had to pay the dollar for. Was it to get his petition to protest, or was it a bond to insure he will not go near the mosque?
Why do insist on projecting your idea onto everyone that everyone lives in a city or a town big enough to have "capacity limits" or city ordinances.
I live in the rural Houston Texas area, after living in the city limits for most of my life, and while some people will equate that as I am a country boy hick like Jones, it isn’t true even though I say ain’t and ya’ll allot.
Almost all of us have yards here. And as a young lad I had many parties with several hundred people attending. The police got called a few times when things got a out of hand due to everyone drinking and fights breaking out,,, and they put is in line but NEVER did they say anything about us being over “capacity limits” or that our party was an assmebly. And they never told us we where disturbing the peace because here we are allowed to play our music as loud as we want between 7 am and 10pm and we could be as rowdy as we wanted to be if we didn’t get violent . And there are no limits on how many people can dwell in a house. We have some Mexican families that have all their relatives, 15-20-25, living in 2 , 3 and 4 bedroom houses. And how does how many people live in a household relate to assembly or free speech. Your committing a categorical fallacy again.
When you say,,, “Now on to the issue I am still confused on what he had to pay the dollar for. Was it to get his petition to protest, or was it a bond to insure he will not go near the mosque?”… I think here is what is going on. If you have problems with,,, lets say Verizon and take them to small claims court they will in most cases settle out of court and if they do take the case to court they will never settle for what your asking for because that would be a default admission of guilt. So I think the token 1 dollar bond was likewise a default guilt by admission tactic. I am glad Jones chose to go to jail - he is not so dumb after all. I am hearing from some sites that some the court said he agreed to pay the 1 dollar to get out and then seven minutes later said he would not but they released him anyway because the ACLU is already all over this.
I hope I am helping you understand. I don’t want to make you mad or just get on your nerves and I am not being argumentative just for kicks and grins brother.
The original "peace bond" was to allow Jones to protest and pay for potential police costs. It was reported to be $100,000. Jones refused. So they took him to court (under the pretense that he was planning on breaching the peace.)
Then, in the course of the trial, all sorts of stuff happened (the stuff David explained.) At the end, the judge ordered Jones to pay a new peace bond, $1, as an assurance that he would not go near the mosque for 3 years. Jones refused.
Long story short, the $1 was symbolic of Dearborn saying: "Do you submit to the fact that we've made it illegal for you to go near the mosque for 3 years?"
I think your right on Nabeel,, thanks for helping me understand.
I would like to know if Ms Shrill was even from Dearbornistan. A lot of the non-muslims still stuck in Dearborn aren't so happy. Type in Dearbornistan in your yahoo engine, and you will see very quickly that a whole lot of those 20% of non-Muslims citizens are wretched.
They would flee if they could.
Imagine trying to go about a Non-Muslim life and your son has to practice foot-ball between 1100 pm and 0400 am during the month of Ramadan.
Imagine the Azan blasting what sounds like a two minute bleating of a cow in great pain, five times a day, every day, for eternity.
Jesus is coming soon!
Brother i agree Jesus is Coming soon. i can joyfully say Come Lord Jesus and at the same time ask him to make me worthy of welcoming Him.
I Pray we all be there where our Lord Jesus is.
This is why many are so concerned when Muslims argue that they only want sharia for THEIR communities. Our country is a representative republic. They're looking at what I call "sharia democracy" aka, mob rule. And this is what happens.
The thing is, the Muslims assembled at the same location to protest during Jones' trial. Did they have a permit?
Post a Comment