Court rules in favor of rock throwers and thugs


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

In a ruling today a court has ruled that the police have the right to curtail the free speech of Christians on a public street if Muslims threaten them with violence.

Let me describe what happened again that so there is no confusion. There was a Muslim festival open to the general public on the streets of Dearborn, Michigan. Some Christians wanted to walk through that festival holding signs and preaching the gospel. They were attacked by a mob. The police, instead of arresting the attackers, threatened the Christians with arrest if they didn’t shut up and leave.

If you doubt me, watch the video of that event, which I posted when it happened under the title The Stoning of Christians — in Michigan.

In essence, the court has sanctioned the heckler’s veto. If you don’t like what someone is saying, threaten them with violence and the police will shut them up for you so that you don’t behave badly.

Share

16 comments

  • Cotour

    I have to assume that from the police point of view the Christians were there expressing their First Amendment Rights but were doing so to be provocative and to disrupt the event. And again from the police point of view to defuse a potentially volatile situation asked them to vacate the area. At that point the police can be justified in disbursing them, First Amendment or not to avoid an impending civil disruption.

    The only question I ask is, would the police do the same if the Muslims were disturbing a Christian event? And that is the more pertinent question IMO. I think people need to keep their religious beliefs and practices to themselves and be kept in private, First Amendment or no First Amendment. Think of how peaceful the world would be.

  • joe

    I live near there, local media keep a fairly tight lid on news in Dearborn that would depict middle eastern immigrants in a poor light, I have watched the news and seen a few times where Christians were made to look foolish by way of reporting what I deem a false narrative.

  • Matt Ponas

    What CRAP!!! just like the restraunt that took down the BACON sign because of someone saying it was “offensive” to them…

  • Competential

    This is commonplace in Western Europe, with a large and quickly growing number of muslim immigrants. If you criticize islam you’ll both get beaten by their thugs on the street and imprisoned by the police. The islamists practically rule all of Western Europe already. 95% of the politicians and 100% of news media say that islam is the only truth and that no alternative can be tolerated.

  • Cotour

    I agree with you in general about the taking down of the bacon sign, at what point using that logic will actual bacon be banned in the United States because it offends a Muslim?

  • Cotour

    You bring out the real issue here and the real issue here is the clash between the two realities, the “lower” / DNA reaction of the Muslim / Eastern mentality and the more intellectualized Christian / “higher” mentality of the West. Two very different views of reality.

    The on going populating of American cities by peoples that by definition, followers of the Koran, can not assimilate and truly become American will, as it has become in Briton, eventually become an existential threat to our AMERICAN way of life. True followers can do nothing other than overtake and consume the society that they inhabit as their instruction book commands.

    And the paradox is that the Constitution at this level actually can become the means of its own destruction if allowed to continue. I use the words “If Allowed” to further illustrate the paradox.

  • Cotour

    And I further illustrate my point:

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/27/sean-hannity-explodes-on-imam-every-radical-islamist-like-you-will-be-wiped-off-the-face-of-the-earth/

    “You’re not honest,” Hannity replied, later claiming that “every radical Islamist like you will be wiped off the face of the earth.”

    “I’m afraid you are living in a dream world. The Sharia will be implemented in America,” Choudary said.

    Given the contradictory trajectory of how things in our country are going 180 degrees from what is in the people and the Constitution expect and require, who do you believe will be correct, Sean Hannity or Choudary on this subject? Does the word Crusade sound familiar?

  • From this comment it appears that you do not understand the first amendment in the slightest. You are also missing the point. Read the article I linked to, which includes a detailed legal discussion of the ramifications of this decision on free speech.

    The Christians were certainly obnoxious, but the first amendment guarantees them that right. It does not allow Muslims (or anyone) to threaten such obnoxious people with violence, merely because they are obnoxious.

    The police’s job here was to stop the Muslim’s violent behavior, not to squelch the free speech rights of the Christians. That’s it. That the court has now instead said that the police can squelch free speech protests at will to prevent violence, expect violent Muslims and leftists to increasingly use this tactic to shut their opponents up.

  • ken anthony

    They could just take the most direct route and make all inalienable rights illegal?

    They already take peoples money and property away by claiming them to either be drug dealers or having heard rumors.

  • Cotour

    We are witnessing the incremental surrender of American sovereignty, slowly it bleeds away. This incident is but a symptom of the erosion of our Constitution as it is used against itself. Islam can not exist as a majority within our Constitutional Republic, it is a fundamental structural problem. Your pointing out this apparent inequity is but an instructive illustration. Houston, we have a problem.

  • Cotour

    Further info:

    This guy just killed in Syria was 26 years old and had 9 children, I will assume that they are being supported by the people who they hope to take over in the future. Its actually a brilliant strategy and it has been directly provided by the “well meaning” and “compassionate” American Liberal / Democrat. America is much too big to take by force and so we ourselves provide the mechanism from within.

    “A profile of Muhumed by Minnesota Public Radio this past June described him as a 29-year-old Somali-American who had been married more than once and was a father of nine children.”

  • Cotour

    What we have to realize is that we are playing by a set of rules that we believe the other side is also playing by and that is a false conclusion. The rules have and are changing and we are behind the curve, ham strung by our own morality. And that is a strategic advantage, not to us. We have become unable to adapt to new information and as long as we react based in old rules then in time we must fall if it is allowed to continue.

    Adapt and survive, refuse and perish!

  • Don

    I said way back before the Iranian hostage crisis that we should have a zero Moslem immigration policy. History taught me that. Then comes 9/11, and then USSecState Colin Powell claims we need more Moslem immigration, not less. Nations destroy themselves, and while Europe is ahead of us in that regard, we are also on the same trajectory.

    Plus GW, dummy that he was (I never voted for the man as I knew he was a liberal) had the opportunity to close the southern border, and punted instead.

    Anyway, as a Catholic, I believe the Fatima messages. And until a Pope fulfills the request of Our Lady of Fatima, we will slowly go down a dreadful path.

  • Edward

    Cotour, you *almost* understand the point. The rules, as practiced, are changing — the First Amendment is being infringed, and the shameful courts have been hijacked by some in order to perform the unAmerican acts of shutting down dissent and intimidating us into silence.

    The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect dissension and disagreeable speech. Otherwise there would be no need for it.

    There was a time in this country when the Nazis or the KKK could hold their own parade and give speeches in the public square. Despite their disagreeable attitudes and opinions, they were allowed to be heard, and the rest of us could explain why they were disagreeable.

    “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” — Evelyn Beatrice Hall (though misattributed to Voltaire)

    The “religion of peace” does not have the right (in America, at least) to get violent when it disagrees with those attending its events, but it does have the right to explain why it disagrees.

  • Cotour

    You illustrate the ideal intent of the First Amendment, I am pointing out the real world practice in Michigan and the trajectory that we seem to be on. If local or Federal government is unwilling or unable to enforce the intent of the First Amendment or pervert it to their own local religious interests then like the possible lack of prosecution of Lois Learner, what difference does it make, the law might as well not exist.

    The Constitution in the long term carves out the means of its own destruction in the First Amendment. If Islam continues to be accepted as a religion and not as a form of government informed by religion then, like I said, Houston We Have A Problem.

  • You point here is correct. It is exactly why I posted the story here on BtB, to try to let as many people as possible know how the Constitution and the law is being abandoned.

    The more that know and protest, the more chance we have to stop this bad behavior now, before it gets worse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *