Tennessee: School enforces sharia, bans town hall on…sharia law

By Creeping Sharia:

via FBI-banned, DOJ classified unindicted terror funding co-conspirator, fed judge confirmed Hamas front group CAIR Welcomes Cancellation of Anti-Muslim Event in Tenn. School

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today said it has joined with concerned Muslims in Tennessee in welcoming cancellation of an anti-Muslim event scheduled for April 24 at a Knoxville high school.

Another American inflicted with Adult Onset Islam via Approval rescinded for Shari’a Law event at Farragut High School.

"It's kind of an aggressive tone on the flyer," said AbdelRahman Murphy.

“It’s kind of an aggressive tone on the flyer,” said AbdelRahman Murphy.

“Feel free hosting it anywhere else by renting out a banquet hall, but to host it at a public place is one that is not comfortable for the rest of us to know about,” said [AbdelRahman] Murphy.

6 News reached out to the Knoxville chapter of ACT! for America. They say it is about education.

“He is going to be coming to share with us his expertise on what Shari’a law can be doing to Tennessee and to America as a whole,” said John Peach with ACT! For America.

They also say the venue simply should not matter.

“We feel like it’s very important that we have our public institutions take part in this because it’s not meant to be a religious thing. It’s not a political thing. It’s particularly for education purposes,” said Peach.

There is no word yet if ACT! for America plans to hold the event in a new venue.

John Peach issued this statement late Friday afternoon:

“Why is it that Muslims engage in teaching about how good Islam is for Tennessee at the Cedar Bluff Library – a public building, but they feel “uncomfortable” when ACT! for America plans an event to show the opposite viewpoint at a public building? (This is documented as follows):

Muslims like the support the University of Tennessee gives them to host activities and venues on their campus. Furthermore, it likes its Muslim Student Association (MSA) to hold events at their tax supported public UT campus.

“Why is it that all Tennessee social study textbooks to be authorized for use in our public schools must be approved by Muslim affiliates? (Hundreds of reviews have exposed the fact that our textbooks are overwhelmingly biased toward Muslims over Christianity and Judaism, with Islam always portrayed as being more significant than all other religions).

“Political Correctness has gone amuck and is destroying our country. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? If it’s right for Muslims to host events in tax-funded public facilities, then what is wrong with a group of citizens wanting the same privilege?

“Last December, ACT! for America – Knoxville Chapter was granted permission by Knox County Schools to use the facilities of Farragut High School to hold an educational forum including two speakers, followed by an opportunity for the public to answer any questions of the two. This we called the Town Hall – Farragut.

“We in good faith and urgent vitality have been promoting this event for the past four months, believing we were following all the guidelines given to us. We have spent over $1500.00 to advance this cause, including taking out a special insurance policy just to cover this occasion.

“The purpose of the meeting was to educate our local citizens about the dangers of Sharia Law, especially as it negatively affects our children, our churches, our law enforcement personnel, and our community leaders. Now, due to the fear of Muslims in the Knoxville area, the venue for the event that was open to everyone was cancelled. This is a great example of what Sharia Law is doing to America.”

 

 

CAIR Pressures Another College

CAIR has spoken out against numerous sections of the book, including portions that allegedly read, “Islam is an ideology of control, not for human and brotherly love,” and “Muslims would try to force their values and traditions on others callously. They would force their neighbors to cover their heads; otherwise they taunt them for not being modest; Muslim teachers would try to make their Christian students pray according to their Islamic religion.”

Muslim advocacy group calls for investigation by Oberlin College into lecturer’s ‘bigotry’

From: ChronicleOnline
By: Chelsea Miller, April 11, 2014

OBERLIN — The Cleveland chapter of the Council on America-Islamic Relations is asking Oberlin College to investigate a lecturer in the Arabic Language Department whom they say openly promotes “anti-Muslim bigotry and crude stereotypes of Muslims in his writings on campus.”

CAIR-Cleveland said lecturer Samir Amin Abdellatif is the publisher of a 290-page tract that “vilifies” Islam and Muslims. The organization said Abdellatif’s publication, entitled “The Unknown History of Islam,” promotes xenophobic views about Muslim immigration to the West, as well as supports “outlandish conspiracy theories.”

CAIR-Cleveland has requested that the college investigate Abdellatif’s teachings through a letter sent to Oberlin College President Marvin Krislov on March 11. In the letter, Shearson wrote, “We believe the reputation of Oberlin College is tarnished and students are done a disservice by having an Arabic language instructor who openly promotes anti-Muslim bigotry and who condones crude and ugly caricatures of Muslims.”

Full Article: http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2014/04/11/muslim-advocacy-group-calls-investigation-oberlin-college-professors-bigotry/

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

COMMENT/ANALYSIS: As is often the case, CAIR continues to attack and attempt to silence critics of  Islam.  The irony being that they are protesting a book that ” would try to force their values and traditions on others” … what CAIR regularly does as demonstrated with this incident.  It should be noted that the person that called CAIR on this matter is listed in the below article – accused of harrassment of another professor.

Related:

Here’s What I Would Have Said at Brandeis

A9WSJ, April 10, 2014, By AYAAN HIRSI ALI:

On Tuesday, after protests by students, faculty and outside groups, Brandeis University revoked its invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree at its commencement ceremonies in May. The protesters accused Ms. Hirsi Ali, an advocate for the rights of women and girls, of being “Islamophobic.” Here is an abridged version of the remarks she planned to deliver.

One year ago, the city and suburbs of Boston were still in mourning. Families who only weeks earlier had children and siblings to hug were left with only photographs and memories. Still others were hovering over bedsides, watching as young men, women, and children endured painful surgeries and permanent disfiguration. All because two brothers, radicalized by jihadist websites, decided to place homemade bombs in backpacks near the finish line of one of the most prominent events in American sports, the Boston Marathon.

All of you in the Class of 2014 will never forget that day and the days that followed. You will never forget when you heard the news, where you were, or what you were doing. And when you return here, 10, 15 or 25 years from now, you will be reminded of it. The bombs exploded just 10 miles from this campus.

I read an article recently that said many adults don’t remember much from before the age of 8. That means some of your earliest childhood memories may well be of that September morning simply known as “9/11.”

You deserve better memories than 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing. And you are not the only ones. In Syria, at least 120,000 people have been killed, not simply in battle, but in wholesale massacres, in a civil war that is increasingly waged across a sectarian divide. Violence is escalating in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Libya, in Egypt. And far more than was the case when you were born, organized violence in the world today is disproportionately concentrated in the Muslim world.

Another striking feature of the countries I have just named, and of the Middle East generally, is that violence against women is also increasing. In Saudi Arabia, there has been a noticeable rise in the practice of female genital mutilation. In Egypt, 99% of women report being sexually harassed and up to 80 sexual assaults occur in a single day.

Especially troubling is the way the status of women as second-class citizens is being cemented in legislation. In Iraq, a law is being proposed that lowers to 9 the legal age at which a girl can be forced into marriage. That same law would give a husband the right to deny his wife permission to leave the house.

Sadly, the list could go on. I hope I speak for many when I say that this is not the world that my generation meant to bequeath yours. When you were born, the West was jubilant, having defeated Soviet communism. An international coalition had forced Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The next mission for American armed forces would be famine relief in my homeland of Somalia. There was no Department of Homeland Security, and few Americans talked about terrorism.

Two decades ago, not even the bleakest pessimist would have anticipated all that has gone wrong in the part of world where I grew up. After so many victories for feminism in the West, no one would have predicted that women’s basic human rights would actually be reduced in so many countries as the 20th century gave way to the 21st.

Today, however, I am going to predict a better future, because I believe that the pendulum has swung almost as far as it possibly can in the wrong direction.

When I see millions of women in Afghanistan defying threats from the Taliban and lining up to vote; when I see women in Saudi Arabia defying an absurd ban on female driving; and when I see Tunisian women celebrating the conviction of a group of policemen for a heinous gang rape, I feel more optimistic than I did a few years ago. The misnamed Arab Spring has been a revolution full of disappointments. But I believe it has created an opportunity for traditional forms of authority—including patriarchal authority—to be challenged, and even for the religious justifications for the oppression of women to be questioned.

Yet for that opportunity to be fulfilled, we in the West must provide the right kind of encouragement. Just as the city of Boston was once the cradle of a new ideal of liberty, we need to return to our roots by becoming once again a beacon of free thought and civility for the 21st century. When there is injustice, we need to speak out, not simply with condemnation, but with concrete actions.

One of the best places to do that is in our institutions of higher learning. We need to make our universities temples not of dogmatic orthodoxy, but of truly critical thinking, where all ideas are welcome and where civil debate is encouraged. I’m used to being shouted down on campuses, so I am grateful for the opportunity to address you today. I do not expect all of you to agree with me, but I very much appreciate your willingness to listen.

I stand before you as someone who is fighting for women’s and girls’ basic rights globally. And I stand before you as someone who is not afraid to ask difficult questions about the role of religion in that fight.

The connection between violence, particularly violence against women, and Islam is too clear to be ignored. We do no favors to students, faculty, nonbelievers and people of faith when we shut our eyes to this link, when we excuse rather than reflect.

So I ask: Is the concept of holy war compatible with our ideal of religious toleration? Is it blasphemy—punishable by death—to question the applicability of certain seventh-century doctrines to our own era? Both Christianity and Judaism have had their eras of reform. I would argue that the time has come for a Muslim Reformation.

Is such an argument inadmissible? It surely should not be at a university that was founded in the wake of the Holocaust, at a time when many American universities still imposed quotas on Jews.

The motto of Brandeis University is “Truth even unto its innermost parts.” That is my motto too. For it is only through truth, unsparing truth, that your generation can hope to do better than mine in the struggle for peace, freedom and equality of the sexes.

Ms. Hirsi Ali is the author of “Nomad: My Journey from Islam to America” (Free Press, 2010). She is a fellow at the Belfer Center of Harvard’s Kennedy School and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Islam for Dummies: A Journalist ‘Guide’ Whitewashes Islam

By :

“[U]ninformed, inaccurate or consciously provocative journalism” concerning Islam worries Lawrence Pintak, founding dean of Washington State University’s Edward R. Murrow College of Communication.

Unfortunately, Pintak’s remedy to this problem, the online guide “Islam for Journalists” edited by Pintak, betrays an absurdly benign understanding of an Islam whose apparent only fault is being slandered by others.

“Across the Muslim world today,” Pintak’s introduction notes, “extremists are wielding their swords with grisly effect, but the pen…can be just as lethal.”

The 2012 “lewd cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad” in the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo, for example, receive Pintak’s censure while, like many journalists today, he uncritically applies the honorific “Prophet” to Islam’s founder. Charlie Hebdo’s editor had condemned the weapons used in violent reactions to the anti-Muhammad “Innocence of Muslims” internet movie trailer preceding his cartoons. Yet the “weapon he controlled can do far more damage,” Pintak warned in equating speech with the violent reactions of others, then “evident in the conflagration…erupting across the Muslim world.”

Screenshot of the “Innocence of Muslims” portrayal of Muhammad. (Image: YouTube screenshot)

Screenshot of the “Innocence of Muslims” portrayal of Muhammad. (Image: YouTube screenshot)

“A commitment to press freedom is in my blood,” Pintak qualified against suspicions of censorship. Yet speaking of the 2005 Danish Muhammad cartoons and their violent response, Pintak showed sympathy for those who refused their publication.

“[M]any Muslim journalists,” Pintak related in denying these “Motoons” any news value, “simply couldn’t understand why Western news organizations would republish the offensive images just because” of a legal right. Yet “journalism is not supposed to be a weapon” but rather “to inform, not inflame; to understand, not distort,” in contrast to “propaganda.”

The Danish cartoons exhibited “in our increasingly interconnected world,” writer Jonathan Lyons similarly relativized, “a number of central issues.” These included the “proper extent of press freedoms; minority rights; the shifting landscape of blasphemy laws and prohibitions; and the history of Muslim grievance toward the West.”

Rather than criticize Muslim rioters, Lyons complained that “almost no one reported on…the Danish media and its supporters as cynical provocateurs motivated by domestic political concerns.”

Beyond free speech controversies, “Islam for Journalists” favored Islam with numerous biased and false statements.

After discussing how Islam “roughly translates as ‘surrender’ or ‘submission’…to the will of Allah,” Pintak noted that Muhammad in Islam, “although he is not divine, he is considered ‘the Perfect Man.’”

“By imitating him,” Pintak stated without any critical questioning of Muhammad’s example, “Muslims hope to acquire his interior attitude—perfect surrender to God.” Pintak also takes an uncritical approach towards Muhammad’s migration or hijara to Yathrib (Medina) in order to escape his pagan opponents in Mecca.

Mideast Israel Palestinians US Prophet Film

“Muslims interpret Muhammad’s decision to embark on this exodus as a teaching that they should not live under tyranny,” Pintak proclaims, omitting any controversial discussion of the Islamic law Muhammad developed.

Western “notions of Islam,” meanwhile, Lyons dismisses without explanation. These include “irrational; spread by the sword and maintained by force; and sexually perverse and abusive toward women” as well as “unsuited to democratic institutions, science, and modernity.” Such views “had their origins as wartime propaganda, dating to beginning of the Crusades,” Lyons asserts, ignoring Western hostility towards Islam originating in centuries of pre-Crusades Islamic aggression.

“Innocence of Muslims” “drew on Crusades-era propaganda to slander the Prophet Muhammad,” Lyons further claims, even though canonical Islamic accounts underlie this poorly-made film.

In all, the “West had had no direct experience or knowledge of Muslim beliefs, practices, and lifestyles at the time that it established its comprehensive vision of Islam as a deadly, existential, and essentially immutable threat.”

Apparently for Lyons, ongoing Muslim invasion and subjugation of Christian societies dating from Islam’s beginning is not direct enough.

“These same perceptions remain more or less in force today, despite a millennium of direct experience and engagement — commercial, military, theological, political, and journalistic — with the world of Islam,” Lyons complains. Lyons thereby does not explain what interactions with the Islamic world in the interval should have given non-Muslims a favorable impression of Islam (The Ottoman Empire? Pakistan’s Islamic Republic? The Iranian Revolution? Iraq’s history? The Arab Spring?).

Lyons’ perception of Islam’s supposedly hidden truth is less than convincing.

Read more at The Blaze

CAIR-MI Fails to Silence TMLC President

Thomas Moore Law Center:

The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) attempted to silence a speech by Richard Thompson to the Greater Oakland Republican Club on the internal threat posed to America by Radical Islam by using their customary name-calling intimidation tactics, which have proven successful in the past.  This time their tactics did not work.

RT Speaking Captioned(1)

Thompson, the President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, was invited to speak on Tuesday, April 1st.  On Monday, however, CAIR-MI launched a press release demanding that the Republican Club disinvite Thompson, labeling him a “notorious Islamophobe” with a “long track record of fear-mongering.”  The Club refused to cave-in to the ploy and the speech went on as planned in a packed room.

Thompson, responding to the Club’s decision not to cave-in to CAIR, commented, “I applaud the Greater Oakland Republican Club for its steadfast defense of the constitutional right to free speech.  Sadly, too many groups and individuals lack the moral courage to say “No” to CAIR.  And as long as their bullying tactics work on some weak-kneed Americans, they will continue their efforts to restrict free speech.”

Thompson began his speech by informing the audience that they have witnessed first-hand the operation of Sharia law—silencing the free speech right of anyone who dares criticize Islam.  Thompson went on to describe CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial where the supposed charity and five of its organizers were found guilty by a federal jury of illegally funneling more than $12 million to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.  Thompson also pointed to the stated plans of one of CAIR’s founders, Omar Ahmad, that Islam is in America to become dominant and the highest authority.

Thompson also quoted a statement from the FBI’s former chief of counterterrorism, “CAIR, its leaders and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.”

The University of Michigan is the most recent entity to capitulate to CAIR’s campaign to silence any criticism of Islam.  As a result of CAIR’s intimidation tactics, the University cancelled screenings of “Honor Diaries,” a film which details the truth about the brutal violence against women in Muslim countries.

According to Megyn Kelly on the Kelly File, (a great video to watch) numerous screenings of the film have been cancelled due to demands from CAIR including a screening at the University of Michigan – Ann Arbor originally scheduled for  April 3, 2014.

CAIR and CAIR-MI often demand the cancellation of events they deem “Islamophobic;” a term meant to intimidate and force event organizers into cancellations.

Clearly, the reason for CAIR’s personal attacks on Thompson stem from the fact that as a public interest law firm, TMLC, has led the fight against the threat of Radical Islam and the Stealth Jihad in the courts.

Brooke Goldstein, a human rights attorney, in response to CAIR’s involvement in shutting down the “Honor Diaries” film said, “CAIR operates as the Islamic speech police. It goes around bullying and intimidating anyone who is brave enough to speak publically about the threat of Islam and Islamist terrorism and violence in the Muslim world.”

Goldstein continued, “CAIR has a systematic campaign to go around and target anybody who speaks publically about the threat of militant Islam as Islamophobic.”

Video: Sharia and the Threat to American Freedom

American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) Co-Founders and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise gave a presentation in Cincinnati to a standing-room-only crowd entitled, “Sharia: Threat to American Freedom.”  Yerushalmi explains sharia as “the enemy threat doctrine”. A highlight of Muise’s presentation is his discussion of American Freedom Defense Initiative’s freedom of speech cases. Watch this very informative video.

Erdogan Bans Twitter, Vows to Show “Power of Turkish Republic”

protest of Erdogan's ban on twitter

Turkey’s membership in NATO should be on the table. The NATO website says, “NATO promotes democratic values and encourages consultation and cooperation on defense and security issues to build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict.”

BY RYAN MAURO:

The so-called “moderate” Islamist government of Turkey, led by Prime Minister Erdogan, exhibited its undemocratic tendencies again, this time by blocking Twitter. The move came after Erdogan vowed to “wipe out” the social media network that is used by 10 million Turks.

The restriction on free speech and flow of information fulfilled a pledge Erdogan made a day earlier. Twitter refused Erdogan’s demands to censor certain links, so the Turkish government got permission from a court to stop the population from using the website.

“We now have a court order. We’ll eradicate Twitter. I don’t care what the international community says. Everyone will witness the power of the Turkish Republic,” he declared.

He also recently threatened to ban Facebook and YouTube.

In its official blog, the U.S. State Department called the censorship “21st Century book-burning.” Chiding Erdogan, the blog argued, “[Censorship] doesn’t make anyone stronger. This brand of suppression affects all of us: In an era in which the Internet serves as the world’s community forum, censorship anywhere is a threat to freedom of speech everywhere.”

Yet in an indication of the soft-balled response we can expect from the U.S., the blog continued in a conciliatory tone, saying, “Sometimes even our friends make this mistake,” and confessed that, “The United States’ history on freedom of expression has …slipped at times.”

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, tweeted: “The freedom to speak out and to connect is a fundamental right. The people of Turkey deserve that right restored.”  Britain, Germany, Canada and a number of other nations all voiced their objections to the censorship.

Since the court order went into effect, when Turks try to access Twitter, a message pops up from the Turkish official that oversees telecommunication.

The ban coincides with the release of a hyper-nationalistic video encouraging Turks to rise to defeat some kind of enemy assault.

***********

When Turkey joined the alliance in 1952, it was a different country. Now, it is run by an Islamist government that is supportive of Hamas, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. It clamps down on the democratic values that NATO says it exists to promote.

Turkey came to this point incrementally, in accordance with the Islamist doctrine of gradualism. At first, the 2002 election victory of Erdogan’s party was hailed as a potential move towards democracy. As Turkey became increasingly hostile to the West’s interests, the West dismissed these hostilities as manageable differences between like-minded allies.

The change Turkey underwent from 2002 to 2014 isn’t only a lesson about Erdogan and his supporters. This is the gradualist doctrine in action.

Read more at Clarion Project

PAT CONDELL: One thing Muslims do better than all the politically correct leftists in the world

Bare Naked Islam:

Unknown8The slow destruction of free speech, the one human right for which millions of Christians and Jews have died. Only now, hardly anyone will speak up for it, let alone fight for it, preferring to obey someone else’s idea of what is politically correct speech. The very core of a free society is rotting under the threat of Muslim cultural terrorism that can get you killed for saying something that offends someone. Shame on you, yes, all of you, who are constantly censoring yourselves, allowing our most cherished human right to be stolen right out from under us, as we twist ourselves into knots, trying not to offend the very people who are using our rights to silence us.

Will the infamous 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals make First Amendment exception for Islamists by forcing Google to remove Muhammad movie?

W2Florida Family Association:

Click here to send your email asking 43 appellate court judges to affirm First Amendment over Islamist exception.

By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Google on February 26, 2014 to remove the controversial movie“Innocence of Muslims” from Youtube.com. This movie that sparked protests across the Muslim world “depicts Muhammad as a feckless philanderer who approved of child sexual abuse, among other overtly insulting claims that have caused outrage.   In a 13 minute 51 second trailer, the Islamic prophet is made to look like a murderer and adulterer as well” according to TheBlaze.com

Cindy Lee Garcia filed a law suit against Google on October 17, 2012 seeking a restraining order that would require Youtube.com to remove“Innocence of Muslims”  from their web service.  Garcia claimed that she had a copyright for a five second video that was incorporated into the film and that she had not given permission for its use in the movie.  She also claimed that she would suffer irreparable harm if the movie were not removed from access on the World Wide Web.

Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an order on November 30, 2012 DENYING Garcia’s petition to the court (in part) because: 

  • Garcia failed to “establish that she is likely to succeed on the merits, that she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in her favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.’” 
  • The Film was posted for public viewing on YouTube on July 2, 2012 – five months ago.  Given this five-month delay, Garcia has not demonstrated that the requested preliminary relief would prevent any alleged harm.
  • As was the case in Aalmuhammed v. Lee , 202 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2000), the Film “is a copyrightable work, and it is undisputed that the movie was intended by everyone involved with it to be a unitary whole.”  Id. at 1231. Additionally, a copyright in a work “vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.” 17 U.S.C. § 201(a). 
  • Garcia does not argue that she is the sole author of the Film, nor does she argue that the Film was a joint work of which she was a co-author. According to the United States Supreme Court, the “author” is the “person to whom the work owes its origin and who superintended the whole work.” Aalmuhammed, 202 F.3d at 1233 (citing Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 61, 4 S. Ct. 279, 28 L. Ed. 349 (1884)). By Garcia’s own allegations and argument, she does not meet this standard with respect to the Film. Furthermore, Garcia concedes that she does not have joint authorship over the Film or joint ownership of the copyright in the Film. (See Reply at 12 n.11).

Plaintiff Garcia appealed District Judge Fitzgerald’s ruling to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.  By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the appellate court reversed the lower court ruling.  The panel ruled that Garcia did have a copyright claim to her five second segment, could suffer irreparable harm and ordered Google to remove the video from Youtube.com.  Chief Judge Alex Kozinski said Garcia was likely to prevail on her copyright claim, and having already faced “serious threats against her life,” faced irreparable harm absent an injunction.

In a statement, Google said:  “We strongly disagree with this ruling and will fight it.”  The film has now become an important part of public debate, Google argued, and should not be taken down.  “Our laws permit even the vilest criticisms of governments, political leaders, and religious figures as legitimate exercises in free speech,” Google said.  Google’s statement indicates that they believe that the motivation behind the appellate panel ruling has more to do with the negative portrayal of Muhammad than it does with the Chief Judge’s newly created doctrine regarding partial copy right.  The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruling in Garcia vs Google appears to be more about appeasing Islamists than it does about defending the fullness of the First Amendment, following the rules of judicial construction and respecting established legal precedent.

A sua sponte request filed on March 6, 2014 indicates that the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals will RECONSIDER the appeal En Bancbefore the full appellate court.  The parties to the litigation were instructed to file their briefs with the court by 5:00 PM Pacific time, Wednesday, March 12, 2014.

Now the full 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals will reconsider the appeal from the district court as well as their panel’s troubled ruling.  They need to know that American’s treasure their First Amendment and do not want special exceptions for Islamists.

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to the forty three 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals justices urging them to affirm the First Amendment rights that all Americans cherish by reversing the panel’s troubled ruling and affirming the district court’s decision.  Florida Family Association is taking a position in this case based upon judicial principle and without regard to the parties involved or content of the movie.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.  

Please click here to send your email to forty three 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals judges.

Go to Florida Family Association for the judge’s individual contact information

Appeal to Ninth Circuit Filed after Federal Court in Seattle Upholds Censorship of Anti-Terrorism Advertisement

censoredThe American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed its opening brief on Friday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, appealing a lower federal court ruling that denied AFLC’s motion for a preliminary injunction.  AFLC’s motion requested that the court order the King County, Washington, transit authority to display an anti-terrorism bus advertisement that it had refused to display.

The proposed advertisement, which was submitted by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and its executive directors, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, included pictures, names, and a similar message from an earlier anti-terrorism advertisement sponsored by the U.S. State Department, which was accepted for display on King County buses.  The State Department advertisement depicted the “Faces of Global Terrorism” in an effort to “stop a terrorist” and “save lives.”  In addition, the advertisement offered an “up to $25 million reward” for helping to capture one of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists.

Moreover, in the State Department advertisement, thirty out of the thirty-two listed terrorists had Muslim names or are wanted for terrorism related to organizations conducting terrorist acts in the name of Islam.  After complaints from a Washington State politician and two Muslim-American advocacy groups that claimed the list of wanted global terrorists appeared to include only Muslim terrorists, the federal government terminated its “Faces of Global Terrorism” advertisement campaign.

In response to the government’s decision to remove its advertisement, AFDI created its own, similar advertisement to replace it.  Despite originally accepting the government’s advertisement, King County rejected AFDI’s ad, claiming that it was offensive to Muslims.

On January 27, 2014, David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, presented oral argument before Federal Judge Richard A. Jones, sitting in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. [See video of oral argument here.]  Yerushalmi argued that King County’s refusal to run the advertisement was an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech and therefore the court should order the agency to display the advertisement immediately.

Nevertheless, Judge Jones ruled that King County’s decision to reject the advertisement was “reasonable,” specifically noting that displaying pictures of Muslim and Arab terrorists and labeling them jihadis is offensive to Muslims.

David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented: “We are confident that the Ninth Circuit will reverse this decision.  The trial court sacrificed Free Speech for political correctness.”

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise commented: “Simply put, the government’s position is inconsistent with reality – namely, sharia-adherent jihadists pose a significant threat to our national security.  This case is a classic articulation of political correctness as a form of tyranny, which violates our fundamental right to freedom speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.

 

Also see:

GOVERNMENT BANS CALLING TERRORISTS ‘JIHADIS’ (wnd.com)

Egyptian ‘Jon Stewart’ Targeted Again

Bassem_YoussefBy Rachel Molschky:

Bassem Youssef is an Egyptian satirist with a television program which mocks the current political situation in Egypt and is extremely controversial. Somewhat similar to Jon Stewart’s style on The Daily Show, Youssef risks taking jabs at dangerous people and has paid greatly for it. His program has been taken off the air, he’s been arrested, and now someone has jammed the satellite signal in order to block his show.

The Associated Press reports that the network’s satellite carrier found small satellite transmitters as the root of the problem, and Spokesman Mazen Hayek said there was no way of knowing who was responsible.

“It is a form of terrorism,” Hayek told the Associated Press.

Youssef’s show is called “El-Bernameg” or “The Program” in Arabic and has poked fun at the Muslim Brotherhood, the local media and the Egyptian Army. He was arrested for criticizing Islam and then President Mohamed Morsi and is said to have cracked jokes throughout his five-hour interrogation.

On Twitter, he quipped about officers and prosecutors asking to take pictures with him (“maybe this is why they ordered my arrest?”), their lack of hospitality (“Nobody even brought us a glass of water”), and their lack of preparedness (“Now they are looking for a laptop with a . . . program to play the [offending] episodes but they can’t find one”). A judge eventually asked him to remove any tweets he made during questioning. He was later released.

No one escapes Youssef’s satire, as he teases both sides of the political spectrum, but all in good fun. More recently, he laughed about the Egyptian Army’s claim to have found a cure for AIDS and Hepatitis without scientific proof to back it up.

In the West, we are accustomed to such programs where politicians know they are subject to scrutiny and the resulting parodies and jokes on television. This is a freedom we take for granted. In countries where Islam is dominant, however, “democracy” means something different.

Even here, it is not acceptable to criticize Islam, and people who speak the truth about the violent religion are put on trial for hate speech (or authorities scrounge up some other charges), or face other consequences. Most people are too afraid to say a word against Islam or even joke about it, so while other religions can be and are scrutinized, Islam gets a free ride.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky with video

“Islamic extremists” put a price on your head? That means you can’t give a speech in this American government building

Washington Post, BY EUGENE VOLOKH:

The discussion of the American flag case reminded me of a much less noticed decision from a few weeks ago, Agema v. City of Allegan (W.D. Mich. Jan. 22, 2014).

David Agema (a Michigan state representative) and some other people organized a Jan. 26, 2012 event that included as a speaker Kamal Saleem. Saleem runs Koome Ministries, which aims to teach about what it sees as “radical Islam’s true agenda.” Plaintiffs say Saleem “has a unique perspective on the internal threat to America posed by Sharia law and radical Muslims as he was once a Muslim involved in terrorist activities who has since transformed himself and converted to Christianity.”

76326277_640To hold this event, plaintiffs rented a room at Alleghan High School for $90. They also asked the local police department to provide two officers as security. Then,

Shortly before the event was to take place, a woman approached the police officers at Allegan High School and “stated that Kamal Saleem had a $25 million dollar bounty on his head.” An Allegan police officer talked with Jones, Saleem’s bodyguard, who did not deny that a bounty existed. “Jones further stated that there had been death threats directed toward Kamal Saleem from Islamic extremists in the past.”

While the event was still in progress, Chief Hoyer ordered Plaintiffs to shut down the event. Other events were occurring simultaneously in other locations within the Allegan High School building while Saleem was speaking.

Plaintiffs argued that “comply[ing] with the demands of hecklers based on the viewpoint of the speaker and the content of the speech” unconstitutionally allows “the heckler’s veto” to trump the “Constitutional freedoms of Plaintiffs.” (“Hecklers” is used here broadly to refer not just to the person in the audience who shouts out immediate threats, but to anyone who threatens to attack a speaker.)

But the court concluded that the stopping of the event was constitutional. The high school classroom, the court concluded, wasn’t a “traditional public forum,” such as a street or a sidewalk, or a place that “the government has intentionally designated a place … as a public forum.” Rather, it was a “nonpublic forum” — government property that hasn’t been deliberately opened for speech:

Here, there are no allegations that the school was open for use by the general public; rather, permission to rent the school was secured from the building principal, and there is no allegation that permission was granted as a matter of course to all who sought it. “This type of selective access does not transform government property into a public forum.”

The First Amendment rule in nonpublic forums is that speech restrictions are constitutional if they are “reasonable and [are] not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker’s view.” And, the court said, this restriction was reasonable:

Plaintiffs allege in their First Amended Complaint that the January 26, 2012 event was stopped due to “death threats” from “Islamic extremists” while other events were occurring at the high school …. [Whether or not] public officials mistakenly assessed the credibility of the risk or the imminence of danger, Plaintiffs’ allegations, taken together, do not support the conclusion that the decision to stop the event was nonetheless unreasonable. “[T]he government does not need to wait ‘until havoc is wreaked to restrict access to a nonpublic forum.’”

Now I sympathize with the high school principal, who is trying to prevent harm to the people visiting his school. And while the Supreme Court has held that the government generally may not suppress speech on sidewalks or parks in order to prevent attacks on the speaker, it’s possible that these cases don’t apply when it comes to speech in a “nonpublic forum,” such as a government building. (But see Robb v. Hungerbeeler (8th Cir. 2004) and Chicago Acorn v. Metropolitan Pier and Exposition (7th Cir. 1998), which suggest that the cases do indeed apply even to nonpublic forums.)

Nonetheless, consider what incentives this sort of decision creates. If you don’t like a speaker, make death threats against him. Then, if you can somehow let American government officials know about those threats, the officials will kick the speaker out of the places that it rented to him for his speech. (Nor is the principle in the case limited to high school buildings — school wasn’t in session, and the government could raise a similar security objection for any government building where other people are present, or perhaps even a building whether this is the only event taking place.)

Google ordered to scrub film blamed for Benghazi attack

googlelogoa_a_l_copyWND, by PAMELA GELLER:

As the Constitutional Convention was ending in 1787, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got: a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied: “A republic, if you can keep it.” Apparently, we can’t.

Last Wednesday, a U.S. appeals court ordered Google to remove “Innocence of Muslims,” the Muhammad video that Obama blamed for the Benghazi jihad attacks, from YouTube.

Freedom of speech in the age of jihad. Freedom of speech – another relic of the enlightened era before we entered this dark and sinister age.

Reuters reported that “by a 2-1 vote, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Google’s assertion that the removal of the film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ amounted to a prior restraint of speech that violated the U.S. Constitution.” The cowards on the Ninth Circuit took us down to the level of the brute in a 2-1 vote.

The Ninth Circuit kicks America in the teeth. Again. The ruling was an affront to every freedom-loving American. How do liberal hypocrites look at themselves in the mirror? This ruling is wrong at the most basic level. This is a First Amendment case. And I thank Google for fighting it so vigorously. (Believe me, I despise so much of Google’s business practices, but this is a whole other thing.)

Cindy Lee Garcia, the clueless clown who sued Google to take down the Muhammad film trailer, is probably clucking and preening and patting herself on the back. But she knows not what she did. She’s another leftist lapdog furthering Islamic supremacism and Shariah law.

But the Ninth Circuit knows full well what it has done. The mother of all freedoms has been abridged so as not to offend savages. That’s where we are in America 2014, with the full support and approval of the president of the United States.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling was a craven capitulation to the dictates of the Shariah, based on technical copyright law. Imagine if every actor and actress sued to remove a film in which the producer changed the story or their lines were dubbed. We’d have very little cinema (with the garbage Hollywood produces these days, not an altogether bad thing). Did Cindy Lee Garcia sign a release, or did she not? And if she didn’t, why not just blur out her craggy face and give us all a break?

Garcia should be suing the filmmaker, not Google. She is in the film for all of five seconds. He redubbed her. So what? If it were anything else, would she have subjugated herself in the service of such oppressors? Did she sign a contract explicitly laying out what exactly the film was and/or would be used for?

Google said, rightly: “The panel has adopted a novel interpretation of copyright law that will invite uncertainty and chaos for the entertainment industry, documentary filmmakers, amateur content creators, and for online hosting services like YouTube, allowing bit players in movies, videos, and other media to control how and when creative works are publicly displayed.”

But when it comes to appeasing enraged Muslims, it doesn’t matter what destruction these dhimmis cause.

When the morally superior Judge Alex “Cow” Kozinski isn’t taking a wrecking ball to our freedoms by ordering Google to take down videos, he’s posting photos of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal on his website.

The dhimmi judge who ordered Google to take down the YouTube video that set off our now constant companion – the hair-trigger violence of the Muslim world – is a pervert who won’t offend Muslims, but thinks nothing of degrading women and sharing his predilection for bestiality. Selective censorship.

First, the filmmaker was jailed (the only person jailed for Benghazi) for the expression of his ideas. Now Google is forced to submit to the Shariah – in America. RIP.

I pray Google takes this all the way, all the way to the Supreme Court. For the nation, for our freedoms, and against the tyranny of savages.

Pamela Geller is the publisher of AtlasShrugs.com and the author of the WND Books title “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.”

Britain: Islamists Create Climate of Fear to Curb Free Speech

by Soeren Kern:

“My intention was to carve out a space to be heard without constantly fearing the blasphemy charge, on pain of death.” — Maajid Nawaz, Liberal Democratic Party candidate for Britain’s Parliament.

“The media’s vaunted concern for minority welfare is at direct odds with its indifference to the minority within Islam that is trying to reform its orthodoxy’s disgraceful attitude to blasphemy—a minority that is gravely endangered and in need of friends.” — Abhishek Phadnis, free speech activist, London School of Economics.

Muslim fundamentalists in London have threatened to behead a fellow British Muslim after he posted an innocuous image of Mohammed and Jesus on his Twitter account.

The death threats against Maajid Nawaz, a Liberal Democrat Party candidate for British Parliament, add to a growing number of cases in which Islamists are using intimidation tactics to restrict the free speech rights of fellow Muslims in Europe. (Efforts to silence non-Muslims are well documented.)

Nawaz—a former member of the Islamist revolutionary group Hizb ut-Tahrir and co-founder of the Quilliam Foundation, a London-based counter-extremism think-tank—on January 12 posted on Twitter a cartoon of Mohammed and Jesus greeting one another (“Hey” and “How ya doin’?”) with the caption: “This Jesus & Mo @JandMo cartoon is not offensive&I’m sure God is greater than to feel threatened by it الله أكبر منه”.

Nawaz’s tweet followed a BBC Big Questions program in which the “Jesus and Mo” cartoons, which have been around since 2005, were discussed and Nawaz was included as a studio guest.

Nawaz, who is also author of the book “Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism,” said he posted the image to trigger a debate among Muslims about what should and should not be acceptable within Islam.

Not in the mood for debate, furious Muslims responded by bullying and issuing threats of violence—including beheading—and also launched a petition (it quickly garnered more than 20,000 signatures) to have Nawaz deselected as a candidate for parliament.

Labour Party Councilor Yaqub Hanif of Luton, a town situated 50 km (30 miles) north of London and known as the Islamic extremist capital of Britain, said the depictions of Mohammed were “totally unacceptable” to Muslims and called on Nawaz to step down.

“It’s appalling that this guy is a parliamentary candidate because this behavior is not conducive to being an MP,” Hanif said in an interview with the International Business Times. “If you want to be an MP then you must respect all faiths. He’s not doing that.”

counter-petition has now been set up (it has only 8,000 signatures) calling on the Liberal Democrats to give Nawaz their full support. The petition states:

“Islamists and political opponents have mounted a campaign against Maajid Nawaz, resulting in numerous threats to his life. We note that this campaign, rather than being based on legitimate concerns of Muslims, is a political campaign which is being spear-headed by a group of Muslim reactionaries with a track record of promoting extremism. They are seeking to use Muslim communities in order to whip up hatred against a liberal and secular Muslims. We are concerned that this campaign will also be used by anti-Muslim extremists as evidence of Muslim intolerance and incompatibility with liberal values which could, in turn, fuel anti-Muslim bigotry.”

The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, has expressed his support for Nawaz. “We simply cannot tolerate anyone in a free country—where we have to protect free speech, even if that free speech might cause offense to others—being subject to death threats and them and their family being put under extraordinary pressure to recant what they said,” Clegg said.

Muslims eventually retaliated by rescinding the Quilliam Foundation’s nomination for the annual British Muslim Awards, held in Manchester on January 30. Quilliam had been listed in the “Spirit of Britain” award category, but a statement on the awards’ Facebook page reads: “In light of recent activity, the British Muslim Awards, after careful consideration, have come to the decision that it can no longer promote the Quilliam Foundation as a finalist, and thus its nomination has been removed with immediate effect.”

More worrisome for the principle of free speech is that British mainstream media have censored reporting of the Jesus & Mo cartoon controversy.

For example, Channel 4 News blacked out a cartoon image of the Prophet Mohammed during a news broadcast on January 28 in order not to cause offense to Muslim viewers. In an open letter to the editor of Channel 4, the National Secular Society wrote that by “making this decision you have effectively taken a side in a debate where a Muslim man has suffered violent death threats after he explicitly said he did not find the cartoons offensive. You have taken the side of the reactionaries—the side of people who bully and violently threaten Muslims, such as Mr. Nawaz, online.”

“By redacting the picture of ‘Mo,’ you have contributed to a climate of censorship brought on by the unreasonable and reactionary views of some religious extremists. Rather than defending free expression, one of the most precious pillars of our liberal democratic society, you have chosen instead to listen to extremists and patronize British Muslims by assuming they will take offense at an irreverent and satirical cartoon. By taking the decision you did, not only did you betray the fundamental journalistic principle of free speech, but you have become complicit in a trend that seeks to insidiously stereotype all Muslim people as reacting in one uniform way (generally presented as overly sensitive and potentially violent).”

 

 

Channel 4 News blacked out a cartoon image of the Prophet Mohammed during a news broadcast on January 28.

In an article entitled, “Why I’m speaking up for Islam against the loudmouths who have hijacked it” (published by The Guardian newspaper on January 28), Nawaz defended his decision to tweet the image of Jesus and Mo.

“My intention was to carve out a space to be heard without constantly fearing the blasphemy charge, on pain of death,” Nawaz wrote. “Modern Islamist attempts to impose theocratic orthodoxy on us will be resisted.”

Read more at Gatestone Institute