[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2uAYBOCAUQ&w=420&h=315]
The U. S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that Sudanese Christian Pastor George Saieg has a free speech right to distribute religious literature on public sidewalks and evangelize Muslims during the Annual Arab International Festival held each year in Dearborn, Michigan.
For five years Saieg, who specifically ministers to Muslims, had been discussing his Christian faith and passing out literature on Dearborn’s sidewalks during the Festival without encountering any problems. Nevertheless, in 2009 police officials informed him he had to remain in a booth, prohibiting him from distributing his literature on the nearby sidewalks and public streets.
Dearborn is one of the most densely populated Muslim communities in the United States. It has the largest Mosque in North America. In the past few years Dearborn has gained national attention for taking a pro-Muslim stance and for the arrest and intimidation of Christian evangelists for engaging in protected speech activity.
The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national conservative Christian public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed the federal lawsuit on behalf of Pastor Saieg in 2009, naming the City of Dearborn and its police chief, Ronald Haddad, as defendants. The case was handled by TMLC Senior Trial Counsel Rob Muise.
In ruling for Saieg, the court recognized the problem Saieg had with booth-based evangelizing: “the penalty of leaving Islam according to Islamic books is death, ” which makes Muslims reluctant to approach a booth that is publically “labeled as … Christian.”
Source: Thomas More Law Center, May 25, 2011.
Posted in news, politics, religion
Tagged First Amendment, free speech, freedom of religion, U.S. Constitution
by Adam Turner
Austrian “hate speech” prosecutors are very busy these days. In addition to going after Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff for “prejudicial incitement,” i.e., criticizing Islam and Sharia laws at a seminar, the Austrians found the time to crack down on yet another “Islamophobic” miscreant, a 63 year old Austrian retiree.
“Helmut G. was busy on Friday afternoon, mowing his grass. ‘And because I was just in such a good mood, I yodeled along with it and sang a few songs,’ says the retiree, speaking to the Styrian Crown. That was not all right with his neighbors — believing Muslims. They had gathered in their house at prayer hour, which was also broadcast into their yard by loudspeaker… Consequently, several of them felt disturbed in their religious exercises by the grass-mowing 63-year old — and promptly reported him to the police. ‘In the statement it said that my yodeling sounded like the call of the muezzin,’ Helmut G. shook his head, bewildered. ‘It was definitely not my intention to imitate him,’ the Graz native assures us. The court did not believe him and sentenced him to a fat fine.”
In a way, I am glad that the Austrians have helped to flesh out further the debate regarding Islam and Islamism. As you know, LP works to protect the right to comment on radical Islam, terrorism and related issues without fear of legal retaliation. It is often hard to discuss such politically charged topics without knowing exactly what the rules of the debate are. At the very least, we need to determine how far we can go before violating them and/or if we are going to be violating them. So, it is probably a good thing that in the past two decades, in a piecemeal, case-by-case fashion, the elites of the European nations – and to a lesser extent, the US – have been steadily compiling and revealing the rules of discussion regarding Islam, radical Islam, and Islamist terrorism to educate ordinary folks like you and me. These rules apparently include the following:
Violating any of these rules – in the US and in Europe – is, according to the elites, a clear sign of “Islamophobia.” Violating any of these rules – in Europe alone – is also a sign of criminality.
So, thanks to the Austrians, we now know that we should add “thou shalt not yodel along with the call of the muezzin” as another rule to be followed. And I, for one, am thankful for this addition. Who knew that “Islamophobic Yodeling” was a problem?
This article was originally published by The Legal Project on December 2, 2010.
Posted in news, politics, religion
Tagged Europe, free speech, hate speech, Islamophobia
Nearly two years later and before the case ever went to trial, a federal court in California entered a judgment on Thursday, August 12, 2010, in favor of a middle school student’s right to wear a pro-life t-shirt to school. The judgment signifies yet another victory in one student’s courageous mission to speak out against abortion.
Tiffany Amador, then a sixth-grade student at McSwain Union Elementary School, wore several different pro-life t-shirts to school throughout the year to make known her strong belief that abortion is wrong. On April 29, 2008, Tiffany donned one of her pro-life t-shirts for National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day. That morning in school, while attempting to eat breakfast, Tiffany was forcefully directed into the principal’s office and ordered to remove her t-shirt. Prior to this incident, Miss Amador was never confronted about the t-shirts she frequently wore to school.
As a result of the school’s actions, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a federal lawsuit in December 2008, alleging that the sixth grader’s constitutional rights had been violated. The Law Center was assisted by Los Angeles attorney William J. Becker, Jr., of the Becker Law Firm.
Robert Muise, Senior Trial Counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “It is unfortunate that school officials across this country continue to ignore settled law. Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school house gate. The U.S. Supreme Court made this clear decades ago. So long as school officials seem bent on silencing student speech that they dislike, they will face legal challenge.”
Attorneys Bill Becker and Robert Muise of the Law Center are currently litigating a similar case in Morgan Hill, California, involving students who were ordered to remove American flag t-shirts they wore to school on Cinco De Mayo.
Source: Thomas More Law Center, August 16, 2010
The House of Representatives on Thursday approved legislation that pro-life groups oppose because it would place significant limits and restrictions on their ability to communicate with the public about legislation and political candidates. Lawmakers approved the DISCLOSE Act 219-206 that had the support of most Democrats and drew opposition from almost every Republican.
The bill is a response to the Supreme Court’s decision striking down some of the unconstitutional provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill that limited free speech and received strong opposition from pro-life groups and most pro-life lawmakers in Congress.
The biggest problems are that it would require pro-life groups to disclose donors’ names and require them to restrict 501(c)4 activities that allow them to educate their members and the public about legislative and election issues.
The measure now heads to the Senate, where pro-life groups hope Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will be able to keep the GOP caucus together, perhaps with the help of a Democrat or two, in support of a filibuster against the legislation. Should the Senate approve and President Barack Obama sign the DISCLOSE Act, it could hamper the efforts of pro-life groups to raise and spend money educating the public about the voting records and stances of elected officials and candidates for Congress.
The National Right to Life Committee helped lead the way in opposition to the bill, which it calls “a blatant political attack on the First Amendment rights of NRLC, our state affiliates, and our members and donors.” The so-called “NRA carve out,” a revision agreed to by the House Democratic Leadership “is not only worthless, but adds insult to injury,” and would not apply to NRLC or to any of NRLC’s 50 state affiliates, the pro-life group explains.
“This is not about informing the public,” said Douglas Johnson,the NRLC’s legislative director. “This is about deterring communication about those who hold or seek federal office.
While a handful of conservative Democrats and members of the Congressional Black Caucus voted against the bill, just two Republicans — Reps. Mike Castle of Delaware and Joseph Cao of Louisiana — voted for it.
In the Senate, the bill may face a rocky future as even some Democrats are concerned about the exemptions carved out in the bill for the NRA and other groups and even moderate Republicans like Scott Brown of Massachusetts suggest they may not join Democrats in supporting the bill.
“To do any type of campaign finance reform before an election cycle to gain some type of strategic advantage is inappropriate,” Brown told The Hill. “There has been no evidence that any corporation is going to try to influence any elections. It’s being done strictly for a tactical advantage, and that’s not right.”
And pro-abortion Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine says she is leaning no as well.
Pro-life groups will rely on their no votes and capturing others like Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat.
Source: LifeNews, June 25, 2010
With a June 18 vote expected in the U.S. House on the so-called “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act” (DISCLOSE Act, H.R. 5175), a leading small business advocacy organization ripped the legislation, and said its clear intent is to silence the voice of small business during the 2010 election cycle. SBE Council President & CEO Karen Kerrigan sent a letter to every House member detailing the group’s outrage about H.R. 5175’s “unconstitutional, discriminatory, onerous and politically motivated underpinnings.” SBE Council will KEY VOTE the legislation as a vote against small business in its upcoming Ratings of Congress.
“Small business owners are rightly outraged by this legislative charade. It imposes complex and burdensome ‘disclosure’ requirements on businesses and their associations, while exempting big powerful interests like labor unions, the NRA and AARP. First there was ‘too big to fail’ and now ‘too big to disclose’ – small business owners keep getting the shaft from this Congress,” said Kerrigan.
According to SBE Council’s Kerrigan, H.R. 5175 is a bad bill that got worse once the National Rifle Association (NRA) cut its deal with House Democrats. The NRA will not take a position on the bill ever since language was included that effectively exempts the organization from its onerous and unconstitutional demands.
Kerrigan said, “This special deal for the NRA and other groups is a scandal. It speaks to the desperation of the bill’s supporters to muzzle the business community during the upcoming election cycle.”
The unwarranted, complex and burdensome disclosure requirements in H.R. 5175 would apply to businesses and business associations, but not to labor unions or the NRA due to the crafty donor levels designed by the legislation. Blanket restrictions on election-related speech, such as independent expenditures, would be placed on government contractors, but effectively not unions under government contract. Unworkable and intimidating “stand by your ad” provisions would only apply to business groups and other advocacy organizations.
“Essentially, the free speech rights of labor unions, the NRA and a few other powerful interest groups are left intact by the bill. Our voice is effectively curbed by the legislation,” added Kerrigan.
According to SBE Council, the bill’s language flies directly in the face of the kind of speech most clearly and fully protected under the First Amendment, i.e., speech related to politics, elections and policy. The U.S. Supreme Court has been clear in its decisions that such speech warrants protection, and any differential treatment of speakers based on identity or content violates the First Amendment.
“No matter where one happens to fall on the philosophical and political spectrum, this legislation is nothing less than shameful,” concluded Kerrigan.
SBE Council is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to protecting small business and promoting entrepreneurship. For additional information, please visit: http://www.sbecouncil.org/.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to take the case of a Nevada girl whose religious freedom was harshly denied right in the middle of delivering her 2006 public-school valedictorian speech. This is an alarming push backwards for religious freedom. We have a Supreme Court ruling from 1992 (Lee v. Weisman) that protected religious messages and prayers of students, including at graduation ceremonies, as long as they are student-initiated.
A press release by the Rutherford Institute states school officials stopped her speech “after she began speaking about the part her Christian beliefs played in her success in life. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute had asked the Court to hear the case of Brittany McComb, charging that school officials violated McComb’s free speech rights and engaged in viewpoint discrimination when they censored her speech because of its Christian content.”
The harsh rejection of Christianity and basic religious freedom is the 11th reason to remove your children and grandchildren from the government school system, according to family advocates at SaveCalifornia.com. (See Reasons 1-10 at their special website RescueYourChild.com.)
Posted in news, politics, religion
Tagged free speech, religious freedom, rights, students, Supreme Court
