And the hits just keep on coming
Posted by RyftJun 22
Again the value of video footage simply cannot be understated. On Sunday evening the weekend of their arrest, after being released on bail, David Wood and Paul Rezkalla returned to the Arab Festival in Dearborn, MI, to conduct something of an experiment (along with a friend, Antonio Santana). Instead of going inside the festival, they stood outside of it and distributed pamphlets of the Gospel of John in Arabic and English. The video of the experience is incredible.
For three individuals standing on a public street handing out religious pamphlets in an American city, the Dearborn Police Department responded in under five minutes with a total of eight uniformed officers and arrested them. This is the assault on the rights and freedoms of Americans that is taking place in Dearborn, Michigan. Every year for three days in June, pursuant to a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Paul Borman, the protections of the First Amendment are suspended within the Arab International Festival and its “outer perimeter” which, as we can tell from David’s experience here, apparently constitutes a five-block “buffer zone.” So anywhere within that five-block perimeter and the festival itself, the rights and freedoms of Americans is curtailed.
According to the Thomas More Law Center, who announced today that they are going to represent the four members of the Acts 17 Apologetics team (Nabeel Qureshi, David Wood, Paul Rezkallah, and Negeen Mayel), these videos depict what looks like Sharia law being enforced in Dearborn; as David noted in the above video, under Sharia law non-Muslims are prohibited from proselytizing under pain of death, which includes the distribution of non-Muslim religious literature. Although neither the city of Dearborn nor the state of Michigan is under Muslim rule, the remarkable miscarriage of justice carried out by the city in enacting the ban, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in upholding it, certainly caters to the spirit of Sharia law. But far more importantly, it simply defies the Constitution of the United States.
Be careful of the dragon you’re awakening.
And to all those who are attacking the characters of Nabeel and David, suggesting that they must have been doing something to deserve being arrested since other Christian ministries were at the festival sharing their faith without getting into trouble, please be responsible and inform yourself of all the relevant facts first. The other Christians were not assaulted by security or taken into police custody because they remained at their designated booths and tables, enjoying their freedom of speech where the city and federal court limited it to. That is the very nature of the fight that pastor George Saieg and the Acts 17 Apologetics team are engaged in, with the help of legal representation from the Thomas More Law Center; they are refusing to sit quietly while their rights and freedoms are stripped away by city and state officials, even if their fellow brothers are content to do so. The other Christians at the festival did not get into trouble because they were willing to play by the rules. But then some Christians, such as George Saieg, Nabeel Qureshi, and David Wood, refuse to abide by rules that violate the fundamental rights and freedoms that millions of Americans have shed blood to secure over the last two centuries. Those who played possum will in the end thank those who didn’t.
On a very loosely related note, did you know that Dearborn Police Chief Ronald Haddad was recently appointed to serve on the Homeland Security Advisory Council? Yeah, me neither. I just discovered that interesting bit of news this afternoon, thanks to the staff writer Sean Delaney of the Press & Guide newspaper in Dearborn (“Chief Haddad on national security board,” 3 May 2010). According to statements from Haddad, the city and its police department have established “several similar advisory committees to facilitate communication between different cultural and religious groups, as well as various groups and organizations throughout the city.” And he goes on to say, “We are engaging the community in a way that’s never been done before.” He’s got that right.
What I found deeply troubling, in light of the recent events in Dearborn, was Haddad’s closing comment. After describing it as an honor and privilege to serve on such a board in Washington, he described the task as “extremely important and a high degree of responsibility because we have to come up with a program that serves the country as well as the City of Dearborn” (emphasis mine). Right, and Americans want what Dearborn and its police are doing with facilitating “communication between different cultural and religious groups” to have an influence on how Homeland Security is advised.
That dragon better wake up soon.
PDF 
11 comments
Comment by Freddy Hernandez on 23 Jun 2010 at 10:15
This is absolute hogwash. They made an experiment in which they wanted to get arrested, and did NOT get arrested, but made a big deal of it anyway – then somehow tie that to Sharia Law, yet proclaim that this has nothing to do with religion.
Perhaps the cops knew this group was making a stink this year and last year and didn't want things to get out of hand, as they often do? Maybe, just maybe, they should look into the local laws regarding this matter before blaming Islam and everyone else?
Cry me a river. Honestly. They should take a few tips from the Westboro Baptist Church, as they always operate within the zoning laws, and still get their (albeit bigoted) message across without whining that they're being oppressed.
Comment by Ryft on 23 Jun 2010 at 21:41
"They made an experiment in which they wanted to get arrested…"
Here we have Hernandez asserting truth claims without the slightest shred of evidence to back it up. On what basis does Hernandez assert that Wood et al "wanted to get arrested"? Is that something Wood said? What about Rezkallah or Santana? No, on all counts. The basis of his truth claim, then, must be his own creative prejudice.
Contrast this with the evidence supporting my truth claim that they wanted to "conduct an experiment," including Wood's own statements. They had reason to believe they would get arrested inside the festival, so they decided to see what happens if they distribute Christian literature outside the festival. With a measure of cynicism they suspected they would get arrested but they hoped not.
"…and did NOT get arrested…"
Correct. I said they were "arrested" but they were merely surrounded by eight police officers who interrogated them, confiscated their equipment, took them into custody, took their ID information and photographed them, etc., all of which I chose to encapsulate in the word "arrested." Hernandez makes the point that this is not technically an arrest but it's a remarkably trivial point, given the actual context of my article (i.e., encroachments on the First Amendment).
"…but made a big deal of it anyway…"
Of course they did. And they are not alone (e.g., Sudanese pastor George Saieg). And if the readers happen to notice what is at stake here, perhaps Hernandez will be left standing alone with his possum apathy over such blatant encroachments on rights and freedoms. The City of Dearborn enacted, and a federal District Court upheld, a ban against "leafleting on certain streets" occupied by the Arab Festival and permitted "the distribution of literature only from approved booths and information tables"—a clear violation of free speech. But such apathy would be deeply hypocritical of him, given his staunch defense of the First Amendment with respect to the establishment clause, or how loudly he would cry if it was his freedom of speech being encroached upon.
"…then somehow tie that to Sharia Law…"
Despite his myopic incomprehension, it is not an attenuated "somehow." The tie-in is frank and obvious. Under Sharia law, kuffar and dimam are subject to punishment or death if they proselytize or distribute non-Muslim religious literature. The events in Dearborn carry a scent similar to Sharia law insofar as American citizens are prohibited from proselytizing and distributing religious literature at the annual Arab Festival and for five blocks around it, excepting approved booths and information tables, on pain of being subject to punishment.
"…yet proclaim that this has nothing to do with religion."
It doesn't have anything to do with religion. It is a gross error for Hernandez to conflate their legal arguments against the Arab Festival and the City of Dearborn with their theological arguments against Islam.
"Perhaps the cops knew this group was making a stink this year and last year and didn't want things to get out of hand."
Speculative. And does Hernandez have the slightest shred of evidence to support this, other than his creative prejudice? No, he does not (or else it would not have been a "perhaps").
Contrast this with the evidence supporting my side of the argument, that the cops arrested them Friday night and took them into custody Sunday evening because they were proselytizing and distributing religious literature within areas of public property where the city had banned such activity, wherein the police were enforcing this ban as they were empowered to do. Given numerous statements (from those involved plus their attorneys) and court documents, my argument enjoys considerable evidentiary weight.
"Maybe, just maybe, they should look into the local laws regarding this matter before blaming Islam and everyone else?"
First, they are not blaming Islam. They are blaming the Arab Festival security guards, they are blaming the City of Dearborn, and they are blaming the Dearborn Police Department. Hernandez is simply but obviously conflating their legal arguments against the aforementioned parties with their theological arguments against Islam. Second (and this is speculation on my part), maybe they did "look into the local laws regarding this matter" and chose to openly defy it by exercising their constitutionally protected rights and freedoms as American citizens, to record it on video and make a big deal out of it because violations of the constitution are illegal (and especially to vindicate their own behavior), to cast a giant national spotlight on what city and state officials are attempting to do.
What is "hogwash" is the utterly baseless assertions of Hernandez, when contrasted against the available evidence.
Comment by Rene Mulder on 23 Jun 2010 at 21:51
To be honest, Americans do seem to have a tendency to get into a breach-of-Constitution fit over a lot of things, really quickly.
At this point I’m not really taking anyone’s side, I think.
Now, since this is supposedly not about religion, picture this situation:
A public BBQ, sponsored by one brand of beer. Now, this being a sponsored event, the sponsor may be entitled to put up some rules like say…no other brands of beers will be allowed in, and no other brands of beer can be sold during the event.
Now, someone may want to be a jerk and say “okay, I’ll just offer this other brand of beer for free/sell it JUST outside the BBQ terrain”. Maybe even just for the sake of doing it.
The sponsor may get a fit, and say “okay, this time we’ll set the rule that no other brand can be sold on the event terrain and also not in a 5 block radius.” This may discourage the other person effectively.
Tell me, would that be a breach any sort of free market law, or any other supposed freedom right? Would that call for something that is happening here in these videos? Or should people just accept that certain events can have certain rules that prevent people from doing certain things, because it is desired?
Like, parties maybe where no alcohol is allowed, or certain age groups may enter only? A dress code maybe?
I get the feeling that people will sometimes make a fuss over something that may not really call for a fuss.
And it especially bothers me when people go shouting around things like “This is America, you can’t do this!!!” And then bring in those guilt-arguments like “many of our ancestors died for this or that!” I just don’t like that; that’s my opinion.
That said, I am curious how this all will turn out.
Comment by @Stormbringer_5 on 24 Jun 2010 at 04:50
Excellent article, especially to those of us who have seen the footage of last year's unwarranted attacks as well as the more recent events. Love your response to Freddy's baseless rant, too!
Pingback by Roundup « Eternity Matters on 24 Jun 2010 at 05:02
[...] Good analysis of the Islamic event in Dearborn, Michigan, USA. This should be front page news. It is “creeping Sharia” law, where Muslims get more and more aggressive with their demands and restrictions on the religious freedoms of others. Again the value of video footage simply cannot be understated. On Sunday evening the weekend of their arrest, after being released on bail, David Wood and Paul Rezkallah returned to the Arab Festival in Dearborn, MI, to conduct something of an experiment (along with a friend, Antonio Santana). Instead of going inside the festival, they stood outside of it and distributed pamphlets of the Gospel of John in Arabic and English. The video of the experience is incredible. [...]
Comment by Freddy Hernandez on 24 Jun 2010 at 06:40
Who are you replying to? This isn't an opening statement in a debate, David. If you reply to me, please address me, not a crowd. You go back and forth quite a bit between second and third person in your post, and it's a little weird, to be honest.
Now that we got that out of the way, let's get on with this wild goose chase.
"On what basis does Hernandez assert that Wood et al "wanted to get arrested"?"
People in their group got arrested very recently, not to mention the previous year for doing the exact same stuff. They're not stupid or oblivious. They went in knowingly that there would be trouble.
When they say things like: "We're going to try standing outside of the festival and handing some of them out. I suspect they're going to stop us even then, but we'll see, we hope that there's no problems", it means they're going to look for trouble, especially when they first say that being a Christian in Dearborn is somehow the same as being oppressed. Let's not mince words – that's garbage. This is the same argument white supremacists used in the 70s when towns opposed their rallies.
This is why it's imperative to know where you can and cannot proselytize. Zoning laws and laws of conduct are there for a reason, and it's not for oppression.
"No, on all counts. The basis of his truth claim, then, must be his own creative prejudice. "
Yup, I must have just made up the part where they were expecting police or security intervention from the start. Complete fabrication on my part.
Comment by Freddy Hernandez on 24 Jun 2010 at 06:42
"First, they are not blaming Islam. They are blaming the Arab Festival security guards, they are blaming the City of Dearborn, and they are blaming the Dearborn Police Department."
Yes, especially with a title called "Sharia Law in the US". No ties or blame goes to Islam at all.
…
"Second (and this is speculation on my part), maybe they did "look into the local laws regarding this matter" and chose to openly defy it by exercising their constitutionally protected rights and freedoms as American citizens, to record it on video and make a big deal out of it because violations of the constitution are illegal (and especially to vindicate their own behavior), to cast a giant national spotlight on what city and state officials are attempting to do."
And what are the city and state officials attempting to do? If they knew that "causing a stir" would land them in jail for doing the same thing they did last year, why are they surprised?
If they videotaped it, perhaps they should have edited out the part where they said "If he tells you to turn it off, turn it off", then proceeded NOT to do that, as well as talking to the security personnel, who had no problems with them being there, but were only concerned with them causing trouble – which they did.
They weren't arrested for handing out religious pamphlets, as you would hope to establish, but were taken into custody for disturbing the peace – as evidenced by the large crowd forming in their video who didn't look too amicable and wanted them to leave. It's not Sharia Law, not even close. It's some Christians who think that being arrested for causing a commotion is akin to uncovering some conspiracy regarding Islamic Law.
I really don't understand what you would like to see. They went there knowing that their recording and proselytizing would cause trouble, and got escorted out and arrested for it. Would you like to see them be greeted with open arms by all Muslims, share the gift of the Lord, and be on their way?
If I was a Christian engaging people at a gay pride parade and telling them they've chosen the wrong lifestyle, and then was forced to leave, would you say that it was an encroachment of my rights? Would you say the police department had a pro-gay agenda?
"What is "hogwash" is the utterly baseless assertions of Hernandez, when contrasted against the available evidence. "
I saw a group of people going into a festival, causing trouble, instigating arguments, drawing a crowd and getting arrested for it, as they were warned previously.
You saw a group of martyrs and the trampling of the constitution in favor of an obviously state-led religious agenda.
Let's take a look and see which one is more reasonable.
Comment by Ryft on 25 Jun 2010 at 22:10
"Who are you replying to?"
Readerz. We has them.
"This isn't an opening statement in a debate, David."
No one thought it was.
"If you reply to me, please address me."
I address those to whom I am speaking. In this case, it wasn't you.
"I really don't understand what you would like to see."
I would like to see Americans being free to exercise their constitutionally protected rights and freedoms in the public arena. If their doing so incites aggressive or threatening behavior from others, such that the peace is disturbed, I would like to see those others reprimanded or removed. To curtail the freedom of speech of group X on the basis that it incensed group Y is to treat group Y as a special class that throws "equal protection" out the window. The Acts 17 Apologetics team did not surround anyone, did not threaten anyone, did not get aggressive with anyone, etc. But others surrounded them, threatened them, got aggressive with them. The wrong group was ejected.
Comment by Ryft on 25 Jun 2010 at 22:41
Rene,
So your opinion is that it should be lawful to suspend people's First Amendment rights in the public arena at certain times? The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (Saieg v. City of Dearborn) and the U.S. Supreme Court (Elrod v. Burns) have argued wrongly? What is the reasoning behind your opinion?
Comment by René Mulder on 26 Jun 2010 at 00:24
My opinion is that people who organize events should to some degree have a right to set up rules as to what can and cannot be done during the times of their event. (like in the example I gave earlier).
I wouldn't want Satanworshippers actively doing their thing at my public party. And it would suck if the law would prevent me from saying "I don't want them to do that here, during the times of my public party".
Now, I realize those Rights are there for a good reason, and they would work in my favor in situations as well. I just think people need to be reasonable and be able to say at times "okay, I do have a right to do this or that, but these people at event X prefer not to have me do that here, so I won't".
So I think that, if reasonable enough, people should voluntary forfeit their Right temporarily out of respect for another party's boundaries.
Comment by Watchman on 22 Jul 2010 at 09:16
What is it that Jesus said, " a little leaven, leavens the whole lump "? The Acts 17 Apologetics people can at least be thankful they didn't lose their hands to the knife as did a professor recently for a question he placed in an exam. We are not contemplating an American version of Islam. We are looking at Islam in it's very nature and character and it is understandable that the Apologetics folks would be met with the hostile response they were. To think that our Governmental officials have become the underwriters of this insidious movement by arresting persons because not of any anticipated violence on their part, but the violent, profane, and illegal actions of those being addressed, is incomprehensible. If you read the account carefully, I understood the Acts 17 people to have been met by profanities and derision. Yes, Americans do need to be vigilant and to protect those rights that so many have given their lives to secure for us. What the Dearborn authorities have done is not the way to accomplish it.