More from Dearborn
Some eyewitnesses have come forward to recount what they saw happening over the weekend when police arrested four Christians for allegedly disturbing the peace during an Arab American festival in Dearborn, Mich. The group has also published a video and some images of what happened here.
Judging by the footage it apparently now takes seven Dearborn policemen to corral and stop three would-be evangelists from handing out a booklet containing the gospel of John…outside the festival grounds. Again, I’m going only by the images thus far posted, but these guys are tame, make that lame, compared to, say, Hare Krishna devotees hawking their beliefs any day of the week in New York’s Times Square. Why the show of police force?
It turns out that prior to the start of the festival, attended predominantly by Muslim Arab-Americans, a U.S. district court judge in Dearborn issued a ban on groups distributing literature on sidewalks. George Saieg, a Muslim convert to Christianity who oversaw some of the Christians attending the event with a group called M2M Network, said he wanted to distribute handbills relating to Christianity as a way not to appear confrontational. But Dearborn authorities told the judge that the restrictions would help control foot traffic. The police who later surrounded Christians handing out literature instructed them that they had to be outside a five-block radius of the festival. The Christians arrested inside the festival, according to some witnesses, were carrying video cameras but were not at the time engaging festival-goers in a debate. Said David Wood, one of the four arrested: “There are certain elements of Sharia law being adhered to in Dearborn.”

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top29 Comments to “More from Dearborn”
The police who later surrounded Christians handing out literature instructed them that they had to be outside a five-block radius of the festival.
-
—
so much for freedom of speech…. WHere oh where has it gone?
Report comment to moderator
Was it legal to confiscate the camera? The Cameraman was on public property and was not interfering with the police.
Report comment to moderator
“We hope the dialogues at the Arab Festival are peaceful, but we need cameras in case Muslims decide to kick our heads in” – David Wood
“Muslims have threatened us with death if we return to the festival, so now we definitely have to show up.”- David Wood
“I was among many Christian groups that were at the festival, evangelizing Muslims. None of us had problems. We all saw David Wood and his video group trying to cause a scene. They are trying to showboat, please stop believing them” – eye-witness report from Atlas Shrugged blog.
It’s fairly obvious that these anti-Muslim Christians where hoping to film Muslims assaulting them.
Report comment to moderator
3. So an anonymous eye witness should trump video.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells, I’m just saying there’s more than one side to every story. As the bogus ACORN sting video has taught us, edited video and selective photos from participants who have an agenda should be considered suspect. Who do you want to believe, other peaceful Christian Evangelicals and the Dearborn Police, or these guys that give every appearance of being provocateurs. I just don’t think it’s wise to assume these “missionaries” are being totally honest just because it conforms to the popular narrative of anti-Christian persecution.
Report comment to moderator
As I recall, there was an appeal of the ban and it was modified. What happened to that?
Report comment to moderator
What happened to the Constitution? And freedom on public property?
Report comment to moderator
If you go to the Volokh Conspiracy and scroll way down to June 20th, you will find the relevant paragraphs from the 6th Circuit’s opinion — which kinda sorta trumps the district court. They were restricted but not totally restricted.
The question here is, did this particular group violate the Circuit Court order? As I understand it, they were to remain in the buffer zone.
Report comment to moderator
Mark@hereiblog 06.22.10 AT 4:17 PM
What happened to the Constitution? And freedom on public property?
–
SORRY IT IS A STATE CONTROL BY THE DEM PARTY AND UNIONS THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT PERMITTED AND CHRSITAIN DO NOT HAVE FREEDOMS.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s remember that the police have the duty to maintain order, which is why they were in court in the first place. The Circuit didn’t ban them entirely as the district court did.
We have an Indian festival here every summer in Edison, NJ. The Christians don’t pull these sorts of things at an event like that, so it would appear that there is something up on the part of this Christian group. Don’t go looking for trouble, because it will find you. Remember that even Jesus didn’t go looking for trouble and often took a different road to avoid it.
Report comment to moderator
I just don’t understand how the police have a right to take the camera.
Report comment to moderator
Did they take it from someone whom they arrested?
Report comment to moderator
Truthteller, I was starting to believe you until you listed the ACORN videos as a similar case. The “editing” controversy in that was over whether or not O’Keife wore his “pimp coat” into the office – which he never did, and was unimportant to his video or his case.
Hardly bogus, only continually called so by those with a serious left-wing agenda to push (such as, Rachel Maddow – “LOOK!!! STRIPED SHIRT!!!”)
You frequent Atlas Shrugged as well – you like touring the conservative blogosphere to parrot leftwing talking points?
To clarify, I don’t know enough about this case to form an opinion… but it is somewhat troubling that people were banned from evangelizing by the court… reminds me of abortion clinic laws. Pretty bad laws.
Report comment to moderator
My last paragraph was about this blog post, not the ACORN videos.
Report comment to moderator
12. From the video the cameraman wasn’t involved in passing out the bills. He was just taping the incident with the police.
Report comment to moderator
Oooohhh. Not good.
Report comment to moderator
Since the Police chief is an Arab (Ron Haddad), one wonders if there was not some bias on the department’s role. I also foresee that Shari Law will soon be in place in Dearborne, MI.
Report comment to moderator
KBELLS (2): Was it legal to confiscate the camera? The Cameraman was on public property and was not interfering with the police.
Frank: Probably not, but he was filming the police.
Haven’t you heard? The police most definitely do not like being filmed.
‘Specially in Maryland.
“Public property”? Not when the thin blue line is “protecting and serving” …
Report comment to moderator
Was the event public? Were the Christians peaceful? Does the Constitution still matter?
Report comment to moderator
Don’t forget there was a court order which these people were violating.
Report comment to moderator
My problem is still with the camera man. What court order was he violating?
Report comment to moderator
The Constitution is long gone, just a relic, get used to the fact that truth is illegal in government owned areas. It kind of amuses me, when Americans go on about the supposed Freedom of Speech. I have never experienced an America that has freedom of speech.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer (20): Don’t forget there was a court order which these people were violating.
Frank: Ohh, a court order. Well, that’s different then.
How shall we ever appeal infringements of our rights if they are perpetrated via the otherwise legitimate machinery of courts, executives or legislatures?
Of course, this was different: They needed to “control foot traffic.”
… and free spoeech.
Contented-Joy (22): I have never experienced an America that has freedom of speech.
Frank: What’s WorldMagBlog? Chopped liver?
Let not your heart be troubled, sister. They still haven’t obtained control of the Internet.
Yet …
Report comment to moderator
Okay, here’s an impromptu Frank in Spokane poll:
How many of you who are complaining about the restriction outside the Dearborn festival of Christians’ free-speech rights also complained about George W. Bush’s “Free [sic] Speech Zones”?
Report comment to moderator
Frank, it stopped at the 6th Circuit. There’s another opportunity to sue now.
I started watching Freedom Watch on the computer (I don’t have cable) and found this little video Andy Napolitano did on the Constitution and why we revolted in the first place. He explained the Stamp Act and what that act allowed the Crown to do. Sounded remarkably similar to wireless wiretaps and warrantless searches. So far, they haven’t sent the military/police to move into our homes, but hey, they’ve confiscated all our money through taxation and brought us to virtual bankruptcy.
Report comment to moderator
There’s more about this incident on the apologetics website [a href=http://www.answeringmuslims.com/]Answering Muslims[/a] which belongs to the Christian evangelists who were arrested.
(Not sure why, but it looks like this link isn’t going to post correctly. If it doesn’t, just google it.)
Report comment to moderator
Ree,
Try using “lesser than” and “greater than” signs:
… instead of square brackets.
Report comment to moderator
Hmm. Just as I suspected: those two characters won’t render in an html field.
Anyhow, the “lesser than” sign is SHIFT-COMMA, and the “greater than” sign is SHIFT-PERIOD.
Use those instead of square brackets to make hot links.
… or to add bold.
… or italics.
… or underlines.
… or
strike throughs.For more handy stuff, see WorldMagBlog’s “Website Help” page.
And for still more neat stuff, see WebMonkey’s “HTML Cheat Sheet”.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!