Posted on 09/23/2010 2:43:41 PM PDT by MaggieCarta
Diametrically opposed governmental reactions to recent Koran burning episodes are on display in Britain and the United States.
The British reaction demonstrates the extent to which our "mother country" has retrogressed toward a full self-imposed dhimmitude of the non-Muslim majority under Sharia-based tenets dictated by its mainstream fundamentalist Muslim community -- despite the latter being a relatively small demographic minority. According to The Daily Mail,
Six suspects were seized after allegedly torching the Muslim holy book in the backyard of a pub... Two men were arrested on suspicion of stirring racial hatred, and have since been released on bail. On Wednesday (9/23/10) four more Gateshead men were arrested and bailed....
(snip)
Contrast this craven abandonment of free speech and capitulation to Islamic supremacism in Britain with the sober -- and US Constitution-affirming -- reaction of Stuart Dunnings III, prosecuting attorney in Ingham County. Michigan.
As reported in the Detroit News, Dunnings categorically rejected intense pressure from local Muslim leaders to pursue charges against a Lansing, Michigan man who admitted to burning a Koran outside an East Lansing mosque....
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
MI ping!
it needs to
Oh, crap. This is only going to serve as a recruiting tool for terrorists.
Oddly enough, depending on the burner’s location, it *might* have been unlawful intimidation in Michigan. That is, was he or was he not on the grounds of the mosque itself?
Off the grounds of the mosque, no problem, unless he is doing something else that is threatening or advocating violence against those in the mosque, or otherwise creating a public disturbance, such as blocking traffic or creating a fire hazard.
But on the grounds of the mosque, on their property, it is a whole different kettle of fish. For a similar reason, it could be said, as the “castle doctrine”.
So the big question is was he on their property, or public property?
Nah. I'm thinking it will be a recruiting tool for the prosecutor's office in Ingham County.
Ah. Maybe so. I guess I was thinking like Gen. Petraeus and The Professional Left.
Please, be sure that your post is in the form of a sentence...
Oh! Wait! Perhaps you are replying to the title of the article, yes? Sorry, I am often a little too quick with the purple correcting pen...
So what?
EVERYTHING is a source of deep offense to islam.
No action, no matter how slight or unintended is too petty to be used as a terrorist recruiting tool.
May as well make it count.
Burning a cross on a black family’s lawn comes with the well-understood message in our culture that the family faced violence if it didn’t give in. It is, quite literally, communicating a threat. Thus it is not protected free speech.
Burning a Quran sends the message that the person wishes to protest Islam or the (usually violent) actions of its adherents in general. In our culture there is no understood threat. It is clearly protected speech. Luckily, thoughtcrime is not yet an offense in this country.
Which race is Islam?
“Oh, crap. This is only going to serve as a recruiting tool for terrorists.”
There’s already plenty of them in Michigan, what’s a few more?
I stand by my tagline.
I will not surrender my freedoms to appease some fanatic, murdering, intolerant blood-lust culr.
SB cult
Off the grounds of the mosque, no problem, unless he is doing something else that is threatening or advocating violence against those in the mosque, or otherwise creating a public disturbance, such as blocking traffic or creating a fire hazard.
But on the grounds of the mosque, on their property, it is a whole different kettle of fish. For a similar reason, it could be said, as the “castle doctrine”.
So the big question is was he on their property, or public property?
I can't tell from the write-ups. It seems that the pages were found outside the mosque. I'm guessing/betting that the person was on public property...
From the Detroit News
Burning a holy book, whose pages were found outside the Islamic Center of East Lansing on Sept. 11, doesn't qualify as a hate crime, Dunnings said.
"We don't have a hate crime. There was no threat of physical intimidation because (the man who burned the Quran) was the only one there at the time," Dunnings said.
The act also was protected by the First Amendment, said Dunnings, who equated it to burning a flag.
"It can also fall under drunken stupidity," he said.
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20100923/METRO/9230388#ixzz10OP4RNNc
Yes, your tagline correctly points out that Sharia law is quite incompatible with the USC.
Great question!
No racism to it. I’m just rejecting allah as a god, and a perverted, ignorant criminal like Mohammad as anything but a blood thirsty kook. Mohammad would be a pile of crap in any race. From the beginning Islam has been nothing but an excuse for brutalizing the weak and oppressing everyone. All korans should be burned.
Probably not. I was being my usual dense self. I'm just not good without visual and verbal cues to catch the inflections...
I wonder if they have any Muslims on their football team?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.