Some time ago, my SIOA colleague Pamela Geller and I applied for a trademark registration for the name Stop Islamization Of America. It was rejected: the trademark office stated that "Islamization" meant "Islamic," and that thus to say that Islamization must be stopped disparaged Muslims in general and linked them to terrorism. This is a common canard against my work, but coming from the Trademark Office we couldn't allow it to stand, so we engaged the great lawyers David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center to pursue the matter. Once again, these warriors for freedom unhesitatingly took the case pro bono, and have filed a brilliant response to the Trademark Office's claims.
Pamela has more details here, and you can read the entire document in this pdf. Here is a key section:
I am legal counsel to the applicant, Pamela Geller, regarding the trademark application referenced above. Please consider this letter and its exhibits as evidentiary support of my client's Response to Office Action Trademark Application Refusal filed via TEAS. Specifically, my client objects to USPTO's Office Action refusal to register ("Office Action") the trademark "Stop the Islamisation of America" ("SIOA") on the grounds that it violates 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), and specifically that the trademark "includes matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs or national symbols."1 Even more particularly, my client objects and responds to the Office Action refusal to register the trademark on the grounds that the trademark "consists of matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute Muslims and the Islamic religion."I. INTRODUCTION.
The Office Action refusal to register my client's trademark predicates its ruling on two grounds: (1) that the meaning of the word 'Islamisation' combined with the word 'Stop' refers to Muslims in a disparaging manner because by definition it implies that conversion or conformity to Islam is something that needs to be stopped or caused to cease; and (2) that my client's trademark, which identifies informational services (i.e., "providing information regarding understanding and preventing terrorism"), "implies that Islam is associated with violence and threats."
My client objects to these two grounds for the following reasons: (1) the Office Action improperly and too generally defines 'Islamisation' as referring to Muslims and Islam; (2) the Office Action fails to identify what specific group of Muslims would be disparaged by the trademark; (3) there is no showing that terrorism is not in fact associated with 'Islamisation'; and (4) refusal to grant the trademark is a violation of my client's right to Free Speech guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
II. THE OFFICE ACTION IMPROPERLY AND TOO GENERALLY DEFINES 'ISLAMISATION' AS REFERRING TO MUSLIMS AND ISLAM.
The Office Action premises its refusal to register based upon the following faulty polysyllogism:
Premise 1: 'Islamisation' refers to converting to Islam or becoming more Islamic.
Premise 2: 'Islam' and 'Islamic' refer to Muslims.
Premise 3: 'Stop' disparages that which it seeks to render inactive.
Proposition: 'Stop the Islamisation of America' ("SIOA") disparages Muslims.The Office Action then applies the proposition of its syllogism to draw the conclusion that because (a) SIOA provides services relating to information of and about terrorism, then (b) SIOA links Muslims qua Muslims to terrorism.
First, the Office Action's proposition that SIOA disparages Muslims, and its further conclusion that SIOA links Muslims qua Muslims to terrorism, both flow from the first premise which is patently false. 'Islamisation' does not refer to an individual or even a society simply converting to the faith of Islam or even becoming more Islamic. The Office Action, in defining 'Islamisation' as merely the conversion to Islam or becoming more Islamic, has improperly relied upon an online dictionary called Dictionary.com (see Office Action Attachments 1-3). The problem with using this online dictionary definition is twofold: (1) the Dictionary.com definition does not properly characterize how Muslims themselves use the word 'Islamisation,' nor does it describe how professional and academics in the relevant disciplines use the word; and (2) The Office Action ignores the dominant and prevailing meaning of the term, which is actually provided by Dictionary.com as a second meaning. This alternative definition is closer to how Muslims use the word and how relevant professionals and academics apply the word in the literature of their respective disciplines. Thus, Dictionary.com recognizes that the word can mean "To cause to conform to Islamic law2 or precepts." (emphasis added.) (See Office Action Attachment 2.) But even this definition is woefully inadequate because 'Islamisation' does not just mean "to cause to conform to [Shariah]," but includes the entire politicalization of Shariah so that it controls all aspects of political, social, economic, and religious life.
Formally, the proper and widely understood definition of 'Islamisation' (alternatively spelled 'Islamization') is the political movement prevalent in a society or societal unit which seeks to embrace a political doctrine that calls for the application of Shariah (i.e., Islamic law) as the supreme law of the society. While Islamisation and the call to create a Shariah-adherent political order does include the call to convert non-Muslims, that is not what marks Islamisation as a political and social order, and it is not how Muslims themselves understand the word, nor is it how professionals and academics in the relevant disciplines use the word.
Rather, Islamisation is specifically the politicization of a Muslim's religious faith in that Shariah, in its classic and extant form, demands that a society's laws must all be predicated upon and subservient to Shariah and its legal jurisprudence called fiqh. Islamisation even in its "moderate" form demands that no secular law may contradict any Shariah dictate. The prototypical examples of this form of Islamisation are the constitutional or legal provisions in Muslim-dominated countries that include a "Shariah-supremacy" clause providing that no secular law passed by the political branches may contradict Shariah.
In short, the Islamisation of a society is the conversion to a theocratic political order organized and enforced by the dictates of Shariah. Per Shariah, there is no possibility of "separation of mosque and state." Shariah applies to all political, social, religious, and military institutions within a society that has undergone Islamisation.
[...]
For the foregoing reasons, we ask that you reverse the Office Action's refusal to register the trademark and to take any and all steps to register the trademark immediately.
Respectfully submitted,
David Yerushalmi, Esq.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/017021.html
Police officers and families moved out of Grenoble
H/T Vladtepesblog
the question I have, why is it significant to have it regitered...
Islamization or not islamization, Muhammad gave non-Muslims three options: conversion to Islam, subjugation as inferiors under Islamic law, or death. Qur’an 9:29.
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/07/perfect-man.html
Well, isn't that the height of dhimmitude. To be against the enslavement of non-Muslims to Muslims is to be against Muslims.
OK, I'm jiggy with that.
In short, the Islamisation of a society is the conversion to a theocratic political order organized and enforced by the dictates of Shariah. Per Shariah, there is no possibility of "separation of mosque and state." Shariah applies to all political, social, religious, and military institutions within a society that has undergone Islamisation.
And where is this 'islamization' professed? In the mosques (masjid in Arabic - place of battle) headquarters for Jihad. To stop islamization must mean to stop all new mosques from going up, starting with the Ground Zero mosque. We cannot have a parallel 'theocratic' islamified Sharia based society within ours based on Constitutional laws and separation of 'mosque and state'. SIOA is right to call for actions to stop the shariazation in America.
as ex muslim, you are exactly correct. spacially athiests like me. in Farsi, they call it Kafar, and more often,
KHODA(GOD)NASHNAS(KNOW NO) so knows no god. we are here for the long run...
I have long been of the opinion that in Western societies, it is much better to say "STOP SHARIAH" rather than "Stop Islam". To stop Shariah IS to stop Islamisation (as the lawyer letter in effect says) but it is a slogan around which a lot more people can unite: liberals, libertarians, democrats of all kinds, drinkers, gamblers, artists, Jews, Christians, Hindus, gays, feminists and even a lot of Muslims who, while "culturally" Islamic in a general way, never want to see true Shariah law introduced.
Personally I wouldn't look to call the orgnaisation "Stop the Islamisation..." because it then brings up all these issues of religious rights, discrimination, ethnic identity and confuses liberals and democrats. But no one can argue that it is legitimate to oppose the introduction of an alien anti-constitutional legal system should not be introduced into a Western democracy.
That said, I fully support SIOA's legal challenge. One should, in a free society, be able to argue against domination of your society by a religion.
excellent!! well said!!
The PC troll who needs attention strikes again.
To reiterate an earlier point I made
------------------------------------------
Miriam Rove is a troll who likes to go to PajamasMedia and: 1.Argues that since Bush was bad, Obama shouldn't be blamed for anything 2. Uses a completely different comment to throw a jab at the Israeli's 3. Uses horrific grammar 4. Gets attention by trying to piss people off, because she has nothing better to do in life.
Ignore the troll, it has made many posts which have never had a valid argument. Some of the muslims that do post here on a regular basic, have been coherent and have made points from their perspective, rather than relying on socialist and PC dogma.
Thomas More Law Centre
:)
They do have some excellent distinctions. Cool!
and unlike pajamas medai and its founder Roger Simon who borrowed a chapter from President Ahmadinejad and cesor people and only intrested to hear what they hear, this site does not do that and they hear all voices. and unlike Pajam Media, who is hell bent on Muslims and Islam, this site is trying to undo and expose a phenomenon that is effecting our way of life.
uses horrofic grammer.. get over it!
Throws jab at Isrealis: and thar is another problem with Pajamasmedia and you. at Pajamasmedia you are alloded to critisize the Israeli government.
and where here do you see I am pissing people off?
pajamasmedia is a politcally motivated from and has a consevative agendas and some of which I do not agree with. this site is APOLITACL and is not pursuing a political agenda. they are merley trying to expose Jihad and radical muslims. that is wht I am here. you get the difference now between the two site?
you do n ot nessecrly have to be a conservative and be again Jihad. plenty of liberls do hate them to. so get over it...
and unlike pajamas medai and its founder Roger Simon who borrowed a chapter from President Ahmadinejad and cesor people and only intrested to hear what they hear, this site does not do that and they hear all voices. and unlike Pajam Media, who is hell bent on Muslims and Islam, this site is trying to undo and expose a phenomenon that is effecting our way of life.
uses horrofic grammer.. get over it!
Throws jab at Isrealis: and thar is another problem with Pajamasmedia and you. at Pajamasmedia you are alloded to critisize the Israeli government.
and where here do you see I am pissing people off?
pajamasmedia is a politcally motivated from and has a consevative agendas and some of which I do not agree with. this site is APOLITACL and is not pursuing a political agenda. they are merley trying to expose Jihad and radical muslims. that is wht I am here. you get the difference now between the two site?
you do n ot nessecrly have to be a conservative and be again Jihad. plenty of liberls do hate them to. so get over it...
IM,
The poster to whom you refer has stated on this site that 'she' is a 'he.' And, if to be believed, is quite the erstwhile ladies-man.
This is not to refute what you're saying. Just for the record on what's been claimed here...
G
The SIOA organization faces unnecessary legal hurdles for almost everything it does, due to our society which loves to kiss the ass of muslims.
------------------
Grammar point proven. You have the vocabulary of a second grader. Keep posting for online attention troll.
English is not mirium's first language. So what. That doesn't disqualify someone. As long as mirium is sufficiently against the jihad and sharia, no problem.
I'm going to answer your earlier question. When a name and trademark are registered it means that these are exclusive to this organization and cannot be legally used by any other individual or organization. So, in this case, no person or group could legally claim to be SIOA or use its symbol. OK?
I can't wait to see the Trademark Office's response to this one. It's a sort of damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don't situation for them. LOL.
"Infidel Mont" Thanks for the information. I can usually smell a liar a mile away & was beginning to doubt myself. I should have known better.
All well and good, but David Yerushalmi is not liceneced to practice before the US Patent and Trademark Office.
My client objects to these two grounds for the following reasons: (1) the Office Action improperly and too generally defines 'Islamisation' as referring to Muslims and Islam; (2) the Office Action fails to identify what specific group of Muslims would be disparaged by the trademark; (3) there is no showing that terrorism is not in fact associated with 'Islamisation'; and (4) refusal to grant the trademark is a violation of my client's right to Free Speech guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
(3) and (4) -- yes. (1) and (2), however, aggrieve.
As to which of the two possible reasons why (1) and (2) were felt necessary for inclusion, I don't know which aggrieves more:
a) that the clients and their attorneys feel it necessary (or that indeed it is necessary) to continue, nearly a decade after 911, to step in gingerly fashion around the hypersensitive eggshells of our PC MC masters;
or
b) that the clients actually sincerely believe (1) and (2).
Why did you file 1b (intnet to use) instead of a 1a? You had use in commerce as early as September 25, 2009.
You saved me a lot of typing. I agree with you completely!
It is not preaching to the choir that is important in this batle, it is sounding credible enough for the uncommitted or deluded majority to bother to listen!
I agree with you as well.
If the focus was on shariah instead of islamization , I think more of the dhimmis would feel comfortable both listening & acting, and they wouldn't have to fear being called a bigot, racist or islamophobe quite so much.
It's all about making dhimmis feel comfortable?
For how long must we do this?
"Personally I wouldn't look to call the orgnaisation "Stop the Islamisation..." because it then brings up all these issues of religious rights, discrimination, ethnic identity and confuses liberals and democrats. But no one can argue that it is legitimate to oppose the introduction of an alien anti-constitutional legal system should not be introduced into a Western democracy."
I agree, good post! In a way, thanks to Robert Spencer and people like him, we now know much so much about Islam, even more than the average Muslim! And we know that the very laws of Islam in part contradict the laws of Democratic countries. We might even say: "It's about the laws, stupid". I think we should juxtapose the laws and interests of dedicated Muslims and Democratic citizens.
Your proposal turned around in a positive way: Let us choose Democratic laws, rules, values over Islamic ones when the 2 contradict. And let us choose to further the interests of Democratic nations & organisations over those of Islamic nations & organisations when the 2 compete. Let us choose to protect the rights of religious minorities equally all around the world instead of allowing the rights of religious minorities to be so differently in law and practice in Democratic and Islamic nations.
Let us put this choice to the Islamic inhabitants of the Democratic world. After a positive response let us still monitor and evaluate them. After a negative response let us regard them as inhabitants but not as loyal and united citizens. And let us stop more of them coming in.
You are right, being against all Islam and all Muslims does not unite Democratic citizens much, but being against Islamic laws that contradict and overrule Democratic ones, and against Islamic interests that contradict and overrule the ones of Democratic nations might make many more Democratic citizens unite in defense of their very laws and interests.
Oh, if only the real loyalty and unity of Muslims were asked, checked and charted!
Reply to notoshariah
I agree whole-heartedly to his suggestion that "No to Shariah"
is more innocuous and at the same time is against the whole gamut of Islamic activities in democratic infidel lands. The moment anybody says "No to Islam...." a whole bunch of lefties and clueless people will come to the defense of Islam. Or maybe SIOA could start an offshoot organisation called "No to Shariah".
How about an organization called "Sharia is Treason" -- the acronym could be SH.I.T.
You know, squint your eyes a bit and it's kinda hard to see much difference between the language Bobby and Co. use and the language of their opponents. "Freedom" "Warriors" "Holy" "Evil" hmm, maybe its all relative and just about perspective after all...
Allah Bless America!!!
This is what happens when the Anglo elite loses control of a society....which they'll never regain. I hope everyone enjoys the new 'populist' view.
what makes you think that I am lair. simply because my politcal views are different from you, it makes me a lair?
this is Apoltical site. there in no politcal agenda on this site. everyone here is against one thing"Jihad". you can be on the left/right/ center it does not matter! do you get it! PJM, is a conservative site with a policat agenda. It's founder Roger Simon and the rest of are trained by Iranain Sercret Police how silence people. I have post 7 blogs on that site in the last three days with none being published! censor ship the Iranian government style!!! do you get it?
To add to George's comment, the registered trademark owner has greater control of domain names as well.
Correction:
Allah Bites, A**hole!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God Bless America! ...now that's more like it :)
Sharia has been abrogated by human rights.
Yes, Demsci, let us stop more of them coming in.
The first step is to show political leaders there is widespread support for such a policy. They would not dare propose that kind of legislation otherwise. So we've created some petitions.
For the UK: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/3/no-more-muslim-immigration-to-the-uk
For the US: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/no-more-Muslim-immigration
For Australia: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/4/no-more-muslim-immigration-to-australia
And we will shortly have one for Canada, which you will be able to find here: http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2009/01/stop-muslim-immigration-to-united.html
How about "Stop the Dhimmitization of America?"