A long war, and a hard-won victory: after a decade-long battle, we have won our free speech lawsuit against Detroit for our ads offering help to people who had left Islam or wanted to leave Islam and were facing threats.
“After Ten Years, Court Strikes Down Ruling Banning Ads Offering Help to Those Leaving Islam,” by Pamela Geller, American Thinker, October 29, 2020:
It took nearly twelve years, but we did it. My organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), has just won an important victory for the freedom of speech.
Back in 2009, the Detroit area’s SMART transit refused to run our AFDI ads offering help to people who were in fear for their lives for wanting to leave Islam or having left it. After an incredibly protracted court battle, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals just stood up for the First Amendment and completely reversed the judgment banning our ads. It’s a total victory for freedom: we won our free speech lawsuit in Detroit by a unanimous decision.
Our ad read: “Leaving Islam? Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Got Questions? Get Answers! RefugefromIslam.com.” That’s all it said. It offered a life-saver for those who were completely and utterly alone with no system of support or help.
Islamic law mandates death for those who leave Islam; even in the United States, those who leave the religion live in fear that a devout Muslim might decide to apply this penalty. So we were offering help. That is all. But as Eugene Volokh explains at The Volokh Conspiracy, “Michigan’s Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) rejected this ad under two of its speech restrictions. The first prohibits ‘political’ ads; the second prohibits ads that would hold up a group of people to ‘scorn or ridicule.'”
Our ad was not political and didn’t scorn or ridicule anyone. It’s ridiculous to say saving lives is a political act, and so of course we won the initial case. The first judge who ruled on this case, Judge Denise Page Hood, understood the law and so ruled in favor of our free speech rights. She understood the First Amendment. Therefore, although she was clearly not sympathetic to us, she had to rule for us.
But then SMART appealed. SMART adamantly refused to run outreach ads that might have helped Muslims living in dangerous households and appealed to the notoriously leftist Sixth Circuit. You might have thought the Muslim Brotherhood was running SMART. It was astounding. And consider the fact that Detroit was bankrupt around this same time. Sharia adherence was still more important to the broken city’s failed leaders than were the freedom of speech and fiscal responsibility.
There is much more. Read the rest here.
Naildriver says
Islam certainly deserves scorn and ridicule.
It is long over due that our country protect people who receive such threats from Islam’s devotees; and, that our governme3nt publicly proclaims Islam unfit as a religious option for Americans – even if it cannot be totally excized as the enemy it is, as under the Constitution people would still have a right to believe it. Islam, nevertheless, less should have serious downsides for individuals who believe it.
t. says
Finally, a kind of promising bit of news after a string of jihad attacks, killings, beheadings, and escalation of rhetoric by Muslims while the west and rest of the world are silent.
t. says
I really think that right now, the west is at a major crossroads.
How all western countries will act in the following days and weeks, in response to the duel between France and the Muslim block, will really determine the course of history.
It would be either a slam dunk victory on the road to world domination for this on-a-massive-scale cult or affirmation of the presence of those so called higher brain centers, separating us humans from animals, and actually using them.
juleonly says
Get more sign up now! its important.
Henry Schalk says
Bravo! A noble cause, and a stupendous victory! Thank you Pamela and Robert for your determination and perseverance!
Michael Copeland says
Hear hear!
Martin says
Arabs and Muslims as scapegoats
James Zogby , Wednesday 28 Oct 2020
During the past century, we have witnessed a long and tragic history of US domestic policies that have targeted persons of Arab descent. We’ve been subject to discriminatory treatment by law enforcement, immigration authorities, and by both Democratic and Republican administrations. In addition to these hurtful policies, it is important to note the role played by the scapegoating of Arabs in American politics.
In the “The Politics of Exclusion,” published in 1990 by the Arab American Institute, we have documented painful experiences of Arab American candidates who were targeted by their opponents for their Arab ancestry or the instances in which candidates for local and federal posts baited their opponents for accepting contributions from Arab Americans or for having an individual of Arab descent on staff. As a result, some candidates became afraid of accepting the support of Arab Americans.
Examples abound. In 1983, a Democrat running for mayor in Philadelphia was challenged by his Republican opponent for accepting contributions from Arab Americans. He responded by returning the donations. In 1984, Walter Mondale running for president returned money to Arab American donors and in 1988, Michael Dukakis’ presidential campaign rejected an Arab American endorsement. In the years that followed, a Republican Congressman running for Senate asked Arab American leaders not to contribute to his campaign as did a Democrat running for mayor in New York City.
All of these acts of discrimination were motivated by fear of alienating Jewish voters and were prompted by a campaign launched by a number of major American Jewish organisations, including the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and AIPAC, who published “blacklists” warning of the emergence of Arab American leaders and groups who were deemed “anti-Israel” and were therefore to be shunned.
During the next two decades, especially following the signing of the Oslo Accords, this exclusion somewhat subsided, only to make a disturbing comeback during the 2008 presidential campaign. It resurfaced as an exclusively Republican-led effort and morphed into a largely anti-Muslim phenomenon.
Vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin stoked anti-Arab and anti-Muslim fires in framing her opposition to the Democratic nominee Barack Obama. This effort of focusing on Obama’s “otherness” resulted in the encounter Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, had at a town hall meeting. When accosted by a questioner who insisted that Obama was an Arab, McCain famously responded: “No, he’s not, he’s a decent family man.” While heralded by some in the media as a sign of McCain’s nobility, Arab Americans, many of whom were “decent family men”, were less than impressed.
In 2010, we witnessed distinct Muslim-baiting used in a national campaign for the first time. It was utilised by former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich who latched onto a local New York City controversy involving plans to build an Islamic community centre a short distance from Ground Zero.
Using the language of anti-Muslim bigots, Gingrich said that Muslims were intending to construct a “Victory Mosque” to mark their conquering America. In that year’s Congressional elections, 17 Republican candidates ran ominous TV ads accusing their Democratic opponents of being “soft” in their opposition to the “Victory Mosque”.
While only two of the 17 won their races, the die was cast. Fuelled by the nativism and xenophobia Republicans had utilised to build the anti-Obama Tea Party and Birther Movement, they embraced anti-Muslim bigotry as a major theme in their political repertoire. By 2012, during a Republican primary presidential debate, the majority of contenders pledged that they would either refuse to appoint an American Muslim to a post in their administration or, at the very least, would insist they first take a pledge of allegiance to the US before considering them.
While this view was not shared by the eventual nominee, Mitt Romney, Muslim-baiting continued to grow within the Republican Party, setting the stage for Donald Trump in 2016. During that year’s campaign, Muslims were one of candidate Trump’s favoured targets, along with Mexicans, refugees and immigrants in general. In addition to building a wall to keep out Mexicans, he pledged to stop more Muslims from coming into the country and to keep a close eye on those who were here.
It was, therefore, no surprise that shortly after his inauguration, President Trump issued an executive order suspending and placing restrictions on immigrants or refugees coming from seven mostly Arab and Muslim-majority countries. It was punitive and not justified. Those excluded were mostly students, visiting family members, or businesspeople. Visas were cancelled for between 60,000 to 100,000 innocents who were detained, interrogated and many sent back to their countries of origin.
In reaction to negative court decisions that he was unfairly singling out Muslims, Trump issued new executive orders increasing the countries covered in his ban. Nevertheless, the list remained largely focused on and adversely affected Arab and Muslim-majority countries.
In an equally cruel act, Trump reduced the annual number of refugees admitted into the US from Obama era highs of over 110,000 to less than 20,000. And while his administration has made much of its concern for Christians, this severe contraction of refugee slots coupled with the ban on immigration from targeted countries has severely impacted Arabs without regard for their faith.
The point to note in all of this is that the rhetoric espoused and the policies pursued by the Trump administration, in fact, have their foundation in a decades long effort by the Republican Party to target Arabs and Muslims, and by the failure of Democrats to vigorously confront and defeat these policies. And a by-product of this insidious history has been the role that this bigotry has played in promoting hate crimes against our communities.
The well has been poisoned and it will not be easy to undo the damage done. The challenge, however, is clear. We must put our immigration policy back on a sound non-discriminatory basis.We must dramatically increase our admission of refugees and asylees to meet the growing world demand. We must close the loopholes that make Arabs and Muslims fair game for Customs and Border Patrol officials. And we must fight xenophobia, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies, and base our relationships with these communities on their being fellow Americans and NOT ON SECURITY CONCERNS .
*The writer is president of the Arab American Institute.
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentP/4/389411/Opinion/Arabs-and-Muslims-as-scapegoats.aspx
Michael Copeland says
Objecting to an ideology that commands your head to be cut off is not bigotry.
The Political Oracle says
Agree! +1 Also, understanding what religion is not is also not bigotry. Those who put too much faith and effort into religion fail to understand the true reason for religion. Therefore, there must be a balance of religion and life, liberty and happiness in one’s life.
Keith O says
WOW, did this arsehole study under Joseph Goebbels?
That is one of the most convoluted stories I have ever seen.
Talk about trying to polish a turd!
gravenimage says
Appalling bs from James Zogby. Michael Copeland’s comment is spot on.
Kat says
No one eould hate islam if they werent out to conquer, enslave, kill, etc….this is our objection. Never have i seen or heard of one kindness about islam. Its all about forceable conversion, forceable taxation, beheading, stoning, slavery, and taking over the world. Now….who wants that in their backard??? Hmm?????
James Lincoln says
Fantastic news for Pamela Geller and her American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) !
A big win !
Cornelius says
Congratulations to Pam Gellar and AFDI for their determination and tenacity. The ad itself has profoundly broader political and sociological implications than it seems to at first glance. It informs/reminds everyone of the violent and totalitarian proclivities of a religion that mandates death for apostasy.
gravenimage says
After Ten Years, Court Strikes Down Ruling Banning AFDI Ads Offering Help to Those Leaving Islam
………………
Finally! Kudos to Pamela Geller and everyone at AFDI.
Khushi says
Thank you Pamela and Robert for staying the course and for doing what you do
maria says
Congratulations Mrs Geller. You are one of staunchest, bravest journalists in the US
vcragain says
You are in error in constantly talking about ‘Lefties’ as your enemy – how about dropping all the politics & concentrating on your prime modus operandi – education about Islam & its’ horrible influence ??? I’m a Leftie, as I keep telling you guys – yet here I am reading your site’s postings & sometimes agreeing with points raised. I HATE Islam, consider it a plague on this planet & a huge threat to the world’s populations….I am not your enemy…’Lefties’ are simply people who wish for a fair shake for the population in financial dealings, work offerings etc etc…..does anybody REALLY wish to see poverty everywhere in the wealthiest country on this planet ?….. it’s a big discussion, and when enjoined by decent humans there is usually no argument on what should be the status of all humans on this planet, so sewing seeds of vicious hatred does nothing to help any of us. Drop the politics & do your thing on your core subject please – jihadwatch – you could be supported by many more like me if you just got your political attitude adjusted ! I am out there constantly trying to educate my Leftie friends on just why they need to be VERY wary of what the cost could be with too much power gained by Islamists !
James Lincoln says
vcragain,
Your post suggests that you are not a Leftist but a JFK type liberal.
Big difference.
True Leftists will not even engage in conversation that goes against their deeply held beliefs. Liberals will, even if they don’t change their beliefs.
And the Red / Green alliance is absolutely real…
gravenimage says
I am a classic Liberal in many ways. I *wish* so many on the left were not enabling Islam, but sadly it is so. That is the problem, not pointing it out.
Unbeliever1 says
Islam seems to be the only religion from which its practitioners need help in leaving. It’s a normal thing for people to change religions like changing their clothes. The only other organizations that I’ve heard of where it’s hard to leave besides Islam are crime syndicates.
gravenimage says
+1
DavidR says
The airing of Muslim’s dirty laundry is the biggest fear of Islamists, leftists, liberal media ” journalists” and even their so called moderate counter types. This laundry is really, really dirty – with blood stains and worse.