Skip to main content

Why is the left ignoring the following story? (abridged)

A New York City Christian Festival volunteer who filed a complaint against four Muslims testified Wednesday that he felt intimidated by the group.
Bob Johnson, told police he was being harassed by a film crew.
"They were making me nervous, and I felt intimidated," Johnson said at the trial for the Muslims in District Court in New York City.
Nabeel Qureshi of Virginia, Negeen Mayel of California and Paul Rezkalla and David Wood, both of New York, were charged with breach of peace.
About 15 minutes later, Qureshi, Wood and Rezkalla were arrested.
Johnson complaint was the only one police received, Smith said.
Robert Muise, attorney for the Muslims, showed jurors segments of a video of Johnson interacting with Qureshi and another volunteer.
Johnson said he was having a pleasant conversation with the other volunteer when Qureshi interrupted. Williams said he told Qureshi, "You don't have to worry about me messing with him. I'm going to mess with you."
"I was out of line saying that statement," Johnson said. "They were not doing anything illegal, but I still felt threatened."

The men spent a night in jail, and were acquitted of the charges.  Nadel was convicted of not following a police officer’s orders.    
Then to top it off, look at what the Mayer said about the issue:

___________________________________________________________________________
Knowing that the Muslims will be attending next year’s festival, Muise said the next step to exonerate the Muslims’ constitutional rights is to take civil rights action against the city, whose mayor said he respected the jury’s decision but maintained that the Muslims’ actions are unconstitutional.

"It's really about a hatred of Christians," the Mayor told the NY Times after the verdict was released. "That is what the whole heart of this is."
"Their idea is that there is no place for Christian’s in America. They fail to understand the Constitution," he added.
___________________________________________________________________________

Being that the left always says that "they might not agree with what you say, but they will defend with their life your right to say it", you would think there would be at least one reference to this story on DKOS, and perhaps, I just haven’t been able to find it with the search criteria that I used.  But why not more notoriety?

Hopefully, you are pissed off by now, but don’t worry, this story doesn’t follow the template you might expect.
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that while the names of the accused are correct, the facts as I presented are just a bit different than what really happened.  Different, but it shouldn't make a difference.  Read below the fold to see if it does.

Instead of it being Muslim’s arrested at a Christian event, it was Christian’s arrested at a Arab and apparently Muslim event in Dearborn, Michigan.    Instead of the mayor of NYC, it was the mayor of Dearborn.   I also changed the names of the officer and accuser.

Here is the real story from the Detriot Free Press:

A Dearborn Arab International Festival volunteer who filed a complaint against four Christian missionaries accused of inciting a crowd while evangelizing at the event testified Wednesday that he felt intimidated by the group.

Roger Williams, a festival volunteer from Florida, told police he was being harassed by a film crew.
"They were making me nervous, and I felt intimidated," Williams said at the trial for the missionaries in 19th District Court in Dearborn.
Cpl. Brian Kapanowski told jurors Wednesday he received the complaint from Williams at the June 18 festival.
"I accompanied Williams to identify them," Kapanowski said. "It is my duty to investigate all criminal complaints."
Nabeel Qureshi of Virginia, Negeen Mayel of California and Paul Rezkalla and David Wood, both of New York, were charged with breach of peace.
Mayel also was charged with failure to obey a police officer's order.
"I asked her to put down the camera, and she was backing up away from me," Kapanowski said. "When someone is a subject of an investigation, they have to stop what they're doing and answer my questions."
About 15 minutes later, Qureshi, Wood and Rezkalla were arrested.
Williams' complaint was the only one police received, Kapanowski said.
Robert Muise, attorney for the missionaries, showed jurors segments of a video of Williams interacting with Qureshi and another volunteer.
Williams said he was having a pleasant conversation with the other volunteer when Qureshi interrupted. Williams said he told Qureshi, "You don't have to worry about me messing with him. I'm going to mess with you."
"I was out of line saying that statement," Williams said. "They were not doing anything illegal, but I still felt threatened."
The trial continues today before Judge Mark Somers.

And here is where they are acquitted:
http://www.christianpost.com/article...

And here is where they are suing: (here you can see the Mayer’s comments)

http://www.christianpost.com/...

Some time ago, I posted a diarypositing the idea that the left was not really as concerned about the 1rst amendment as they portray it.  Prove me wrong.

Originally posted to RightLeaningMod on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:38 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  (shrug) Yah, at first glance that looks wrong... (6+ / 0-)

    Not sure what grand lesson you draw from it, though. Every single day there are about a brazillion fuck-ups in this country that don't get diaried.

    I guess that proves we really don't care about 99.99999% of everything that happens. lols

    I'm gonna go eat a steak. And fuck my wife. And pray to GOD - hatemailapalooza, 052210

    by punditician on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:46:34 PM PDT

  •  The honest truth is (11+ / 0-)

    We don't really care much about your diary.  

    People who push other people around over religion are assholes, whether Christians, Muslims, Jews or Buddhists.  I think that is a majority view around here.

    People who get in other people's faces and try  to convert them are rude and unpleasant and the first amendment doesn't prevent the rest of us from heaping scorn on them.  They have the right; we don't need to rush to put bandaids on their egos.  

    People who want to stereotype about the "left" by substituting "Christian" for "Muslim" have a first amendment right to make that argument.  We also have the right to claim that this diary is specious and really pretty foolish.  

    "Die Stimme der Vernuft ist leise." (The voice of reason is soft)

    by ivorybill on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:48:44 PM PDT

  •  It's Dearborn, what do you expect? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    burrow owl
  •  christ, if you're going to post concern troll (8+ / 0-)

    diaries at least write a coherent one.

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:51:54 PM PDT

    •  Ooooh I get it! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BoiseBlue

      He's a zomgohnoessharialaw liar.

      I can be dense sometimes. I blame the hangover.

      I'm gonna go eat a steak. And fuck my wife. And pray to GOD - hatemailapalooza, 052210

      by punditician on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:53:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So (0+ / 0-)

        A story (true or not) about supression of the 1rst ammendment from Muslim's to Christians indicates that I am a "zomgohnoessharialaw liar".

        I never said anything about sharia law.  I just wonder why liberals don't care about this sort of thing, when in fact if the roles were reversed, you would be screaming at the top of your lungs.

        •  Poor, poor downtrodden christians. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ivorybill, BoiseBlue, Bonsai66

          Gosh the country is just so bad to them. So sad that no one cares. :'(

          I'm gonna go eat a steak. And fuck my wife. And pray to GOD - hatemailapalooza, 052210

          by punditician on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:59:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So, (1+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            PubliusPublicola
            Hidden by:
            Bulldawg

            Since Christians are the majority, they are not entitlted to 1rst ammendment rights in certain parts of the country?  Where did I try to elicit sympathy for Christians?

            Funny, if you guys don't like a diary, you call the diarist a troll, and resort to silly arguments like "poor Christians".

            •  Of course they are (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              neroden, bobsc

              entitled to first amendment rights.  Fundamentalist Christians absolutely have the right to proselytize at a Muslim community event.  And fundamentalist Christians have the right to burn Korans.  All that is true.  Is it wise?  No.  Is it respectful?  Not at all.

              I think what is really going on is that the right wing is uncomfortable about Muslims in general and this provides a good opportunity to whine about how unfair the left is for not immediately jumping on this as if it were an important story.  

              But let me ask you this.  Would you be protesting if Muslims were trying to convert blonde little Baptist kids in an Atlanta suburb and Bubba intimidated them?  Would you suddenly be on Red State clutching your pearls about the First Amendment?  Probably not.  

              "Die Stimme der Vernuft ist leise." (The voice of reason is soft)

              by ivorybill on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:17:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What's the Venue For This? Public Place, Yes They (0+ / 0-)

                have the right. Church or mosque grounds, private property, they have some 1st amendment rights but maybe not to the extent of coming and proseltyzing.

                We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

                by Gooserock on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 05:54:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Poor, poor downtrodden you. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LeftHandedMan, Bonsai66

              lols

              I'm gonna go eat a steak. And fuck my wife. And pray to GOD - hatemailapalooza, 052210

              by punditician on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:18:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Give some evidence that "we don't care" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          neroden, Bonsai66

          Every single link you provided goes to some right-wing site. It's not a big story, it hasn't been reported by anyone that the majority of kossacks would read.

          P.S. I am not a crackpot.

          by BoiseBlue on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:00:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Any comment on the story? (0+ / 0-)

      I mean, what do you think?

      •  I thought I made that clear (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        neroden, Bonsai66

        I think you should write a coherent diary.

        P.S. I am not a crackpot.

        by BoiseBlue on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:00:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  OK, I'll try to be more coherent next time (0+ / 0-)

          Fine, not that your ad-hom is taken care of, what about the facts of the actual case?

          Was this just?

          •  That's not an ad hom (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            neroden, Red Bean, notrouble, Bonsai66

            The diary is not coherent; that's a comment about the diary, not about you.

            And, if you're looking to increase readership for a diary, it's usually not condusive to the same by starting off with such an offensive tone, i.e., "you don't care about the First Amendment; prove me wrong."  

            •  Sure it is (0+ / 0-)

              The charge was repeated several times when in fact the reader was able to understand the diary.

              Just because the object was the diary, doesn't mean they weren't attacking the diarist.

              •  Pull out a dictionary (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                neroden, aoeu

                You're laboring under a misunderstanding of a basic term used around here.

                And, the fact is that you wrote a diary that doesn't read well and you appear to have a chip on your shoulder.  Lose the attitude, learn how to write something a little more compelling, and maybe you'll get a more positive result.

                Frankly, I don't see you lasting very long around here.  Prove me wrong.

            •  Concur. An ad hom attack would look more like (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              neroden

              The diarist is a troll, therefore this must be a troll diary

              whereas the argument being made is more along the lines of,

              This is a troll diary, therefore the diarist must be a troll.

            •  The diary is VERY incoherent. (0+ / 0-)

              If you're going to do a Christian-Muslim swap, at least make the names consistent.  The first part is unreadable, particularly when I get to this:

              Williams said he told Qureshi, "You don't have to worry about me messing with him. I'm going to mess with you."
              "I was out of line saying that statement," Johnson said.

              Huh?  Johnson said he was out of line saying WHAT?  All we've heard is a statement by Williams.

              -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

              by neroden on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 05:34:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I don't know what (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ivorybill, Bonsai66

    to make of this diary.

  •  I think a better example is the utter silence (3+ / 0-)

    on both the right and the left about Molly Norris, who has been forced to change her name and drop under the radar because she dared to draw a Mohammed cartoon and is now being threatened with death by Islamic extremists.

    •  I'll weigh in on that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden

      She should be protected, and anyone who tries to hurt her should be charged with a crime and tried in court.  That's not negotiable. I think the overwhelming number of people here would agree to that.

      I do think that her Mohammed cartoon was foolish, offensive and mostly done in order to drum up a controversy in order to give her failing career a boost.  I think she deserves protection and scorn.  I think that it is foolish to assume that Muslims in general are the problem, just as you can't very well blame anglo Chicagoans if some idiot Nazi marches in Skokie.

      That said, she has the right to do what she did, just like that idiot pastor who wanted a burn the koran day.  In both cases, people running failing enterprises decided to try something inflamatory to get a little traction. We can support their right to say or draw or do what they want, but we can call them out for stupidity.  If I should walk through Skokie on a Saturday dressed in a nazi uniform, I don't deserve to be killed or forced into hiding due to death threats.  However, I would deserve scorn from the general public.  I feel a similar way about Molly Norris and that clown in Copenhagen.

      "Die Stimme der Vernuft ist leise." (The voice of reason is soft)

      by ivorybill on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:48:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Huh? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mike S, neroden, Bonsai66

    Bob Johnson, told police he was being harassed by a film crew.

    Why drag Bob Johnson into this?

    What did he ever do to you?

    What have you done for DC statehood today? Call your Rep and Senators and demand action.

    by mistersite on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:12:02 PM PDT

  •  Let's see: (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    neroden, keikekaze, notrouble, Bonsai66, aoeu
    1. You have a narrative, a thesis, and you are pretty much posting this diary to confirm your own beliefs about people who disagree with you. It's clear from your commentary that agreeing with you is the minimum standard for seriousness, and even if you find individuals who agree with you, you are looking for a group of people to lock step agree with you and respond as you would have them respond to "prove" a commitment to an ideal to your satisfaction.
    1. You have already determined that if the parties were reversed, you know exactly how people here would respond. In poker, that's called a 'tell'. Unless the entire group rushes to your position, the entire group has no commitment to the issue and has collectively failed.
    1. There is nothing anybody here could say, even if they told you they agreed with you 100%, that would convince you that your thesis, that "the Left" is not serious about 1rst amendment protections, was wrong. Even if this diary was filled with 100% agreement in the commentary, you would simply add in a 'it's too bad the Left isn't like these commentators'. Straight out of Fox News, the goalposts would be moved to a new place. You would simply move on to another example that confirms your pre-conceived beliefs.

    OTOH, liberals are showing their true colors here.

    So, you are demanding we agree with you, essentially under the guise of "daring us" to deny your thesis, which is meaningless, because you will simply move on to another example that confirms your beliefs anyway, to "prove" we collectively don't care about the 1rst amendment as strongly as we claim to for failing to jump up and down to your personal satisfaction.

    Concern trolling is about the poster more than the community it is targeted at.

    As I see it, I don't have to prove anything to your satisfaction to "prove" anything about what I do, or do not, believe.

    I could just as easily condemn you for hypocrisy for strongly supporting a group using a civil suit seeking economic redress, since it is typically a conservative position that this is an abuse of the Tort system for personal gain, but since you are sympathetic to the idea that Christians are oppressed for their Christianity, it's okay.

    •  On the case itself: (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mike S, ivorybill, palantir, Darmok, aoeu

      It appears that an evangelical Christian organization went to a large Muslim communities social event to be provacative, to provoke a response that would allow them to further the claim that there is a creeping Muslim threat to Christianity in America.

      Jackpot for the Christianists.

      It always amazes me when conservatives start talking like ACLU activists about 1rst amendment purism only when they are trying to push a narrative condemning the center left of the American political spectrum.

      Anyone with a lick of common sense could see that there was an agenda to generate what could be framed as Christian oppression.

      Everything went according to plan, and there was a confrontation and, in the heat of the moment, somebody connected with the event did something stupid. Which was the whole point of the exercise.

      It's simply impossible for me to naively ignore that this is exactly what they wanted to happen, a controversy that allows them to further their anti-Muslim narrative on the basis of the wrongdoings or overreaches of several people working the event.

      It was stupid, and wrong, of anyone at the Muslim event to give the missionaries any grief. It was a mistake, not only on freedom of speech grounds, but also on the grounds of not taking the bait and doing exactly what the Christian activists wanted them to do to generate controversy to further their attacks on a religion they despise.

      But it is also terribly naive to believe that this is anything but what the Christian group wanted to go down.

      This tempers my outrage. As does the false equivalency of any comparison that evens out the imbalance of power between powerful and less powerful groups to sell a narrative.

      •  Thanks for responding with substance. (0+ / 0-)

        Yes, they are agitators, but I think you are downplaying the fact that the police officers went along with it, and the mayor still supports it.  I think the city will pay for that.

        Your last statement is what I was expecting from the left (i.e. poor Christians).  Liberals are not very concerned with the rights of Christians as they see Christians as the oppressors.  

        I don't agree with the methods they used, but I am alarmed at the hand waiving going on about the issue itself.  

        BTW, I also was alarmed at the respones about the Muslim Center near the WTC.

        •  Of course it is (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bulldawg, neroden

          Your last statement is what I was expecting from the left (i.e. poor Christians).  Liberals are not very concerned with the rights of Christians as they see Christians as the oppressors.

           

          And I know exactly why that is:


          It's why you came here.

          Now, satisfied that your own pre-conceived beliefs having been thoroughly confirmed, you can move on to concern trolling about something else.

          Again, I don't believe you. I think anybody who does give you the benefit of the doubt is being frightfully naive.

          •  Wrong (1+ / 2-)
            Recommended by:
            PubliusPublicola
            Hidden by:
            Bulldawg, buzzybodhi

            I am here to challenge my beliefes and views.  You are totally wrong about me...

            •  Wrong (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aoeu
              Here's why you're here, in your own words, from your "blog:"

              The left has mastered the art of framing a debate using semantics and accusations of hypocrisy, but let's not despise them for this work of sophistry. Rather, while we destroy these arguments with logic and rational thought, let's also explore them to see how we can be more consistent at applying our ethics and values.

              So you're a liar, as well as a deluded "conservative" fool. And I think you might be misunderestimating us, just a little.

  •  Cough (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bulldawg, neroden

    Prove me wrong.

    and we're off. We always let diarists frame the RWTPs. Otherwise we are the ones suppressing free speech, doncha know.

    •  Talking points (1+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      PubliusPublicola
      Hidden by:
      Bulldawg

      I don't think so.  Why can't people just say that this was wrong?

      •  I've just read every comment to this point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        neroden, Bonsai66

        and no one believes that Muslims followed a just course. What the F more do you want?

        Christians in this nation at this time do not NEED their constitutional rights enforced. They are entitled and no one here would curtail them, but, majority rights are, in most cases, granted without question, enforced without litigation, and extended to other members of the majority population as a social norm. They are not, however, so readily extended to certain minorities in all cases.

        So, no, while we all condemn any and all abuses of the 1st amendment we find that a minority group acting as foolishly as the majority often does, unremarkable.

  •  Your conclusion (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    neroden, bobsc

    Cannot follow from this.  It took me three reads of that (very poorly written) Detroit Free Press article to figure out what happened.  So first off, it's difficult to even suss out whose 1st amendment rights were violated and how.

    Next you have the claim that the missionaries were intimidating this person who complained.  So that is the basis for the State involvement in the form of the cop.  Physical intimidation is a form of threat and I can certainly see police being interested in such a complaint.

    Further the missionaries were not arrested for evangelizing but for somehow pissing off the cop.  I am no police apologist and lefties regularly complain about the increasing authoritarian bent of police to arrest people for disobeying their instructions, so yeah I join you in being pissed about that, but that's maybe a fourth amendment violation to be secure in their persons rather than a first amendment violation.

    Finally the four missionaries were acquitted, so the courts did not agree with the police either.  

    This is really thin gruel to base a claim that the left doesn't care about the first (or the right for that matter) because of the nature of the case.  It's also rather weak to claim it on the basis of silence on the left.  If we were affirmatively cheering what the cops did, maybe you'd have something.  This just looks like yet another police abuse of authority case.  Next to all the wrongful taser deaths by police, I'm not surprised it didn't get much notice.  

    •  to be clear (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden

      because I think one portion wasn't:  The guy who complained to the police about intimidation appears to have been wrong to do so, but that complaint is a valid reason for a cop to investigate and ask some questions about what might have happened.  Anyone can make a frivolous or fraudulent accusation to police and cause someone else some unnecessary hassle but that's not the State violating someone's rights so long as the State takes pains to determine any merit to the accusation first.

  •  Huh, what the hell are you talking about? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scientician

    The arrest sounds utterly unreasonable, is that what you're talking about?  What on earth does this have to do with "the left"?

    -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

    by neroden on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 05:31:57 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site