We should not overlook the failure of New Jersey Transit and NJ Governor Chris Christie, who proved he could care less about free speech by supporting Mr. Fenton's firing. If the world was just, he would be personally liable for the financial settlement.
But instead, he has gained political clout from his party for his 'Patriotic' stance and everyone, including his supporters are a few pennies poorer today for the blatant mismanagement of this issue.
I see the Scottish ex soldier who burnt a Koran was sentenced to 70 days in jail. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't like the Jocks any more than the next man, but that's not on is it.
But what if by firing this guy, Christie/NJ placated some muslim fanatics who would otherwise have rioted and killed UN workers. Perhaps the money lost in the lawsuit was well worth the lack of violence the firing may have achieved. I did NOT support NJ here and am a big defender of FOS. This guy deserving won his lawsuit. Having said that, there may have been a silver lining (fewer innocent people murdered) is this dark cloud violation of the first amendment. It is real shame that violent lunatic fanatics thousands of miles away cause politicians in the US to violate our civil liberties.
Some radical fundamentalists got upset at a "work of art" recently, went into a museum and threatened guards with a hammer, and destroyed the sculpture. A religious fundamentalist group which had organised a march against the artwork outside the museum the day before refused to condemn the incident. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201...no-piss-christ-destroyed-christian-protesters
I do. Umar was trying to show a similar reaction against a Christian religious symbol. I was trying to see how far the comparison went.
Here in the 1st world we now jail idiots for merely threatening to excercise their 1st amdenment rights: Florida pastor Terry Jones jailed in Michigan, told to stay away from mosque
Having read the article is entirely unclear on what grounds they arrested him. Apparently there was a "trial" before they were arrested that said that their protest "would" breach the peace? WTF?
If they'd been fired on (and a few people killed), by guards of the building who they associated with the occupiers of their country, and who were of a different culture than they were, then I'd presume that the level of violence they might have shown would probably have been higher. Would you agree or disagree with my hypothesis?
Can we disagree with both of you? I don't think it takes occupiers to generate the level of violence that stanger is talking about. It takes a country where violence is so much more a part of daily life.
Do we know the reasons for the violence that occurred on that day? I've tried to look for the investigation into the incident, and have yet to find anything which confirms that the people in the crowd fired first. To suggest that they killed people simply for the Quran-burning is misguided, imo. Far more likely that there were people in the crowd who were pretty pissed off, but that the violence escalated as soon as someone from the crowd was killed. Like I've said before, it wouldn't be the first time that Afghans who were demonstrating have been killed by security forces. And of those killed, four were armed guards, one was a Lieutenant-Colonel who was a military advisor, and one worked in political affairs and another in human rights. The fact that those killed were generally military people suggests that this wasn't an indiscriminate lynching, but that the crowd targeted armed people around or inside the building. They shouldn't have done it, but the pattern indicates that they were fired upon and they attacked anyone they thought might be responsible. On the Terry Jones thing, does anyone know what he was charged with?
i find it funny though that these people yell for the first amendment yet will get mad when a muslim wants to use there first amendment.
There is something of a chicken and egg quality to that, isn't there? It could be argued that events are in the opposite order. It would seem that having been told the amendment protects people's right to build a mosque on their own property, those who dislike mosques are them proposing to turn the amendment to their own uses in opposing mosques. Which is fine-- thats more or less what it is there for, both ways... However the events in the cas are not very clearly explained in the article? While it is self evident that Jones has the right to make as big--and loud-- a fool of himself as he wishes on his pet topic, it is less clear that he has the right to travel to a location apparently selected as one where his demonstration has a very high probability of generating a disturbance, and not expect the local authorities to inquire about and enforce some modification to, his plans. But how such a process winds up with him in jail is not clear to me. In the absence of a willingness to put up even a token bond, I can see refusal of a permit, and a restraining order or its equivalnet being issued, but on what basis did he wind up in jail without any further incident to justify it?
My imagination is on the level as the politicians and generals who cautioned against the possible outcome if "Pastor" Terry Jones burned a Koran.
Apparently he paid and snuck out through another less conspicuous exit, as press waited for him at the main entrance.
There's a surprise. And it wouldn't be the first time innocent people were killed because a crowd of Muslim protesters were riled up by a radical imam. There is no defense of this. None. LINK
Yeah, I've read most of the media reports. They don't say who fired first. They usually just state that there were demonstrations which turned into riots.