'Not in Mulberry' Group Protests Planned Quran Burnings

[Bragi]

Source: The Ledger (Lakeland, Florida)

MULBERRY | A small group of Mulberry residents is organizing counter-protests of a planned burning of nearly 3,000 Qurans at a home near Mulberry planned for Sept. 11.

The group, whose name says it all, has one message for the world: Not in Mulberry...

She and others started a Facebook page and have gone to organizational meetings. They say they know Jones has a First Amendment right to burn the books but doesn't want people to associate Mulberry with it.

Read more: http://www.theledger.com/article/20130815/NEWS/130819530

---

I am google-tracking any media build-up to this Sept. 11 event, and so far, there has been almost zero coverage. This is the first substantive news story I've seen. I am impressed that the opposition group is clear that they respect Jones First Amendment rights, and in that context, say they will put forward their own quite contrary view. Free speech in action!

[mainer]

1. Maybe they should have a pile of Christian bibles nearby

And tell the Quran burners that when the Qurans go up in flames, so will be the bibles.

[Bragi]

4. Jones believes Bible-burning is constitutional

He was asked that in a recent interview by an Iranian Muslim journalist:

Q: What would be your reaction if a group of Muslims, a group of Muslim clerics decide to burn the Bible in protest at what the Western governments are doing in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, in Iraq and other countries that have resisted against the United States and its European allies?

A: We have actually had that happened here, not from Muslims, I am not saying that. We have had a Bible burned on our property. People came here on to our property and threw a Bible here that was burning. Of course, if Muslims want to do that to protest the U.S. involvement in places like Afghanistan, then of course they would have a perfect right to do that under our Constitution and under our freedoms here.

How it would make a person feel, of course I would not like to see a Bible burned. I consider the Bible to be the Word of God, to be a Holy book, of course, but at the same time it is a book. If they burn a Bible I can go down to the store and buy another Bible. I would not believe that it is a reason for me to attack those people or perform some type of act of violence concerning them or their family, or put out a hit or reward on their life. I would not think that would be the proper response. As Christians, the proper response would obviously be simply just to forgive them.

http://www.countercurrents.org/ziabari100713.htm

[oberliner]

9. That's actually pretty reasonable

"If they burn a Bible I can go down to the store and buy another Bible. I would not believe that it is a reason for me to attack those people or perform some type of act of violence concerning them or their family, or put out a hit or reward on their life."

[denverbill]

2. How much did they spend to buy 3000 Qurans?

It's a shame they aren't using that money to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, and give shelter to the homeless.

[d_r]

3. doesn't it seem so

very primitive? "we'll burn their religion's book!"

eta

[AsahinaKimi]

5. I wonder if they will show up with water hoses..

or Super-soakers, ready to put out the fire as they try and start them. Or maybe just wet down Jones group so they can't set anything on fire. I think getting them all wet is how I would counter their protest!

[Bragi]

6. I like their approach

The article says they intend to be there and speak out against his actions. That's it. I think that's actually the most effective and appropriate way to counter odious speech and action in a free society. Free speech is the answer.

[AsahinaKimi]

7. So they will stand by and shout ...

While the Korans are burning? And while this gets news that ends up going international, a few embassies across the ocean get attacked by those who believe burning the Koran is wicked. Seems to me, that is what happened last time. Jones will have more blood on his hands.

[branford]

13. What would be your solution?

An individual burns his own books on private property? I certainly may not like his message, but his actions are entirely lawful. The First Amendment isn't needed to protect popular speech.

I believe that the "Not In Mulberry" group's peaceful counter-protest is exactly the proper and preferred method of demonstrating that the community does not support the pastor's message..

Additionally, anyone who would burn an embassy or engage is rampant violence generally will do so regardless of whether some nut thousands of miles away burns a book. The action of the pastor are a convenient excuse for terrorist conduct that we should not countenance.

[AsahinaKimi]

15. fine.. just remember

We have American embassies in the Middle East, and they have been attacked before because of incidents like this. The First Amendment may protect free speech, but it does not protect Americans from being killed outside our borders. YOU KNOW for a fact that this WILL HAPPEN.

SO who saves them? A handful of US Marines? Really?

[branford]

17. I'm still unclear as to what solution you propose.

Do you believe that the pastor's action should be illegal? And if so, what sort of amendment to the Constitution would you propose that wouldn't be too broad or lead to unintended consequences?

[AsahinaKimi]

19. There is no solution....

We all know that the laws will not change. We also know this will incite those religious people to swarm our embassies, and destroy Americans where they are. Expect it... If Jones wants to burn Korans.. sure let him. I am saying, there will be consequences to pay... and it will be with our very own blood.

[MrNJ]

8. I hope not - I would hate for them to be arrested

for trespassing and assault.

[AsahinaKimi]

10. So them burning Korans

and starting an international incident, leading to attacks on our embassies is better?

[branford]

14. Wrong question.

Is it better to protect our First Amendment right to free speech or let terrorists and criminals in other countries dictate what we are allowed to say?

[AsahinaKimi]

16. So its far better to let

Americans over seas die? This will have consequences. Beefing up a few more US Marines will not make any difference.

[branford]

20. Who's saying that we should just let Americans needlessly die, not me.

If the host countries or our own security cannot reasonably guaranty the safety of embassy or consulate personnel, we should close the embassy, temporarily or permanently, or dramatically increase security. Diplomatic property is sovereign American soil and we should either properly protect our people with all necessary force or leave.

[AsahinaKimi]

25. A handful of US Marines...

Will not stop the swarming of the embassies..and remember its not ONE country...its all over the Middle east. It will also increase attacks on our US Soldiers over seas, and Americans in places like Indonesia.. where the prominent religion is Islam. Mr. Jones is not seeing the big picture here... it will be as though America has declared war on all of Islam, and that will ignite a firestorm that will be paid in US blood.

[branford]

31. Are you claiming that most followers of Islam will seek to kill Americans because of Jones?

I doubt that is your intent, but it is difficult to tell.

It's individuals like yourself, with your hyperbolic reaction to some nut burning a book, that ultimately justifies conservative and Republican anti-Islam and anti-Arab rhetoric and our security surveillance state.

If the safety of our people is in jeopardy, we should deploy a lot more than just a few marines, with liberal rules of engagement, or simply leave where we apparently are not wanted, including cutting-off the substantial aid we provide many of these countries.

[AsahinaKimi]

33. I AM NOT saying Most followers of Islam...

Way to make it look like I am making a sweeping statement. And its not some hyperbolic reaction.
Read this article from last year about Bali...

10 Years After Bali Bombings, Local Militants Still Pose Threat



JAKARTA — Ansyaad Mbai, the director of Indonesia’s National Counterterrorism Agency, has a genealogy of terrorism spread across his office wall. It starts in 1949, the year Dutch colonizers acknowledged Indonesia’s independence, and extends to 2011. Like a family tree, it begins with one line and gradually branches out into an increasingly complex web with names and photos of the country’s most notorious terrorists.

“It’s like a database, the framework to coordinate intelligence,” he said.

But lately the database has expanded beyond the boundaries of the chart, as smaller, more local groups with different objectives than those of their Qaeda-affiliated predecessors drive the terrorist threat.

In the 10 years since Islamic militants blew up two nightclubs on the resort island of Bali, killing 202 people, Indonesian security forces have arrested more than 700 people on suspicion of being militants and killed around 60. All the major suspects believed to have participated in the Bali attacks on Oct. 12, 2002, have been killed or imprisoned.

Analysts say operations by Detachment 88, the elite U.S.- and Australian-trained counterterrorism squad formed shortly after the Bali blasts, have helped cripple Jemaah Islamiyah, the Southeast Asian offshoot of Al Qaeda responsible for the bombings.

more..http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/world/asia/10-years-after-bali-bombings-local-militants-still-pose-threat.html?pagewanted=all

[tazkcmo]

43. Just cuz you can

doesn't mean you should. Many bad ideas are Constitutionally protected. The history is clear. Poke, prod and other wise provoke your enemy and stand by with your fake outrage when the predictable happens. Reality is elusive to the delusional. But as a veteran of the US Army, I have sworn to protect your right to be as ignorant and irresponsible as you like and I defend your right to express as much stupidity as you find pleasing because you are free to do so. While you are at it, why not crap your pants and as you stand on your head because you also have that right.
My point is the actions of these book burners is ignorant, irresponsible and will put American lives at risk. All your "should" arguements are worthless and not rooted in reality.

[branford]

53. I certainly do not support Jones, but what is your solution?

As I stated a number of times in this thread, Jones is an ass, but his actions are entirely constitutional. I also stated that if Americans are in harm's way overseas, and if the host countries refuse to provide adequate protection as is diplomatically required, we should simply leave and take all our financial and other aid with us.

What do you propose in response to idiots like Jones? Do you believe his action are, or should be, illegal? If so, how do you make his actions a crime without inadvertently gutting the First Amendment?

[tazkcmo]

49. One If

And 2 should's.

If clouds were cotton candy it should rain gum drops.

[oberliner]

21. Burning Korans should not start an international incident

Nor should burning Bibles or copies of Huck Finn.

[AsahinaKimi]

26. Wow really?

Our news shows the burning of the Korans. This will go international. This will piss off a lot of ultra religious people in the entire Middle East not to mention places like Indonesia, Bali and other places in the far East where Islam is present. That includes parts of Pakistan and India as well. It will look like America has declared war on all of Islam.

All you have to do is ask people like Salman Rushdie or the family of those Cartoonists who made fun of Mohammed.

This will, as I said in another post, ignite a firestorm that will be paid with US Blood.

[oberliner]

27. Absolutely

A lot of ultra religious people in the entire Middle East are pissed off at pretty much everything that goes on in the United States.

Incidentally, don't Korans get burned when mosques are bombed? Aren't those bombings often conducted by ultra religious people in the Middle East?

We should not be at the mercy of what "ultra religious people" are pissed off by.

[AsahinaKimi]

28. fine, make fun of it..

This will not end well.


10 Years After Bali Bombings, Local Militants Still Pose Threat:

JAKARTA — Ansyaad Mbai, the director of Indonesia’s National Counterterrorism Agency, has a genealogy of terrorism spread across his office wall. It starts in 1949, the year Dutch colonizers acknowledged Indonesia’s independence, and extends to 2011. Like a family tree, it begins with one line and gradually branches out into an increasingly complex web with names and photos of the country’s most notorious terrorists.

“It’s like a database, the framework to coordinate intelligence,” he said.

But lately the database has expanded beyond the boundaries of the chart, as smaller, more local groups with different objectives than those of their Qaeda-affiliated predecessors drive the terrorist threat.

In the 10 years since Islamic militants blew up two nightclubs on the resort island of Bali, killing 202 people, Indonesian security forces have arrested more than 700 people on suspicion of being militants and killed around 60. All the major suspects believed to have participated in the Bali attacks on Oct. 12, 2002, have been killed or imprisoned.

Analysts say operations by Detachment 88, the elite U.S.- and Australian-trained counterterrorism squad formed shortly after the Bali blasts, have helped cripple Jemaah Islamiyah, the Southeast Asian offshoot of Al Qaeda responsible for the bombings.

more...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/world/asia/10-years-after-bali-bombings-local-militants-still-pose-threat.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0&pagewanted=print

[tazkcmo]

44. Another "should"

Worthless because the reality is it does.

[oberliner]

46. It's just a book

Can you not see how preposterous this all is?

[tazkcmo]

48. It's just a book

So why burn it? What has it done? Again you ignore reality. It is NOT just a book to Muslims.

[oberliner]

51. It is NOT just a book to Muslims?

What is it to Muslims?

[MrNJ]

55. I am not going to burn it

You are not going to burn it.

But if someone wants to burn a book, or any other property that they legally owns, for whatever reason, either to boil an egg over it or to make a political statement, it's their right.

We should not let some bullies control our 1st am rights.

[tazkcmo]

47. Correct question n/t

[Vinnie From Indy]

11. The group should raise money and...

contract with an online book printer to print 5 copies of the Quran for every one burned at the hate fest. They could synchronize their efforts with the book burners so as every Quran hits the fire, they order five more copies to be printed. They could have a simultaneous gathering where a big screen projection of the book printers order form could be displayed. Every Quran in the fire - 5 more are added to the print total box. These could be given away free to the closest mosque to Mulberry. They could also run the protest effort on streaming Internet so the world could see how fruitless the effort by the haters is in a world where decent people reject hate and intolerance.

Cheers!

[Bragi]

23. That's certainly creative AND respects free speech! /nt

[cheapdate]

24. Great Scott! That's brilliant!

[oberliner]

18. Was this meant to be intentionally ironic?

I can't tell.

[branford]

22. Neither can I.

[oberliner]

30. Ok - so I guess it wasn't.

You are actually serious?

I think you need to read up on the Benghazi attack.

[branford]

32. The video that the State Dept. and White House now admit had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack?

If the video was even a partial cause of the Benghazi violence, Susan Rice would now be our Sec. of State.

[TreasonousBastard]

34. This asshole Jones again? First amendment mey ass...

hate speech isn't protected.

Nor is a huge bonfire like 3,000 books would be-- fire hazards beat first amendment rights.

Burn one book and you're jerk. Burn 3,000 books and you're a public menace.

[Niceguy1]

35. can you cite a spefic us law

And who gets to decide which speech is hate, and which isn't???????

[TreasonousBastard]

37. Fire codes are local...

and in the end the courts decide what is or isn't protected speech.

[Niceguy1]

41. no, cite a specific hate speech law...

U can't becase any such law would violate the first admendment.

[branford]

36. With all due respect, "hate speech" is most certainly protected by the First Amendment.

My law school days are but a distant memory, but America, unlike much of Europe, cannot ban or criminalize speech just because it is hateful, bigoted, discriminatory etc. Some VERY RARE exceptions exist, but none would apply here (e.g., criminal fraud, incitement to riot, etc.). Under First Amendment's jurisprudence, political speech enjoys the most legal protection. If you do not like the content of someone's speech, you are free to peacefully protest, just like the "Not in Mulberry" group.

Similarly, no government in the USA, whether local, state or federal, can selectively enforce zoning, nuisance or related laws in order to stop speech with which they do not agree. The bonfire stratagem will only result in the town paying Jones damages in a civil suit without stopping the book burning.

A perfect example is the City of Dearborn, Michigan, one of Terry Jones' favorite destinations. The city has attempted every trick in the book to dissuade him from preaching in the city, including arrest. After losing innumerable lawsuits concerning their conduct, Dearborn now simply tries to maintain the peace and not give him undue attention.

[TreasonousBastard]

38. OK, let's see how far the First gets you when...

you paint a swastika on a Jewish gravestone or hang a "Spics go home" flag in front of a bodega.

Yes, I'm aware that Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie and that this guy is really no worse than that crazy-ass "church" claiming God hates homosexuals which hasn't been shut down yet. But, I'm not going to research where the lines are-- I give money to people in the front lines like the ACLU and SPLC who are doing that well enough. There are lines, though, vague and moving as they may be.

Anyway, 3,000 books at maybe two pounds apiece is 3 tons of paper and there aren't many places that allow you to set fire to that big a pile in your front yard without some serious permit action, if they let you do it at all.

[branford]

39. Your examples are not on point.

Painting the swastika is simple vandalism, the content is irrelevant. Free speech is not implicated when someone destroys another's private property. Additionally, if you walked around on a public sidewalk in front of a bodega with a "Spics go home" sign, it would most certainly be legal. Any violence against such a demonstrator would no doubt be prosecuted as an assault. Of course, the owner of the bodega, which is private property, could prevent any protest within the store.

As you cite the Skokie case, you know perfectly well the Jones' speech, despite him being an ass, is constitutionally protected. No constitutional line can be drawn based on the content of Jones' opinions, no matter how vile. I understand your anger, but the Constitution is necessary to protect speech we do not like. We have no need to protect popular speech.

In most towns, the laws concerning burning trash and similar activities are clear, and a permit is generally easily obtainable for political displays such as flag or book burning, subject only to some safety precautions. As this is definitely not Jones' first rodeo, I assume that he is in compliance with the local laws and applied for the relevant permits. A permit CANNOT be denied because the town does not approve of the content of Jones' speech. It has been tried, and all that has been accomplished is municipalities have had to pay Jones damages will continue to fund his idiocy. Google Dearborn and Terry Jones if you doubt my analysis.

Jones will likely (and legally) burn the Korans. The "Not In Mulberry" group will protest Jones. The sky will not fall, political dialogue will ensue, and our First Amendment will live to see another day.

[TreasonousBastard]

40. No, they're not, but I'm not making...

a Constitutional case, merely noting that the First is not absolute. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater and all that...

Granted that a permit couldn't be denied for the content of the fiery speech, but I can't imagine any town I've been in allowing a bonfire that big on safety grounds-- it's at least over a ton of burning paper flying around in the breeze. Maybe he's lighting it in an area without any codes, if such places exist, in which case he can set all the fires he wants without consequence. Hope it's at least rained recently.

Oh, and I'm not angry-- simply suspended in a state between bemusement and mild disgust at this guy's antics.

[branford]

42. We certainly agree about the character of Terry Jones.

My analysis assumes that bonfires, or whatever is necessary to burn the books, is either legal in the town or that Jones has applied for the proper permits. If he is in violation of ordinances that are regularly enforced, then the town will legally be able to stop his display. Dearborn repeatedly tried to silence Jones using this method, and always failed.

The permit scheme is often used to harass unpopular speakers. It's not that difficult to find some old law on the books that is generally ignored or not enforced as a pretext to denying a permit or ending a demonstration. Courts are wise to such ruses and generally have little patience for the bad faith of such municipal leaders. The offensive display often still occurs and the taxpayers of the town or city are left to pay legal fees and damages to the cretin they should have ignored.

In my opinion, it's best to simply ignore jackasses like Terry Jones. If he burns a Koran, but no one watches or records it, the effect would be minimal and his hatred contained.

[tazkcmo]

45. Head in the sand

"In my opinion, it's best to simply ignore jackasses like Terry Jones. If he burns a Koran, but no one watches or records it, the effect would be minimal and his hatred contained. "

Mighty big "if". It WILL get coverage. A Youtube vid WILL be posted. Protests in ME WILL occur and the risk to American lives WILL increase. How about you put your money where your mouth is and volunteer to protect American "assets" in ME from angry Muslims that react to this ignorant burning of books? You can reason with the using your "should"s and "if"s.

[Bragi]

50. Your response is illogical

Last edited Fri Aug 16, 2013, 10:25 AM - Edit history (1)

We have a right to ignore Jones vile but legal exercise in free speech without taking personal responsibility for doing the jobs of military security abroad. We also have a right to refuse to abandon our right to free speech because some people don't like what we say.

[nil desperandum]

52. The alternative is what?

Never, ever doing anything that might ever make an extremist upset because they get violent?

I too took an oath to defend those rights from all enemies foreign and domestic....when I returned from active duty and joined the National Guard that oath meant I defended some KKK members from the general public during a cross burning....I would much rather have joined the crowd and beat the crap out of those racist turds, but I was obligated to respect the laws of the nation because of my oath.

Every protest and act of civil disobedience has consequences, when those acts upset religious fundamentalists it's always problematic because religion creates far more violence than it removes from societies all over the world.

When your moral code is dependent on a little book written thousands of years ago by men trying to control an ignorant, uneducated population violence against those who have a different little book with a different code is to be expected. After thousands of years of scientific progress it's overwhelmingly sad that so many ignorant people still exist whose only hope for a better life exists after they are dead thanks to a magic little man in the sky looking out for them....

John Lennon got it right oh so many years ago, "Imagine no religion" I can and I do, and what I see looks far better than what is.

[Bragi]

54. Well put! /nt