- While many have bought into the simplistic idea that availability of firearms is the cause of mass shootings, a number of experts have pointed out a more uncomfortable truth, which is that mass shootings are far more likely the result of how we’ve been mistreating mental illness, depression and behavioral problems
- Gun control legislation has shown that law-abiding Americans who own guns are not the problem, because the more gun control laws that have been passed, the more mass shootings have occurred
- 97.8 percent of mass shootings occur in “gun-free zones,” as the perpetrators know legally armed citizens won’t be there to stop them
- Depression per se rarely results in violence. Only after antidepressants became commonplace did mass shootings really take off, and many mass shooters have been shown to be on antidepressants
- Antidepressants, especially selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), are well-known for their ability to cause suicidal and homicidal ideation and violence’ more at https://www.theepochtimes.com/97-8-of-mass-shootings-are-linked-to-this_4537542.html?est=BcodoyII203Cu4K2ZcXWE4e%2BptDyqCLaEtC7SLMN3%2BzlxSjxNGOYF5uh6N2nmMyXuw%3D%3D
law
All posts tagged law
‘The Online Safety Bill, the most far-reaching online censorship law to ever be proposed in the UK, has been presented to Parliament.
UK Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) Secretary of State Nadine Dorries, said her aim with the bill was to “make the internet, in the UK, the safest place in the world for children and vulnerable young people to go online.”
However, as with many bills that are positioned as a way to keep children safe, this Online Safety Bill contains sweeping speech restrictions that will affect all UK internet users.
The bill requires Big Tech companies to take action against “priority legal but harmful” content which will be decided by the government. The DCMS Secretary of State has the power to add more categories of priority legal but harmful content via secondary legislation in the future.
According to the Financial Times, this secondary legislation “requires less scrutiny from MPs [Members of Parliament] than the original bill.”
Companies are also required to report “emerging harms” to the UK’s communications regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom).
Additionally, the Online Safety Bill outlaws sending “knowingly false” communications that are sent “with the intention to cause non-trivial emotional, psychological or physical harm,” requires large social media companies to introduce identity verification tools, gives Ofcom the power to force companies to use “better and more effective” proactive content moderation technology, tasks Big Tech with determining which of its advertisers are pushing scams, mandates that any website hosting pornography put “robust checks in place to ensure that users are 18 years old or over,” and more.
UK citizens who are found guilty of offenses under the Online Safety Bill can be imprisoned or fined.
Not only does the Online Safety Bill contain numerous provisions that can be used to silence UK citizens and punish them for their online speech but powerful “recognised media outlets” are exempt from any regulation in the bill. Some of the outlets that will be getting special carveouts under this bill have even been praised by politicians for pushing for stronger “online safety” laws.
Tech platforms already remove millions of “harmful” posts each quarter and if this bill becomes law, they’ll have an even stronger incentive to censor.
The punishments for companies that fail to censor enough under the Online Safety Bill include having their sites blocked and being hit with multi-billion dollar fines worth up to 10% of their annual turnover. Tech company executives can also be jailed if they fail to cooperate with Ofcom’s information requests.
Despite introducing strong punishments for tech companies that don’t remove enough harmful content, the Online Safety Bill has yet to reveal the categories of legal the harmful content that tech companies will have to target under this bill.
Earlier this week, Dorries said large platforms will be required to remove legal but harmful content “if it is already banned in their own terms and conditions.”
Yet today’s UK government press release for the Online Safety Bill says that the categories of legal but harmful content will be “set by the government and approved by Parliament.” The press release also lists “exposure to self-harm, harassment and eating disorders” as examples of harmful content that online platforms will be required to remove.
The introduction of the Online Safety Bill to Parliament is the first stage of its legislative journey.
Numerous UK rights groups have blasted the Online Safety Bill and warned that it will restrict free speech.
“The Online Safety Bill is set to rip up the rule book as far as traditional British free speech standards are concerned,” Mark Johnson, Legal and Policy Officer at civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, said. “This is a censor’s charter that will give state backing to big tech censorship on a scale that we have never seen before.”
Toby Young, General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, warned that the bill will have a “chilling effect on free speech.”
“We are particularly concerned that the government has said it will force social media platforms to remove ‘legal but harmful’ content, including ‘harassment,’” Young added. “That will enable political activists and interest groups claiming to speak on behalf of disadvantaged groups to silence their opponents by branding any views they disagree with as ‘harassment.’”
Matthew Lesh, Head of Public Policy at the think tank Institute of Economic Affairs said: “The UK threatening tech executives with jail time is eerily similar to how Russia and other authoritarian countries are currently behaving. It is an attack on free speech and entrepreneurialism.”
Before the bill was presented to Parliament, the UK’s main opposition party, the Labour Party, suggested that it would offer little obstruction to the Online Safety Bill and complained that it hadn’t been introduced fast enough.
Last October, Labour Leader Keir Starmer lamented that it has been “three years since the government promised an Online Safety Bill. Starmer also claimed that “the damage caused by harmful content online is worse than ever” and promised to support the bill if its second reading was brought forward to the end of 2021.
More recently, Labour Member of Parliament (MP) and Shadow Culture Secretary Lucy Powell said that Labour supports “the principles of the bill that is finally being published” and claimed that “delay up to this point has come with significant cost.”’https://reclaimthenet.org/uk-online-safety-bill-censorship-parliament/
‘Grand Jury Proceeding by the Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion
Empowering Public Conscience through Natural Law
‘Injustice to One is an Injustice to All’
We, a group of international lawyers and a judge, hereby are conducting criminal investigation modelled after the United States Grand Jury proceedings.
This Grand Jury Investigation serves as a model legal proceeding to present to a jury (consisting of the citizens of the world) all available evidence of COVID-19 Crimes Against Humanity to date against “leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices” who aided, abetted or actively participated in the formulation and execution of a common plan for a pandemic.
Crimes to be investigated include all acts performed or omitted by a person in pursuance of a common design to commit Crimes Against Humanity, and all such criminal acts condemned in the various communities of jurors around the world.
This investigation is of the people, by the people and for the people and shall be referred to as the ‘Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion.
Having been unable to find a court to hear the actual evidence in the current system´s courts of law, we are undertaking this proceeding outside of the current system and based on natural law.
This, in turn is founded on the firm belief that every person can easily distinguish between good and evil, and between right and wrong.
The allegation is that the world’s governments have come under the controlling influence of corrupt and criminal power structures.
They colluded to stage a pandemic that they had been planning for years. To this end they deliberately created mass panic through false statements of fact and a socially engineered psychological operation whose messages they conveyed through the corporate media.
The purpose of this mass panic was to persuade the population to agree to the so-called “vaccinations” which have in the meantime be proven to be neither effective, nor safe, but extremely dangerous, even lethal.
The economic, social, and health damage that these Crimes Against Humanity have caused to the world’s population can be measured in quadrillions of dollars.
The lawyers listed below, with the assistance of a number of highly respected scientists and experts from around the globe and under the auspices of a judge from Portugal,
will conduct this Grand Jury Investigation and thereby provide the jury (the citizens of the world) with a complete picture of these Crimes Against Humanity.
The ‘Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion´s investigation´s purpose is twofold: On the one hand it is to serve as a model proceeding and get indictments against some of the criminally and civilly responsible figure heads of these Crimes against Humanity.
And on the other hand it is – through showing a complete picture of what we are facing, including the geopolitical and historical backdrop – to create awareness about
the factual collapse of the current, hijacked system and its institutions, and, as a consequence
the necessity for the people themselves retaking their sovereignty, and
the necessity to first stop this plandemic´s measures by refusing to comply, and
the necessity to jump-start their own new system of health care, education, economics and judiciary, so that democracy and the rule of law on the basis of our constitutions will be reestablished.
The Peoples ‘Court of Public Opinion works independent of any government and any non-governmental organization’https://odysee.com/@GrandJury:f?view=about
This took place New Year’s day 2022 in Perth, Australia.
When the government tells pastors what they can and cannot preach there is no stopping what the government will do! Thankfully, ‘Pastor and theologian John MacArthur of Grace Community Church in Los Angeles is calling on pastors to preach about the “biblical view of sexual morality” on Jan. 16 in opposition to a Canadian law banning therapy for unwanted sexual attractions and gender confusion — what is often derisively referred to as conversion therapy — set to take effect next month.
MacArthur, known for his syndicated broadcast program “Grace to You,” published an open letter on the Grace Community Church website Tuesday calling on “ministers of the Gospel” to join him on the third Sunday of the new year in preaching about “a biblical view of sexual morality.”
MacArthur stated that he received a letter from Pastor James Coates of GraceLife Church in Edmonton, Alberta, a graduate of the MacArthur-led The Master’s Seminary who made headlines when he was imprisoned for hosting in-person services in defiance of government lockdown orders.
Coates alleged that Bill C-4, which passed by the Canadian House and Senate earlier this month, “directly comes against parents and counselors who would seek to offer biblical counsel with respect to sexual immorality and gender.”
The law amends the criminal code to make illegal so-called conversion therapy, removing a child from Canada to undergo conversion therapy, advertising or promoting conversion therapy and receiving a material benefit for providing conversion therapy.
Specifically, the law slated to go into effect on Jan. 8 describes the belief that “heterosexuality, cisgender gender identity, and gender expression that conforms to the sex assigned to a person at birth are to be preferred over other sexual orientations, gender identities and gender expressions” as a “myth.”
Critics describe conversion therapy as counseling or efforts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through religious-based counseling or more controversial treatments like electric shock therapy.
However, some counselors and Christian ministries have warned that their counseling for people experiencing unwanted same-sex attraction is misunderstood and that “conversion therapy” is a politically charged term designed to mislead the public about the work they do.
Critics of such bills contend that the propagation of the narrative of conversion therapy being similar to electric shock therapy has become a “straw man” to promote “one-sided and biased counseling methods,” considering those types of treatments are already considered in the medical world to be “barbaric and unethical.”
C-4’s opponents claim that the language is too broad and could essentially ban religious leaders from preaching the teachings on sexual ethics and marriage found in the Bible or counseling a person with unwanted attractions or saying that homosexuality is sinful.
Andrew DeBartolo, the teaching elder at Encounter Church in Kingston, Ontario, told MacArthur in a letter that “the belief in God’s design for marriage and sexuality will now be seen as a myth” beginning on Jan. 8.
“Since this law takes effect on January 8, 2022, faithful Canadian pastors are going to preach on the issue, calling for a biblical understanding of sexual sin, the eternal judgment that falls on the unrepentant and gospel-rejecting sinners, and the grace of God in the gospel which offers forgiveness to those who repent and believe in Christ,” MacArthur wrote. “In 1 Corinthians 6:9–11, Paul clearly articulates why we must speak the truth.”
“Our calling as gospel ministers is to preach the truth, confront sin, and call all men to repentance and obedience to the gospel—the good news that achieves soul conversion and saves sinners from eternal wrath,” he added.
Several states in the U.S. have passed bans on conversion therapy, including MacArthur’s home state of California. MacArthur claims the California government “sought to prohibit any correction of an unbiblical view of sexual identity.”
A Christian therapist filed a lawsuit earlier this year in Washington state, alleging that the state’s 2018 ban on conversion therapy was a political attempt to silence dissent and “impose its own new orthodoxy concerning sexual morality.” However, his claim was rejected by a federal judge in September.
In 2019, a federal judge dismissed an ex-gay psychotherapists lawsuit against Maryland’s ban on mental health professionals providing conversion therapy.
As the United Kingdom Parliament has renewed efforts to pass a conversion therapy ban, concern was raised by the Evangelical Alliance that clergy might potentially face criminal prosecution. However, U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson assured religious leaders that pastors wouldn’t be criminally charged for counseling people with unwanted same-sex attraction.’https://www.christianpost.com/news/john-macarthur-urges-pastors-to-preach-on-sexual-morality-jan-16.html?uid=d3769f0ce2&utm_source=The+Christian+Post+List&utm_campaign=CP-Newsletter&utm_medium=email
If the USA can survive as a nation another ten years I would be surprised. Why, would I say that? Well, ‘After Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges from the Kenosha shooting, Best Buy and Levi Strauss reportedly offered their employees counseling to those distressed over the verdict. Levi’s offered a session with a “racial trauma specialist” for workers distraught over the acquittal of Rittenhouse — who is white — shooting three white men who assailed him.
Elizabeth Morrison — Levi’s chief diversity, equity, and inclusion officer — sent an email to employees of the San Francisco-based clothing company following the Rittenhouse verdict in Wisconsin.
“With the news that Kyle Rittenhouse was not convicted in the shooting of three individuals — two of whom lost their lives — during racial justice protests last year, this is a difficult day for many,” the email read.
“The pain and trauma of race, identity and belief-based tragedies is a reality that many of us are struggling with on an ongoing basis,” Morrison stated. “It can feel physically, mentally and emotionally draining to continue to relive these moments, and I want you to know, it’s okay to not be okay.”‘https://www.theblaze.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-levi-strauss?utm_source=theblaze-breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New-Trending-Story_WEEKEND%202021-11-28&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%20TheBlaze%20Breaking%20News
Boy, am I glad I am old! This cancel culture thing is beyond belief but is a true REALITY in today’s society. How is it that the supposed Religion of Peace has obtained a place of such authority and prominence not only in Islamic nations but the Western world as well? Here’s another unbelievable story of one who has suffered greatly under the CANCEL CULTURE!
‘We’re all aware of the cancel culture. Its strength is visible on college campuses throughout the country, especially in liberal strongholds. But in a politically conservative state such as Tennessee? Surely it wouldn’t have any foothold in state employment, right?
Wrong.
In February 2019, I joined the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility (“the Board”), the agency in Tennessee handling attorney discipline. I handled my own litigation caseload, and all appeals were assigned to me, including appearances before the Supreme Court of Tennessee. The Supreme Court is the “ultimate arbiter” of attorney discipline in the state, and thus every disciplinary appeal is taken by the Court. I presented six oral arguments to the Court in one and a half years, likely more than any other attorney in the state during that time period. I loved oral argument days, and in my opinion, the judges on Tennessee’s Supreme Court are some of the finest in the country.
Some attorneys facing potential discipline will go to great lengths to excuse their misconduct, including lashing out at Board counsel. Unfortunately, that happened to me. The Board has been dealing with a Nashville-based attorney for several years. His alleged misconduct is really secondary to what happened to me. The Board conducted a trial against him, and the Hearing Panel (comprised of three volunteer attorneys) issued its judgment that the attorney should be suspended for two years. The attorney appealed, and the appeal was assigned to me.
That attorney filed a motion to put a hold on the appeal, claiming that the Board attorney handling the trial was dishonest with him in discussing certain procedural matters. I filed a memorandum opposing the motion, and attended the oral argument by Zoom. That was the full extent of my participation in his appeal.
I have never met this attorney. I have never spoken to him. In fact, he had independent counsel file his motion and make the argument, so I did not even see him then. Nonetheless, the day after his motion to stay was denied, he – through his counsel – filed a motion to disqualify me as an “anti-Muslim bigot.” He claimed that his wife (who I also have never met) is Muslim, and therefore I could not be an objective attorney handling the appeal. Moreover, he claimed that I was not even fit to be employed by the state of Tennessee.
What was his basis for such an outrageous claim? He apparently did a deep dive into my Twitter account and found tweets from 2015 and 2016 – four years before I was even a state employee – in which I apparently supported then-candidate Trump’s position that the country should not continue to allow people in from Islamic terrorist hot spots if we could not verify them. In that vein, I allegedly tweeted several articles discussing this issue, and emphasized that we should be diligent and aware of Islamic terrorism.
In one of the tweets, it appears that I referenced a Muslim being removed from one of Trump’s campaign events. That particular individual claimed that he was mistreated and that it was “scary.” In response, I allegedly indicated that bombs were scary, making the point that people exercising their free speech at a political rally paled in comparison to bombs being set by Islamic terrorists.
I could not find the tweets when I searched for them. I could only go back in my history to 2018. So I could never actually confirm that the tweets from 2015 or 2016 were mine.
The attorney claimed that I also posted numerous tweets ridiculing liberals and Democrat lawyers, and that I was clearly a conservative bigot. In support, he included more recent tweets which were nothing more than political commentary.
But it didn’t matter. As a result of his ridiculous motion, the Board and state HR conducted an investigation and ultimately determined that I could not continue as a Board attorney because I was in a position of “public trust.” Apparently, this means that I should not have expressed a political viewpoint (which millions of Americans share) years before I even became a state employee.
I have never treated anyone unfairly or with a religious bias, whether on the Board or otherwise. In fact, I have worked with Muslim immigrants in Romania, while on trips to visit my wife’s family. Nor do I believe that all Muslims are terrorists. In fact, I believe that the number of Islamic terrorists is incredibly small when compared to the overall number of Muslims.
Nor did my religious or political viewpoint have anything at all to do with this attorney’s case. I have no idea who his wife is, or her religion, beyond what he claims in his motion. Even had I known, it would have had no impact on me handling his appeal, as there was absolutely nothing in the underlying case that touched on religion. The attorney did not claim that I had actually done anything wrong to him or violated his rights in any way. Instead, his claim was that because of my political (conservative) viewpoint, I could not possibly be objective.
In the end, I was given the Hobson’s choice to resign or be terminated. This was not based on any actual conduct while I was a state employee. Nor was it based on any interactions with this attorney or my handling of his case. Instead, it was based on nothing more than his own allegations that I could not be objective. The attorney sent a copy of his motion to the Nashville Tennessean, which reported on the motion without even bothering to give me the opportunity to respond. The bad publicity which resulted was surely a primary reason for the decision. Instead of fighting the motion on its merits, it appears that getting rid of me was the easiest solution.
The cancel culture was victorious once again.’https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/12/tennessee-lawyer-fired-for-opposing-islamic-terrorism-tells-his-story?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_2020_12_31_jihad_watch_daily_digest&utm_term=2020-12-31
Will you be getting the China Virus vaccine? My wife says she won’t but I will continue to mull it over in the space called ‘my head’ and when it is available then make up my mind. However, Australia’s Federal ‘Health Minister Greg Hunt says “absolute safety” is the key to approving and rolling out a coronavirus vaccine next year. “We are an island sanctuary so what we do with vaccines, we want to make sure, is about absolute safety and extending the safe Australia concept that we have but doing it in a way that provides absolute confidence to the Australian people,” he told Sky News. The vaccine will be voluntary but Mr Hunt said he believed that Australians will get themselves vaccinated to protect one another. “My hope and my belief is that Australians will help and protect other Australians and themselves through the vaccination program.” Mr Hunt cautioned Australians not to be complacent with safety measures against coronavirus, even as Australia has recorded few cases. “This is still a dangerous, contagious, and deadly disease. Your help can save lives.”‘https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6214409491001?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Sky%20News%20Australia%20%20Newsletter&utm_content=Daily%20Sky%20News%20Australia%20%20Newsletter+CID_11da7aa9c7d9a1d530043c31be155f28&utm_source=Daily%20newsletter&utm_term=Your%20help%20can%20save%20lives%20Hunt%20urges%20people%20to%20consider%20vaccinations
This isn’t real is it? Yes, it is. ‘For decades, Detroit police, sheriff’s deputies, and Wayne County prosecutors have systematically abused the constitutional rights of drivers by using a controversial tactic called civil forfeiture to seize and sell thousands of cars—oftentimes from completely innocent owners. Now, the Institute for Justice (IJ)—a nonprofit, public interest law firm—has partnered with a group of Detroit drivers to fight back and file a class action lawsuit in federal court seeking to end the controversial practice once and for all.
Melisa Ingram, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, knows the many abuses of Detroit’s system firsthand. Last summer her car was seized by Wayne County sheriff’s deputies after she lent it to her then-boyfriend so he could drive to a friend’s barbeque. Later that day, police pulled him over for slowing down in an area known for prostitution. Although he was never charged with a crime, police nevertheless seized Melisa’s 2017 Ford Fusion.
The following day, she went down to the courthouse to sort things out. There, she explained that the car wasn’t his and that she’d obviously would have never given him permission to pick up a prostitute, as the police alleged. But her pleas fell on deaf ears, because under Michigan’s forfeiture statute, an owner’s innocence is not a defense. The clerk explained that Melisa’s only option was to pay the city $1,800—$1,800 she did not have—plus the cost of towing and storage. Without the money to pay the city, she was forced to give up her car and declare personal bankruptcy. Now, seven months later, she’s broken up with her boyfriend and is forced to ride the bus to work for the first time in her life.
“In many ways, Melisa was victimized twice: First by her partner and a second time by Detroit’s outrageous vehicle forfeiture program, which turns a blind-eye to the innocence of owners,” said Wesley Hottot, a senior attorney at IJ. “Innocent until proven guilty is a bedrock American value, and yet, under Detroit’s civil forfeiture program innocence is irrelevant. It is clearly unconstitutional to force one person to pay for another person’s crime.”
Unlike criminal forfeiture, civil forfeiture does not require the property owner to have committed a crime. Anyone’s vehicle can be seized based on a police officer’s mere suspicion that it was, in some way, connected to a crime. Even being near an alleged crime is enough, which Detroit resident Robert Reeves, another plaintiff in the lawsuit, found out the hard way.
Robert works as a construction worker. Last summer, a contractor hired Robert to help clear out debris from an empty lot. On Robert’s way home, police arrested him and alleged that the tractor he’d driven at the job site was stolen. But he had no idea what was going on; the contractor had provided the equipment and Robert had no idea where it came from. Robert assured the officers that he knew nothing about the alleged theft, and had no reason to believe that the contractor was connected to criminal activity, but it didn’t matter. Police released him, but seized his car and money. No one was charged with a crime, and yet, five months later, Robert’s car remains in a city impound lot.
“Detroit’s forfeiture program is less like a justice system and more like having your car stolen and paying a ransom to get it back,” said Hottot. “Once police seize a car, there is no judge or jury. Instead, prosecutors give owners a choice. They can either pay the city’s ransom or hire an attorney and enter a byzantine process that is confusing, time-consuming, and expensive. The process is designed to ensure that owners fail nearly every time. I’ve watched this happen time and time again, and never once have I seen an owner successfully make it to court and get his or her car back.”
“My car was very important to me and now my life has been turned upside down,” said Ingram. “Everything suffers when you don’t have a car, especially in a city like Detroit. I’ve been late to work and missed doctor’s appointments because I don’t have a way to get there. No one should have to go through what I’ve gone through.”
Detroit’s forfeiture program has been controversial since its inception. More than 25 years ago, Wayne County sheriff’s deputies seized a car co-owned by a woman named Tina Bennis and her husband. Tina’s husband had been convicted of gross indecency for an encounter with a prostitute that took place in their family car. Like Melisa, Tina obviously had not consented to, and was not even aware of, her husband’s illicit activities, but unlike Melisa, the Bennis’ car was jointly-owned. Despite Tina’s obvious innocence, the county took the car anyway.
Tina contested the forfeiture, and her case eventually made it to the United States Supreme Court. There, she argued that punishment of innocent people violates the due process guarantee of the U.S. Constitution. Citing the complex history of civil forfeiture, a divided Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect innocent property owners like Mrs. Bennis against forfeiture.
“To this day, the Bennis decision remains one of the worst property rights decisions that the Supreme Court has ever handed down,” said IJ Attorney Kirby West. “It has enabled cities, states and the federal government to deprive innocent property owners of their cars, cash, or other property without even a modicum of due process. Thankfully, courts across the country have begun to see the injustice of civil forfeiture and the Supreme Court will eventually have to correct this grievous decision.”
In response to lawsuits by IJ, federal judges in Albuquerque and Philadelphia have shutdown municipal forfeiture programs similar to Detroit’s. And last year IJ secured a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment limits how far the government can go in using civil forfeiture to take property from people for minor crimes.
“Detroit drivers have suffered for decades under the Bennis decision,” said IJ President Scott Bullock. “We’ve filed this lawsuit to right that wrong and restore justice to a system devoid of it for too long.”’ https://ij.org/press-release/class-action-lawsuit-seeks-to-shutdown-detroits-unconstitutional-civil-forfeiture-program/
I have written about these Muslim patrols in NYC before and here it is again.
‘The Muslim patrol gained international attention in the fall of 2018 after several of its patrol cars — which look like New York Police Department (NYPD) cars –were spotted in Brooklyn and Staten Island.
The patrol originally said its purpose was to serve as a liaison between Muslims and the NYPD. But after two consecutive mosque shootings in New Zealand last March, where a gunman live-streamed his murder of 51 Muslims on Facebook, the patrol publicly altered its purpose.
It now describes itself as a law enforcement organization, claiming its goal is to “protect members of the local community from escalating quality-of-life nuisance crimes.”
It’s precisely that “law enforcement” definition that is now landing the Muslim patrol into hot water with New York City residents, particularly those living in the Brooklyn area of Bedford-Stuyvesant.’
‘The cars also have sirens, which another neighborhood resident says is being used to intimidate people.
“They turn on their sirens when they see non-Muslims park next to a mosque during Friday prayer services,” said another resident.
“They get out of their cars and start humiliating these people, telling them they have to move their cars and that they can’t park next to a mosque because they’re not a Muslim, even though it’s completely legal for them to park there,” he explained.
In addition, Muslim patrol officers are patrolling sidewalks near mosques and stripping people of their open containers of alcohol. Though open containers of alcohol are a city violation, an NYPD officer typically resolves it peacefully.
“In some cases, these Muslim patrol officers are kicking the beer out of their hands or yanking it from them and pouring it out on the streets,” the second resident said. “These guys aren’t police officers and they don’t have the right to take someone else’s property and destroy it, even if a person is committing an offense.”
“They talk to these people like the ARE the police,” he added. “And a lot of people in the Bed-Stuy community are getting fed up with it. Some, including the Muslims in the community, are demanding a meeting with the district attorney.”
Both residents who spoke up, however, agreed that the NYPD still favors the “services” provided by Muslim patrol.
“The local captain, he don’t care if they’re enforcing sharia law. The police see them as helping them with their jobs.”’ https://clarionproject.org/nyc-muslim-patrol-bullying-reported/?utm_source=Clarion%20Project%20Newsletter
All this ought to make one scared but especially the statement ‘The local captain, he don’t care if they’re enforcing sharia law.’ When will the Muslim Patrol be coming to your city?
whatyareckon 