France has a record of double standards when it comes to freedom of speech and religious expression, especially when it comes to Muslims and Islam. In November of 2012 French authorities banned an advertisement by the anti-Islamophobia group CCiF that called for religious tolerance, and portrayed a message of inclusivity.

The banned Nous sommes la nation, “We too are the nation!”

France’s interior minister, Manuel Valls, who was recently featured on Loonwatch for double standards regarding contradictory statements he made on religious clothing and symbols (he supported and wore the kippa with pride, whereas he disparaged and mocked the hijab) is now threatening to ban a popular website, STOP A L’IMPUNITE that documents police violence and brutality that targets Arabs and Africans, many of whom are Muslims.

France to ban website documenting police violence against Muslims

Alleging defamation, France’s interior minister Manuel Valls is trying to shut down a website which gives a voice to the victims of police harassment. The site has become especially popular with France’s Muslim population, who often claim that police target, harass and even kill them with impunity.

Statistics prove that non-whites justifiably feel under attack: Researchers say that Arabs and black Muslims compose up to 70 percent of France’s prisoners.

For years groups such as Amnesty International and the UN Human Rights Committee have testified to racist practices among the French police, but many say nothing has changed. Allegations of abuse are routinely dismissed as the French police are supported by their unions, far-right political groups and now the Socialist administration.

Amal Bentounsi started the website last year, after her brother was reportedly shot in the back by a policeman. The case is ongoing, but she says her site provides a voice for the many victims whose experiences are never heard in a courtroom.

While agreeing that government action is needed, Bentounsi believes it’s the French media which needs the most urgent reform. She says they need to acknowledge their role in legitimizing the Islamophobia which has especially stigmatized young Muslim males.

Many Muslims say that French society has two sets of rules: One for the police, and another for regular citizens; one form of justice for whites, and another for Muslims and immigrants. For those who are 2nd and even 3rd generation French citizens, such inequalities are especially dispiriting.

Press TV, 6 March 2013

Jihad was denied permission to attend an event held by free press group Trykkefrihedsselskabet, whose chair, Lars Hedegaard (pictured), was the recent target of an assassination attempt (Photo: Scanpix)

(h/t: Tosseanstalten)

Arabic man accuses free speech group of hypocrisy

(Copenhagen Post)

A 20-year-old student from Roskilde University with an Arabic background has been denied entry to a debate on Thursday about the importance of free speech, despite having purchased a ticket.

The debate was organised by free press advocates Trykkefrihedsselskabet, which is chaired by historian and journalist Lars Hedegaard, who was the target of a recent failed assassination attempt.

While the perpetrator has yet to be apprehended, it is widely believed that Hedegaard’s vocal criticism of Islam may have been a motivation.

The student, Jihad Taha, says his middle-eastern background and the fact that his first name is also used to refer to ‘holy war’ in Arabic may be the reason he received an email yesterday informing him he wouldn’t be granted entry to the parliament building, Christiansborg, where the meeting is being held.

“I’m afraid to inform you that for security reasons we have chosen to reject your participation in the meeting on Thursday,” Torben Mark Pedersen, a Trykkefrihedsselskabet board member wrote in an email to Taha. “Your name will not appear on the guest list and you will not be granted entry to Christiansborg. If you send me your bank details we will refund your money.”

Taha, who volunteers for a range of charity and human rights organisations such as the Danish Youth Council told Politiken newspaper that he found the decision by Trykkefrihedsselskabet to be “strongly discriminatory”.

“I have a spotless criminal record, I study at university and I volunteer for [the children’s charity] Red Barnet Ungdom and [the home guard] Hjemmeværnet,” Taha told Politiken newspaper. “I hate to say it but I can’t imagine anything other than my Arabic name being used as justification for Trykkefrihedsselskabet’s decision.”

In a reply to the newspaper, Trykkefrihedsselskabet wrote that it was entitled to choose who could attend the event.

“We are a private association and our event is also private, meaning that we can choose who can and cannot participate,” spokesperson Torben Mark Pedersen wrote in a comment to Politiken. “Our events are normally open to the public but we evaluate each case individually, and that occassionally leads to some being excluded in order to let others participate. That is what has happened in this case and I will make no further comment.”

Pedersen would not divulge which security reasons were used to justify Taha’s exclusion, but domestic intelligence agency PET informed Politiken that it had not been consulted.

According to metroXpress newspaper, Taha was born in Denmark to a Palestinian father and Egyptian mother. He explained that he found his exclusion hypocritical.

“I think it is really bad especially given that I am being excluded from a debate about free speech,” Taha told metroXpress. “I disagree with Hedegaard’s views but I still think he has the right to have them. Dialogue is the only way forward.”

Why is curtailing free speech wrong for Muslims and right for Western countries?

Hate-Speech Hypocrites

By William Saletan, Slate

Akhmad Kadyrov Masjid Grozny, Chechnya

Supporters of Russia’s proposed law say it’s an important step toward preventing incitement and violence. Critics contend it’s a crackdown on dissent.

‘Innocence of Muslims’ Film Could Get Whole Site Blacklisted Under New Law

By Gleb Bryanski, Huffington Post

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Access to YouTube across Russia could be blocked under a new law that takes effect on November 1 if the portal does not remove a video mocking the Prophet Mohammad, the country’s communications minister said on Tuesday.

The video, which sparked violent protests in many Muslim countries, has been deemed extremist by Russian prosecutors who have now asked the court to ban it.

Under new legislation, Internet sites carrying content banned in Russia would be included on a special register, after which Internet providers would have one day to block access.

“Because of this video, YouTube could be blocked throughout the territory of Russia,” Communications Minister Nikolai Nikiforov, one of the opponents of the new law, wrote in his Twitter microblog. “If a law is passed it should be enforced.”

Google Inc, the owner of YouTube, rejected a request by the White House to remove the video but decided to block it in a number of Muslim countries including Egypt and Libya where U.S. embassies have been stormed by protesters. Russia is home to 20 million Muslims.

The court now has five days to make a ruling on whether the film is extremist but legal practice shows that on such matters Russian courts usually side with the prosecutors.

“If they abide by the court decision (and remove the video) no one will (need to) close them (YouTube) down,” said parliament member Ruslan Gattarov from pro-Kremlin United Russia who first raised the issue with the prosecutors. “Do we have to wait until violence comes here?”

Google’s Moscow office confirmed they received the prosecutors’ warning but said that such matters are handled at the company’s headquarters. Previously Russia has never blocked access to Google services.

Some influential Russian politicians, including former Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin, blamed social networks and popular Internet services for helping to stir dissent in developing countries including Russia.

Last year Russia’s domestic security service called for access to encrypted communication providers such as Gmail, Hotmail and Skype, saying the uncontrolled use of such services could threaten national security.

Anti-Kremlin opposition groups, which staged the biggest protests during President Vladimir Putin’s 12-year rule over the past several months, has extensively used Internet services to organize mass rallies and spread their message.

The Kremlin responded by rushing through parliament a string of restrictive laws which opposition described as a crackdown on dissent.

Charlie Hebdo editor getting press coverage

by Ilisha

The otherwise obscure French satirical newspaper, Charlie Hedbo, is making headlines again, and the most recent controversy seems to have the press divided on the politics of free speech and provocation.

Last fall, the paper’s offices were firebombed in what was widely assumed to be retaliation for an upcoming issue “guest edited” by Muhammed, with a provocative cartoon on the cover and the caption, “100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter!” There was no proof Muslims were actually the perpetrators, and to date, no one has claimed responsibility, and there have been no arrests.

The perpetrators could have been Muslims, or people who wanted Muslims to appear guilty of the crime, or as Luz, the cartoonist who drew the cover cartoon, said:

 Let’s be cautious. There’s every reason to believe it’s the work of fundamentalists but it could just as well be the work of two drunks.

Casting caution aside, the media continued to report the story as if Muslims were known to be the culprits, and this irresponsible reporting was by no means confined to the looniverse. Sadly, most of of the global media joined in recklessly indicting Muslims. Even Gawker, a paper with articles that are often sympathetic to Muslims, carried the misleading  and presumptuous headline, “The Islamists Are Going After Fake Newspapers Now.”

The firebombing seemed to embolden Charlie Hedbo’s editors. A few days later, the paper  published an even more provocative cover, portraying a similar cartoon depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, this time engaged in a sloppy kiss with another man. Fortunately, this provocation failed to provoke, and the story fell from the headlines.

Now that protests have erupted around the world in response to an amateurish anti-Muslim film posted on Youtube, Charlie Hedbo has seized the opportunity to add fuel to the fire with another round of provocative cartoons. Facing criticism, the paper defended the cartoons, citing free speech.

Indeed, the cartoon is protected and legitimate free speech, even if it is a deliberate provocation.

However, that doesn’t mean the decision to publish the cartoons is above criticism, or that anyone who objects is somehow curtailing the paper’s free speech rights.  In fact, criticism and counter arguments are also an important part of free speech rights. Peaceful protests are also a perfectly legitimate response–as long as they remain peaceful.

Even among staunch free speech advocates who defend the paper’s right to publish the cartoon, there is some question of what constitutes good judgement, especially under present circumstances.  The Guardian is conducting a poll, asking the question:

UK Guardian: Are Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons of the prophet Muhammad a necessary stand for free speech or a pointless provocation?

At the time of this writing, more than two thirds say the cartoons constitute free speech, and less than a third say it is a provocation. The question itself seems a bit misleading, however, because the two aren’t mutually exclusive. Publishing the cartoons is arguably both legitimate and protected free speech, and also a provocation, though not necessarily “pointless.” The obvious point seems to be drawing worldwide attention, once again, to an otherwise unremarkable French satirical newspaper.

The debate over the boundaries of free speech will rage on, but as Garibaldi said in his article following the firebombing of Charlie Hedbo offices last fall:

You have the cartoonish hook-nosed-goofy-smirking-Ayrab-Mooslim with some weird looking turban on his head.

Charlie Hebdo knew what it was doing, they wished to provoke, they created a buzz and got world-wide media attention for their magazine which had little following outside of France.

A proper response by those offended or upset would have been to peacefully protest, or to satirize the Charlie Hebdo publication, or to do as most have done and simply ignore it.

(h/t: CriticalDragon)

Anti-Islam Filmmaker Becomes a Martyr to the Right

by Adam Serwer (Mother Jones)

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the Egyptian-born Coptic Christian who appears to be behind the amateurish anti-Islam film that sparked violent protests at Western embassies in Arab and Muslim countries around the world last week, doesn’t exactly have a family-friendly background. His criminal record includes financial fraud and drug convictions. But spurred on by conservative web king Matt Drudge, conservatives have turned Nakoula into a martyr for free speech.

As Roy Edroso documents in the Village Voice, conservatives are now claiming that Nakoula’s recent arrest for potentially violating the terms of his probation is proof the Obama administration is caving to violent protests around the world. Popular conservative blogger Glenn Reynolds demanded Obama resign for “sending — literally — brownshirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration[.]” The “brownshirts” are the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, whom Reynolds is comparing to militia of the Nazi Party in Germany. Powerline blogger Scott Johnson declared ”I am Nakoula Basseley Nakoula,” (a reference to the anti-Red Scare film Spartacus). Pajamas Media blogger Roger Simon wrote ”Hillary Clinton, I insist that you have me arrested. I am thinking of making a movie about Mohammed.”

Speakers at the annual Values Voters gathering of mostly Christian religious conservatives on Saturday were drawing similar conclusions. “The big headline this morning is ‘federal authorities investigate Christian filmmaker because of this film,” Fox News commentator Todd Starnes told attendees during a panel on religious freedom. “Where are the federal investigations into shows like South Park which has denigrated all faiths?” During another Values Voters panel, titled “Islam 101,” the Christian Broadcast Networks’ Eric Stalkelbeck warned that “things continue the way they’re going with the infringement on free speech, this panel we’re having today, you might not have it in a few years. We might get lead out in cuffs.”

The common claim here is that criticism of Islam is somehow becoming illegal. But very few of Nakoula’s conservative fans note that he is being investigated not because he made a film critical of Islam but rather because his production of the movie under the pseudonym “Sam Bacile” may have violated the terms of his probation. After being convicted of bank fraud in 2010, Nakoula was “banned from using computers or the Internet or using false identities as part of his sentence.” Starnes and Stalkelbeck conventiently omitted this fact from their jeremiads about persecution of Christians. Reynolds mentions it in passing and dismisses it as pretext. Johnson and Simon don’t mention it at all.

The irony here is that Americans can and do say just about anything they want about Muslims. Broad, simplistic criticisms of Muslims, while usually more sophisticated than Nakoula’s film, are actually pretty frequent in American society (seeNewsweek‘s latest cover). Some Muslims, by contrast, do face restrictions on their free speech: Those who express extremist ideaswithout engaging in violence may find themselves subject to prosecution for materially supporting terrorism. You don’t often see conservatives complaining about that.

Some of the Obama administration’s decisions do raise free-speech concerns, however. Thegovernment’s inquiry to YouTube about whether the video violated the site’s terms of service was potentially coercive. So was the call that Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made to a fringe Florida pastor to urge him to stop supporting the film. It’s also fair to ask whether or not Nakoula’s probation terms could be used as pretext to punish him indirectly, and to note that Nakoula is not responsible for the actions of those who have reacted to the video’s content with violence.

Those are all fair points. What’s not fair is to claim Nakoula was arrested for criticizing Islam without noting that he very well might have violated the terms of his probation. It’s possible that the Obama administration is influencing the LA County Sheriff’s Department in order to restrict Nakoula’s freedom of speech. The burden of proof for that claim lies with the people making it, and thus far conservatives haven’t offered much more than rage-filled speculation.

But conservatives who already believe the Obama administration is persecuting Christians and kowtowing to Islamists don’t need to see proof to know that Nakoula is a free-speech martyr. ”In this assault on religious freedom in this country, is Christianity being singled out?” Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Center, asked Starnes’ panel at Values Voters on Saturday. The audience laughed knowingly. “That was kind of a softball question” Perkins acknowledged. “That was so easy the audience could answer it.”

by Garibaldi

The Daily Beast reports that an Israeli-American real-estate developer by the name of Sam Bacile produced a movie about the Prophet Muhammad meant specifically to provoke a reaction of rage–he succeeded. The Atlantic tells us that not much is known about Bacile, and that there are doubts about his true identity. Amongst those involved in promoting the film is the goofball Pastor Terry Jones,

When the OIC promotes plans to ban blasphemy through UN initiatives, claiming to fight Islamophobia they are rightly called out for undermining freedom of speech and expression and also for devaluing the fight against Islamophobia.

When the California assembly seeks to stifle criticism of Israel by claiming that speakers who talk about Israeli “crimes against humanity,” “ethnic cleansing” and support “boycott, divestment and sanctions” are anti-Semites who should not be “tolerated in the classroom or on campus” what is that called? It should rightfully be condemned as an attack on free speech, expression and an undermining of the fight against anti-Semitism.

What if they were Muslim? (h/t: JD)

California State Assembly Seeks to Stifle Debate on Israel

by Stephen Zunes (Huffington Post)

The California State Assembly has just passed a bipartisan resolution (HR 35) by voice vote which constitutes a serious attack on academic freedom and the rights of students and faculty to raise awareness about human rights abuses by U.S.-backed governments. While purporting to put the legislature on record in opposition of anti-Semitism on state university campuses, it defines anti-Semitism so widely as to include legitimate political activities in opposition to Israeli government policies.

The resolution was opposed by a wide variety of groups, including the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Asian Law Caucus, Jewish Voice for Peace, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, yet the Republican-sponsored measure received wide bipartisan support in the Democratic-controlled legislature.

The non-binding resolution — which was sponsored by 66 of the 88 members of the lower house — demands that what it calls “anti-Semitic activity” should “not be tolerated in the classroom or on campus, and that no public resources be allowed to be used for anti-Semitic or intolerant agitation.”

The resolution lists a number of examples of genuine anti-Semitic activities, such as painting swastikas outside Hillel offices. However, much of the text is focused upon criticism of the state of Israel. Among the examples given of “anti-Semitic activities” included in the resolution are:

• Accusations that the Israeli government is guilty of “crimes against humanity”
This would mean that a speaker from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other reputable human rights groups which have documented such violations of international humanitarian law by the Israeli Defense Forces could not be provided space or honoraria to talk about their research.

• Accusations that Israel has engaged in “ethnic cleansing”
This would mean that Israeli scholars who have studied and published documents from Israeli archives pertaining to the 1947-49 conflict in Israel/Palestine which demonstrate that there was a calculated policy of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian population in some regions, would similarly be barred.

• “Student and faculty-sponsored boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns against Israel”
This would prohibit efforts to boycott goods made in illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, support international sanctions on Israel over its ongoing violations of a series of UN Security Council resolution, or have the university divest from its endowment stock in companies supporting the Israeli occupation.

The resolution also declares a number of other political activities that, while clearly objectionable — such as disrupting a speech by a supporter of the Israeli government — as “anti-Semitic,” based on the assumption that hostility toward such a speaker is not based on opposition to policies of Israel’s right-wing government, but because the country is Jewish.

Indeed, throughout the resolution, opposition to Israeli government policies is equated with bigotry towards Jews. There’s no question that some pro-Palestinian activists do sometimes cross the line into what could reasonably be called anti-Semitism, which should indeed be categorically condemned, as should all manifestation of prejudice. Unfortunately, this resolution makes no distinction between this tiny bigoted minority and the majority of activists who oppose the Israeli occupation and other policies of that country’s right-wing government on legitimate human rights grounds.

Not only does this constitute an attack on academic freedom, it compromises legitimate efforts against the scourge of anti-Semitism which — while not as widespread a phenomenon on California campuses as the resolution implies — is still very real.

College campuses, particularly those in California’s large public university systems, have long been a center of agitation for human rights and in opposition to U.S. policies which support violations of human rights, whether it be the war in Vietnam, investment in apartheid South Africa, intervention in Central America or support for Israel’s wars and occupation.

This bipartisan effort appears to be an attempt to stifle this tradition. Indeed, if the California state legislature succeeds in shutting down debate regarding U.S. policy toward Israel and its neighbors, it will only be a matter of time before debate on other aspects of U.S. foreign policy will be suppressed as well.

Kamal Saleem has his scared face on

Good piece by Richard Bartholomew on the manipulative tactics of the Thomas More Law Center and Kamal Saleem:

Hypocrisy from Thomas More Law Center on Kamal Saleem and Free Speech

by Richard Bartholomew

From Wood TV, 27 January:

ALLEGAN, Mich. (WOOD) – Rep. Dave Agema told 24 Hour News 8 he thinks Allegan’s police chief overreacted when he shut down an event the representative and a self-proclaimed former terrorist were both speaking at.

Allegan City Police Chief Rick Hoyer told 24 Hour News 8, he didn’t find out there was a bounty on the head of Kamal Saleem, until his speech at Allegan High School was already underway.

…Hoyer said Commissioner [Willis] Sage actually walked up to one of his officers during the event and told him that Saleem had a $25 million dollar bounty. That officer, a sergeant on the force, checked out the information with Saleem’s body guard. When the armed body guard confirmed it, telling police that Islamic terrorists who follow the teaching of the Quran that have been directed to behead Saleem, that’s when Hoyer said they took action.

Hoyer perhaps did misjudge the situation – but he found himself himself having to make a immediate decision on a matter of public safety based on information given to him at the last moment. It appears that Saleem was a victim of his own self-publicity;  the obvious question is why, if the “$25 million” bounty really exists, Saleem is not under round-the-clock police guard, in the same way that Salman Rushdie was for many years.

The Thomas More Law Center has now put its own spin on the event in Allegan, as it announces a lawsuit:

Amid shouts of “What about free speech?” from the audience, the Allegan Police Department ordered the event shut-down.   School officials notified police that they had received a letter complaining about the event from Dawud Walid, Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI).   The letter asked the school to disallow the event despite an existing contract.  CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism funding trial in U. S. history, U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation.

…TMLC’s federal lawsuit was brought on behalf of State Representative David Agema; a chapter leader of ACT! for America, Elizabeth Griffin; Allegan County Commissioner, Willis Sage; and Mark Gurley, one of the event sponsors.

In fact, the TMLC’s lawsuit stinks of bad faith – and here’s why:

193. Defendants’ pretextual claim that the free speech event needed to be shut down subverts the true cause for the closing of the free speech event: complying with the demands of  hecklers, evidenced by the letter of Defendants CAIR, People For the American Way, Walid, and Keegan, and valuing the heckler’s veto over Constitutional freedoms of Plaintiffs.

…225. Defendants CAIR, [Dawud] Walid, People For the American Way, and[Michael] Keegan intentionally interfered with the Contract by sending a letter to Defendant [Kevin] Harness requesting  that the School District breach its Contract with Plaintiffs.

226. Defendants CAIR, Walid, People For the American Way, and Keegan improperly interfered with the Contract.

First, there is no evidence that Hoyer acted on any “letter” that was sent to the School District – why would he? And if so, why would he have allowed the event to get underway in the first place? But more substantively, the TMLC is seeking to punish groups and individuals for daring to contact the School District with their concerns about Saleem. Neither CAIR nor PFAW had any decision-making power over whether the event went ahead – the only reason they are included in the lawsuit is because TMLC wishes to suppress free speech while pretending to uphold it. It’s a SLAPP, and utter humbug.

In fact, there are very good public interest reasons for interested parties and concerned individuals to have contacted the School District – and PFAW’s liberal political perspective or troubling allegations about some of CAIR’s associations are irrelevant. Saleem presents himself as an ex-terrorist turned Christian whistleblower, when in fact his back-story is extremely dubious, and his claim to be an expert on Islam cannot be taken seriously. A couple of weeks ago, for instance, he spoke a Christian Right/conservative conflab called The Awakening 2012; as Right Wing Watch has documented, he used the occasion (standing alongside Frank Gaffney) to allege that when Obama appears to pledge allegiance to the flag, he holds his hand in a special way which shows that in reality he is praying to Allah. Saleem also statedthat Roe vs Wade was part of a plot to establish shariah, and that plans to reform immigration law involves “sending money to Hamas” in order to import Muslims, with the result “this world will become past tense and one day we’ll be wearing ragheads”. Such extravagances speak for themselves – and demonstrate that Saleem’s presence degrades the dignity any educational setting.

In 2010, Saleem was debunked in a piece published in Books & Culture, a sister publication of the evangelical Christianity Today. According to the article’s author, Doug Howard:

I first encountered Kamal Saleem when he appeared at Calvin College in November 2007. A look at his website told me immediately that he was not who he said he was. The signature of his deception was his statement that “in my family was the Grand Wazir of Islam.” The term is ridiculous, a spurious title meant to mislead the innocent with an aura of authority.

…In The Blood of Lambs, Kamal Saleem writes, “I wanted to be like Bond.” In these pages he is Bond, James Bond, in size 6X. He gets those emphatic rivals, the PLO and the Muslim Brotherhood, both to recruit him. He recalls the intricate details of raids he carried out at age seven. Abu Jihad himself teaches him how to use an AK-47. He is shown off by Yasser Arafat as a model warrior. In Libya at age 14 he has Muammar Qaddafi gushing in gratitude. In Iraq, he waves to Saddam Hussein… Even if one were disposed to give these entertaining claims the benefit of the doubt, the book’s frequent mistakes give the reader pause. The Islamic umma does not mean one world government, and it is not “coming.” The PLO was a secular organization even though Yasser Arafat prayed and quoted the Qur’an.

Further details appear in a recent article in Mother Jones:

Saleem claims that the Muslim Brotherhood has put a $25 million bounty on his head, and that there have been attempts to earn it: After a 2007 event in Chino Hills, California, he writes in his book, he returned to his Holiday Inn to find his room ransacked and a band of dangerous Middle Easterners on his trail. Saleem describes calling the police to alert them to an assassination attempt. Local law enforcement, however, has no record of any such incident.

The same article contains a quote from someone who knew Saleem in the USA before he was famous:

…[Wally] Winter recalls his former roommate as a devout Muslim whose yarns often lapsed into wild exaggeration. “He could sell swampland in Louisiana,” Winter says. “I really do not believe the story about the terrorism. I totally believe that he would make up something like that to either make money or become well known.”

The City of Allegan, meanwhile, has issued a statement, as reported by MLive:

Attorney Scott Smith, representing Allegan, said in a statement that the city has not been served with the lawsuit, but he reviewed it this morning. It names the city, police chief, police officers, school officials and two advocacy groups as defendants.

…”This lawsuit is disappointing in many ways,” Smith wrote. “It is based on conjecture, logical fallacies, and, more disappointingly, factual inaccuracies. The plaintiffs did not even spell one of the defendants’ names correctly. It is disappointing that the lawsuit wrongly imputes motives to the police officers.”

He said he was disappointed that the lawsuit was filed. He said the city cooperated with Thomas More as it sought information about the Jan. 26 event.

“The City quickly provided the requested information and offered to address any other questions or concerns the Thomas More Law Center or its client might have. But, without any further inquiries or any attempts to address the plaintiffs’ concerns, a lawsuit was filed. If, as seems to be alleged by the complaint, its sole purpose is to ensure the defendants respect First Amendment rights, a lawsuit was unnecessary.”

UPDATE: I note that one of the the plaintiffs, Mark Gurley, is a pastor (at the Healing Rooms of Grand Rapids), and he is a member Rick Joyner’s Christian Right group theOak Initiative. He’s also a birther.

Bob Pitt of Islamophobia-Watch rightly questions whether Islamophobes who allied themselves with American Atheists over the Zombie Muhammad issue will now cry that Jews are attacking freedom of speech and expression, as they surely would if Muslims had stopped the billboard:

(via. Islamophobia-Watch)

‘The Jews have stopped the billboard’ – American Atheists’ Leader Complains that ‘God is a myth’ ad near Hasidic Neighbourhood has Been Blocked

by Bob Pitt

This time atheists found themselves answering to a higher power – a picky landlord. A Southside loft owner refused to allow a billboard questioning Judaism to be installed atop his S. Fifth Street building on Tuesday amid outrage in Williamsburg’s Hasidic community.

National atheist leaders tried to take out a month-long ad adjacent to Williamsburg’s Orthodox Jewish stronghold with text in English and Hebrew reading: “You know it’s a myth … and you have a choice.” But at the last minute, landlord Kenny Stier refused to allow workers from the advertising company Clear Channel into his building, according to American Atheists president David Silverman.

Silverman claims powerful neighborhood rabbis convinced Stier to block the non-believing billboard and called the religious leaders and the landlord “anti-atheist bigots”. “The Jews have stopped the billboard,” said Silverman. “It’s really ugly bigotry. As a former Jew, it’s repugnant to see Jews act like this.”

Several Hasidic leaders said they had nothing to do with the landlord’s decision to block the billboard, and Stier declined to comment. “I don’t want to get involved in this,” he said.

Councilman Steve Levin (D–Williamsburg) said the billboard showed a “severe lack of sensitivity” at a time when Brooklyn should be striving to have open conversations about religion.

“Even if we were to ignore the antagonistic placement of this billboard near the Williamsburg Bridge, the content of the message is conveyed in a disrespectful manner,” said Levin. “This does not appear to be a genuine attempt to engage in a dialogue, but is here merely to insult the beliefs of this community.”

The Brooklyn Paper, 6 March 2012

We look forward to Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, who have been enthusiastically supporting American Atheists over the “Zombie Muhammad” controversy, joining Silverman in condemning this development as an outrageous attack on freedom of expression – as they undoubtedly would if it had occurred in a Muslim neighbourhood. But don’t hold your breath.