Showing posts with label opponents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opponents. Show all posts

Michigan Supreme Court rejects appeal by mosque opponents

on Sunday, February 3, 2013

WEST BLOOMFIELD — The Michigan Supreme Court won't hear an appeal over the sale of a Detroit-area school for a mosque and Islamic community center.

In an order released Saturday, the court said a September decision by the appeals court in favor of the Farmington school district will stand.

The Islamic Cultural Association bought the vacant Eagle Elementary School in West Bloomfield Township in 2011. Some residents sued, claiming the deal was somehow corrupt and hidden from the public. An Oakland County judge and the appeals court have said critics have no standing to sue.

The Islamic association has said opponents are unfairly targeting people over their Muslim faith. The West Bloomfield Planning Commission has not taken action on the proposed mosque.

Associated Press, 2 February 2013

See also "State Supreme Court rejects appeal of West Bloomfield mosque opponents", West Bloomfield Patch, 2 Febuary 2013



View the Original article

Opponents of new mosque try to shout down Muslim project manager at planning meeting

on Thursday, August 2, 2012

Sal Akhter addresses the meetingNearly 200 South Santa Clara County residents attended a planning advisory meeting Tuesday night to voice an impassioned mix of concerns, opposition, support and questions regarding the proposed Cordoba Center mosque project which will be considered by the county’s planning commission Thursday.

County staff began the meeting at the Grange Hall in Morgan Hill by announcing they decided since last week to recommend the planning commission postpone the project due to the high volume of concerns submitted by the public. While last week the staff recommended the commission approve the project when it takes up the issue Thursday, on Tuesday they said they will recommend the body continue the decision in order to allow further studies of the soil permeability and groundwater depth on the 15-acre San Martin site where the South Valley Islamic Center plans to build the Cordoba Center.

But when the meeting turned to the public comment period, in which nearly 30 audience members used their allotted three minutes to voice their objections, support or suggestions for the project, the meeting quickly grew boisterous and, at times, nearly out of control. Attendees shouted in argument from the audience against speakers whom they disagreed with, and applauded loudly with those they supported.

While Sal Akhter, SVIC member and Cordoba Center project manager, spoke as the last public commenter, the audience emitted a loud sustain of disapproval as he demonstrated the existing local presence of Muslim residents and activity in San Martin. Akhter was visibly and vocally upset at the reaction and many of the comments that preceded his, and directed his opinion to the audience rather than the committee.

"So much complaints and charges, I don't where to begin," said Akhter, who added he has lived in San Martin for 30 years. "We have followed every letter of the law, without a single request for a variance."

Seated opponents of the project attempted to shout him down, particularly after he exceeded his allotted three-minute speaking limit and the committee allowed him to continue anyway. "Time!" numerous audience members repeatedly and loudly shouted at the expiration of the clock. Dozens intermittently screamed angry responses to some of his comments.

Committee members made little effort to calm the crowd and allow commenters to speak without interruption.

The audience was standing-room only in the 186-capacity meeting hall, with people spilling out two doors on either side.

Most were against the project, citing the groundwater issue as well as possible impacts on traffic, noise, storm water runoff and flooding, and the Cordoba Center's capacity to serve local needs in accordance with the county's general plan. Some speakers even expressed unabashed fear of the Islamic community who plans to make the Cordoba Center their worship headquarters.

The first speaker following the county staff presentation was Michele Rasner of Gilroy, who prompted obscenities and boos from the crowd as she declared that she thinks the controversy is about religion and discrimination rather than groundwater or traffic related worries. "Let us find similarities, not differences," Rasner said.

When a female member of the SVIC addressed the committee next, grumbling moans emanated from the audience as she said, "This is about my civil rights and my children's civil rights."

Georgine Scott-Codiga, president of the Gilroy/Morgan Hill Patriots, said she and other residents are "afraid" of the project and they "don't trust" county staff and county ordinances that will not prohibit construction of the mosque as long as the developer is in compliance.

Joy Schoming, a Gilroy resident, said she objected to the project's name of Cordoba Center, which refers to an ancient Spanish city. To Schoming, the name also conjures up a Muslim community center formerly known as the Cordoba House that is under development in New York City, and which generated significant controversy when it was in the planning stages.

Schoming and others also worried about the possible noise impact from the facility, suggesting that calls for prayers at other mosques can be noisy. County staff said no amplified music or speech would be permitted to emanate from the site, and it would be subject to existing noise ordinances.

Other residents at the meeting, who are not affiliated with the SVIC, spoke in support of the project, and argued that it will serve the local community through education efforts, developing a clean and aesthetically pleasing facility, and preserving a large portion of open space on the site.

One man prompted applause from some audience members with comments that speculated the Cordoba Center might be tied to violent offshoots of Islam that promote terrorism.

Gilroy Dispatch, 1 August 2012



View the Original article

Mosque opponents file federal motion to stop Islamic Center of Murfreesboro

on Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Opponents of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro filed a motion in federal court Monday claiming that U.S. District Judge Todd Campbell accepted "false allegations" in affirming that the controversial mosque can continue its opening process.

Attorney Joe Brandon, who has represented mosque opponents in the past, said he was vexed that federal courts intervened in a local case.

Brandon said the only way to properly conclude the dispute is to provide the public with adequate notice about the mosque, making mosque advocates restart the approval process.

The motion also questioned whether Islam qualified as a legitimate religion.

Brandon requested a hearing for the injunction sought.

The Tennessean, 30 July 2012



View the Original article

Sutton: opponents organise petition against new mosque

on Thursday, July 26, 2012

Plans for a controversial new mosque in Worcester Park have been met with fierce opposition.

Businesses and residents have joined forces to sign a petition to ensure the plans do not go ahead. Petitions have been seen in various shops along Central Road which claim the increased traffic would bring the area to a stand still.

Sutton Council has received a submission for a place of worship at numbers 2-4 Green Lane. Although the council are yet to confirm plans are for a mosque, the drawings which have been submitted include plans for a male and a female prayer room.

The petitions cite traffic as the main issue, but scratch a little under the surface, and a different picture becomes clear. One businessman said: "It's not just the traffic but I'm being diplomatic. This can not happen."

Your Local Guardian, 25 July 2012

There is also, predictably, a Facebook page titled "Ban the Worcester Park, Green Lane Mosque". Its wider objective is to "Ban the every growing building of Mosques in and around the surrounding area Epsom and Ewell".



View the Original article

Alan Lake and Roberta Moore have a difference of opinion over killing their political opponents

on Sunday, April 29, 2012

Happier times: Alan Lake and Roberta MooreRichard Bartholomew points out that the 4 Freedoms Community website run by former English Defence League financier and ideologist Alan Ayling ("Alan Lake") has updated its Code of Conduct.

Under the heading "Unlawful Killing" this now includes the following: "You must not endorse or encourage people to perform criminal executions. However, you can endorse enforcement of execution by the state (capital punishment) after application of due judicial process."

The latter qualification is to cover Ayling himself, who has in the past advocated the execution of political opponents like Rowan Williams, David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Still, as long Ayling states that their killing should take place after "application of due judicial process" nobody could reasonably object to that, could they? Well, Ayling's employers, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, evidently did. At the end of last year they suspended him from his job after his identity was revealed.

The ban on endorsing or encouraging "criminal executions", as distinct from the sort of executions Ayling himself advocates, was imposed after he was contacted by the Norwegian paper Dagbladet in connection with a comment posted on the 4 Freedoms site by Roberta Moore, the former leader of the EDL Jewish division who now heads the Jewish Defence League UK.

Expressing her regret that Anders Breivik had failed to kill Eskil Pedersen, the leader of the Norwegian Labour Party's youth section who escaped from Utøya by boat, Moore wrote: "It seems Breivik missed one. This is precisely the coward that should have been killed. Cowards can run but eventually they meet their fate. May KARMA play its part now."

Five years ago four Muslim extremists were jailed for four to six years after being convicted of soliciting to murder because they chanted slogans such as "bomb, bomb, Denmark", "bomb, bomb the UK", "7/7 on its way" and "Europe, you will pay with your blood" at a protest in London against the Jyllands-Posten anti-Islam cartoons.

The Director of Public Prosecutions said at the time: "Terrorism attacks our way of life and incitement can make a very real contribution to it. We shall continue to take incitement very seriously and prosecute it robustly where there is enough evidence for us to do so."

Why, then, has Roberta Moore not been charged with the same offence?

Moore is not the only member of the Jewish Defence League UK to advocate terrorist violence against their political opponents. Another is Rob Sims, who posted the following comment on the EDL's official Facebook page in response to Breivik's trial:

"We should be supporting this guy, The lot he killed where a bunch of Anti-Semite scum, These left wing idiots and muslims are making europe resemble Germany under NSDAP rule, Whats it gonna take for people to realise that we need more people like Breivik who are willing to actually fight for what he believes in."

So far as we know no action has been taken against Sims either, even though Durham Constabulary has been notified.

If the police and Crown Prosecution Service can find the resources to prosecute a Muslim teenager for posting offensive online comments about British troops, why aren't the likes of Moore and Sims in court too?



View the Original article