Waiting For The ACLU

Derek Fenton, a NJ Transit worker, was fired for burning the Koran as part of a 9/11 demonstration outside the proposed site of the Ground Zero mosque:

NJ Transit said Fenton was fired but wouldn't give specifics.

"Mr. Fenton's public actions violated New Jersey Transit's code of ethics," an agency statement said.

"NJ Transit concluded that Mr. Fenton violated his trust as a state employee and therefore [he] was dismissed."

First, let's wonder whether Mr. Fenton is part of a union that might file a grievance. He was:

an assistant train-consist coordinator, sources said - a job that entails ensuring there are enough train cars positioned to be put into service. He previously worked as an NJ Transit conductor.

I don't know if that makes him management, but I doubt it.

Secondly, let's note that he was detained and questioned by the police but never charged with a crime.

Finally, the NY CLU is quoted:

If Fenton was fired for burning the Koran while off-duty, his First Amendment rights probably were violated, Chris Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union said.

"The Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right to burn the flag. As reprehensible as it may be, burning the Koran would be protected as well." 

I don't see how this holds up, and I assume some enterprising lawyer is already planning to make a name for himself winning this layup drill.

A long discussion of free speech, shouting fire in theaters, and its application to annoying Muslims can be found up in Canada.

Comments

[Don't do that!]

Tear that page,
Burn that book,
Look a lot a like a bon liberty fire.
=================

[Danube of Thought]

That Australian dude who smoked pages of a bible and a koran has also been fired.

[Rob Crawford]

Waiting For The ACLU

Wait all you want, but if you hold your breath, you're going to die.

[Danube of Thought]

"The Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right to burn the flag. As reprehensible as it may be, burning the Koran would be protected as well."

But Breyer the other day suggested that Koran-burning might be likened to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, and thus not protected.

I wonder if Breyer thinks there is a difference in the likelihood that those offended by flag-burning would resort to violence, as opposed to those offended by Koran-burning. I'd love to see him discuss that question in an opinion.

[Donald]

Please, an o/t from the type of moron Karl Rove is insulting this morning (Me and a whole lot others).

I read Jennifer Rubins post in Commentary a few minutes ago, quoting Karl Rove and approving his statements on the nuttiness of Christine Odonnell and the dismissal of the tea party and what it brings to the table. Well, it's a full throated shut the fuck up hicks and let the pros take over dismissal to be more um, uh, succint.

What I get from the post is that Jennifer Rubin (This crushes me, I liked her till now) and Karl Rove and a whole bunch of hacks think I, and millions of people need to get with the program. Well, I for one, and millions of others want no part of their program. I want them gone.

Nathan Deal, a reptilian career democratic turned republican when things went bad for the democratic party in Georgia pol smeared Karen Handel (Tea party, Sarah Palin endorsee) with this Nuttiness, abortion (Lies), etc...crap and pulled out a narrow victory in the primary. Now, right now, when he should be taken victory laps around the state because he's running against the ex governer Roy Barnes, who is so unbelievably loathesome I can't look at him, word is coming that he's about to declare bankruptcy this week. This idiot could lose the governership in Georgia. Check our demographics, this should not be possible. Karen Handel would win this thing by 8 points.

Any of you clueless republican hacks want to insult the millions of citizens in this country that has actually made the republican party relevant in the past 18 months, go right ahead. You're next.

You know what's nutty? The government taking over the health care system in this country. You know what else is nutty? Taking over automobile companies. And please, don't get me started on shutting down the energy making capability of this country. I got a million of 'em.

I just edited this for my foul language, because now I'm serious.

I can't believe the crap I read sometimes.

Oh...

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/category/contentions

[Donald]

Whoops, miss one. Sorry.

[MayBee]

If O'Donnell wins, then Rove et al will be proven wrong. I just want O'Donnell supporters to recall the Ned Lamont race, and realize there's more to be gained from taking some lumps and trying to come together than by declaring the old guard completely dead.

[Janet]

people need to get with the program. Well, I for one, and millions of others want no part of their program. I want them gone.

Amen. It is not about spending 1 million or 100 million...it is about shutting the programs down. Government has no business micromanaging our lives....they are so busy thinking up new taxes & new "great ideas" that they can't even perform their legitimate functions anymore.

[bgates]

"The Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right to burn the flag. As reprehensible as it may be, burning the Koran would be protected as well."

You know why I'm not part of a Civil Liberties Union? It's the punctuation. Because I would have said those words like this:

"The Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right to burn the flag, as reprehensible as it may be. Burning the Koran would be protected as well."

[Clarice]

Yes, MayBee.

As for the topic at hand, this guy's firing was an outrage and I can't imagine he'll have to wait for the ACLU to bring suit. Lawyers must be beating down his door. I saw an online poll last night on this and the numbers in his favor ere enormous.

As for Breyer..his comments make no snese unless you see Moslems are cutlass in the mouth nutty beheaders. If so, say so Justice.

[bgates]

I just want O'Donnell supporters to recall the Ned Lamont race

The one where the electorate turned out to support the candidate to the right of the guy who had the backing of the party machinery and the Beltway types during a Senate race in New England? :)

[bgates]

I just want O'Donnell supporters to recall the Ned Lamont race, and realize there's more to be gained from taking some lumps and trying to come together

than from announcing the day after the primary you won't back the party nominee.

That woman is such a sore loser. I'm glad Delaware made the safe, responsible choice.

[jimmyk]

It's the punctuation.

You beat me to it, bgates. I wonder if the ACLU ever said "As reprehensible as it may be" regarding flag-burning.

[bgates]

I got a million of 'em.

That's one for every million and a half dollars Congress has worsened the deficit this year.

[MayBee]

bgates- I am not saying any establishment Republicans are behaving themselves. I'm just saying I don't think O'Donnell supporters can afford to dance on their graves yet.

[LouP]

I just love how the Liberals trot out selected (and often "spun") Constitutional arguments when it supports their agenda. But I say, keep it up: make it a Constitutional issue so we can really debate Islam, the Quran, and Sharia law.

Because eventually we'll have to face the question of: is Islam, the Quarn and Sharia law Constitutional? I contend they are not, and will further contend that those three are fundamentally incompatible with our Constitution, and cannot co-exist with it. Pick one or the other, you can't have both. An awful lot of people in this country have taken an oath to support/defend the Constitution.

(Are the Bible and Torah, for example, compatible with the Constitution? Certainly not in their entirety. But at least those religions have a proven history of yielding to the Constitution; Islam's history is the opposite.)

When are we going to have this debate?

[JM Hanes]

If only Fenton had just stood on the Koran.

[jimmyk]

there's more to be gained from taking some lumps and trying to come together than by declaring the old guard completely dead.

I don't follow this. It's the old guard that needs to take lumps and come together with the candidate selected by the people. O'Donnell isn't "dancing on their graves." They are the ones who seem to want to take their toys and go home.

[JM Hanes]

It's a dirty job but somebody's got to do it, MayBee!

In Rove's defense:

A third-party group linked to Rove has been the most aggressive, highest-spending outside force behind Reid’s opponent, Sharron Angle, launching withering attacks that have helped keep the onetime long shot competitive against Reid.

Fortunately, Cornyn and Steele aren't the ones who've got the money to burn, so to speak.

The "establishment" has been pressuring Murkowski to pack her bags, and said she can forget caucusing with Repblicans even if she could pull out a win. Whether they'd keep that promise is another question, but the idea of losing her insider status might well be the most effective disincentive.

As for Castle, he may not want to flat out endorse O'Donnell, but a little Kumbayah is just not that hard to sing. Wish I could remember who said that apparently it's not enough to vote some of these people out, you have to go back and grind them under your heel.

O'Donnell's chances of winning the seat may be even more remote than the Republicans' chances at winning both houses, but if taking the Senate was the raison d'etre for a Castle vote, it's the case for O'Donnell now. Her personal baggage doesn't hold a candle to the crap Dems like Charlie Rangel are carrying around.

[anduril]

Breyer's comments don't make me snese, they make me vomit.

The "long discussion" link, which I enjoyed, is, of course, to the same Sultan Knish whom I linked not long ago, here: Can We Ban Islam? - Legal Guidelines for the Criminalization of Islam in the United States.

[MayBee]

Yes. What JMH said.

[narciso]

When the head of the tax writing committee doesn't pay taxes, and is allowed to get away with it

[MayBee]

It's the old guard that needs to take lumps and come together with the candidate selected by the people.

She was selected in the primary, so "the people" was a smaller subset of "the people" she needs in the months ahead. She hasn't won the general yet. Yes, the old guard needs to take some lumps, but that doesn't mean they might not turn out to have been *right* about who could win in the general.

I hope not. I hope O'Donnell can win it all. But she needs a lot more "the people" to get there, and tho burning bridges may be satisfying, it is unwise.

[anduril]

How did this become the O'Donnell thread? Are people here just stupid, or are they really, really rude?

[Captain Hate]

O'Donnell's chances of winning the seat may be even more remote than the Republicans' chances at winning both houses, but if taking the Senate was the raison d'etre for a Castle vote, it's the case for O'Donnell now. Her personal baggage doesn't hold a candle to the crap Dems like Charlie Rangel are carrying around.

Or Alvin Greene. People have tiptoed around just what a borderline illiterate he comes off as either due to PC concerns or not needing to point out the obvious (which is kind of my position; he doesn't seem like a bad person but completely unqualified for any position of responsibility). But these same people have no problem trashing O'Donnell.

[narciso]

Clearly what Mr. Fenton did, was not halal, you can burn the flag, you can find folks who will pay you government funds for desecrating
a host, any number of things, but you cannot
commit sacrilege. Yes I would never do such a thing, regardless of whatever faith was involved

[narciso]

Seems like the Titanic is turning away from the Iceberg, in the LUN

[Rob Crawford]

I hope not. I hope O'Donnell can win it all. But she needs a lot more "the people" to get there, and tho burning bridges may be satisfying, it is unwise.

MayBee, love ya and all, but the folks piling straw and cans of kerosene against the bridges are the establishment figures.

It would have been infinitely better had Rove said, "she faces an uphill battle, and it will be an interesting fight". If the NRSC had simply *NOT* said anything. If the likes of Ponnoru could have held their tempers and done exactly what they expected of the O'Donnell supporters had she lost: set aside the past and worked for their party's nominee.

Does anyone know if there's been an on-the-record statement from the NRSC? Since last night's sour grapes BS was off-the-record, they had the opportunity this morning to say something as simple as "We have no idea said such a thing; our official position is that no Republican candidate for the Senate will be shut out of our advice and support. The amount of support will naturally depend on the particulars of that race, but the Delaware race is no different than any other in that regard."

I've not heard of any official statement; in its absence I can only assume that the petulant little twerp who was quoted last night was stating their official position.

[I R A Darth Aggie]

realize there's more to be gained from taking some lumps and trying to come together than by declaring the old guard completely dead.

Ummm, it isn't O'Donnell and her supporters telling the old guard to piss off. In fact, it's the reverse.

DEER OLD GUARD,

AS RONNIE USED TO SAY, THOU SHALT NOT SPEAK ILL OF THY REPUBLICAN NEIGHBOR.

[Rob Crawford]

And, in the other thread, my question about an official NRSC statement has been answered.

They will support her.

[Rob Crawford]

DEER OLD GUARD,

AS RONNIE USED TO SAY, THOU SHALT NOT SPEAK ILL OF THY REPUBLICAN NEIGHBOR.

You don't remember what the old guard said about Reagan, do you? The line "Voodoo Economics" didn't start with the (far) left...

[JM Hanes]

anduril:

Put the long discussion in TM's link together with Greenfield's thesis in your link, and you get a guy who sounds poistively schizophrenic. In the first he decries Breyer's "attempt to reintroduce WW1 security measures back into law." In the second he supports his argument for the legality of banning Islam by hauling out the 1954 Communist Control Act. The second article is a model of internal inconsistencies and false equivalents, in and of itself.

[Neo]

I can see that it might be better to let the Senate stay marginally in the hands of the Democrats but just barely. If both houses go Democrat, Obama will have the "perfect foil."
The job of bringing even a semblance of fiscal really can't get underway until Obama is gone. Losing one house will keep the Tea Partiers from despair in the near term when the Republicans can't do much against an Obama veto pen. There are 21 to 23 (depending on NY & WV) Democratic Senators up in 2012 vs 10 Republicans. 6 to 8 of those Democratic seats look to be winnable for the Republicans. The House is a must win.

[MayBee]

MayBee, love ya and all, but the folks piling straw and cans of kerosene against the bridges are the establishment figures.

It would have been infinitely better had Rove said, "she faces an uphill battle, and it will be an interesting fight". If the NRSC had simply *NOT* said anything. If the likes of Ponnoru could have held their tempers and done exactly what they expected of the O'Donnell supporters had she lost: set aside the past and worked for their party's nominee.

I completely agree with all of that.
But yeah, I do see Hot Air commenters saying that Rove isn't a good enough Republican, etc. That's the stuff that sounds to me like the Kossacks with Lamont.

[bgates]

that doesn't mean they might not turn out to have been *right*

They're doing their damndest to prove themselves right.

tho burning bridges may be satisfying, it is unwise.

I haven't seen any O'Donnell supporter doing anything more than pissing on the embers of the bridges Rove and Castle burned after the primary.

[jimmyk]

In fact, it's the reverse.

Exactly. So far we have Mur*****i threatening to mount a write-in campaign in Alaska, Castle refusing to endorse O'Donnell, Scozzafava last year endorsing the Democrat, and Lazio apparently planning to run as a 3rd party candidate. Yet somehow it's the Tea Partiers who are not behaving properly?

[Neo]

Cornyn relents ...

“Let there be no mistake: The National Republican Senatorial Committee – and I personally as the committee's chairman – strongly stand by all of our Republican nominees, including Christine O'Donnell in Delaware.

[Dave (in MA)]

Anusol bringing up others' rudeness is funny.

[Neo]

The Michigan "Dingell" seat "in play" ?

“This year I need your maximum financial contribution to my campaign. My opponent is running with the tea party and he claims he will invest his quite substantial personal fortune in his effort to defeat me. He is running around with a poll showing that I am vulnerable.”

[squaredance]

Defend the Constitution?

The DOJ has better things to do.

All should read this and reflect on just what are the motivations and goals behind this latest outrage.

Let us count the ways: Siding with Islam over US citizens; 1st amendment double standards as applies to Muslims and everyone else; the GMZ; placing areas of AZ off limits to US citizens (but not the invaders); taking AZ to court (And grousing about them to the UN); and absolute refusal to patrol the borders; politicizing the election laws, the drilling moratorium; the plunder of GM shareholders, and last but not least, the cynical failure to adequately defend "don't ask don't tell".

And now this. They seriously want to commit millions of dollars to prosecute the alleged culling of maybe a dozen deer?

Hardly. What they are doing is attacking white men who own guns, who no doubt vote GOP and any economic foundations for that group.
It is not just a case of "the Chicago way"; it is the way of Hitler, Chavez, Castro Mao and Stalin.

Waiting for the ACLU?

Where is the electorate? the GOP? the courts?

It makes a mockery of the whole edifice and institution of the law.

I am waiting for the broad out-flowing outrage.

They are at war with us. They are a rabid and vengeful occupier. Do we need any more proof.

In two years they have done about as much as labour did in 12.

The question is: Why now? Why are the so brazen, so in our faces about it?

This country is careening out of control.

The Left must be thrown out of power, and not just in terms of political power.

They must be cast out from all positions of power and influence.

It is no joke--the republic hangs in the balance.

I said a while ago that the left would now start some sort of "Muslim ascendancy" her mirroring the one they have successfully pulled off in the EU. So it begins.

Assault patriots and valorize a mortal and bloodthirsty enemy.

The Democrats mean to see our death and the annihilation of our civlization and our nation.

Why are our fellow citizens as supine as cattle before these villains and traitors?

[squaredance]

androol:
How did this become the O'Donnell thread? Are people here just stupid, or are they really, really rude?

Projecting again I see. Too funny.

[Rob Crawford]

But yeah, I do see Hot Air commenters saying that Rove isn't a good enough Republican, etc.

Frankly, Hot Air is worthless. It is purposefully managed in a way to start flamewars and drive up their traffic.

[Rob Crawford]

I haven't seen any O'Donnell supporter doing anything more than pissing on the embers of the bridges Rove and Castle burned after the primary.

The image of the party establishment figures trying to burn a bridge, only to get a golden shower from those attempting to cross the bridge, is priceless.

[Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish blog]

Actually it's up in New York City, but this article was published in the Canada Free Press.

[Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)]

Well we best not confuse the Tea Party with the Republican party, because we aren't the same.

Amy warned me today that the MFM is starting to talk about the Tea Party as if it were actually a party - she figured in an attempt to damage us.

I'm not sure how we fight against that.

[flodigarry]

Anduril,

Pot, meet kettle. ;-)

[Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish blog]

to JM Hanes,

the point of the Islam ban piece was to demonstrate that it's legally feasible. Whether or not it should be done is another debate entirely.

[MayBee]

Jane,
Amy warned me today that the MFM is starting to talk about the Tea Party as if it were actually a party - she figured in an attempt to damage us.

They have all along. As long as there have been Tea Party protests, the MFM has acted as if there is some responsibility to have a platform and organize- something they never required of people protesting the Iraq war.

Part of the problem might be the name "Tea Party". Part of the problem is also the "otherness" of it to most members of the MFM. They can understand why a housewife in Nebraska might up and cross the country to protest a war they hated, too. They can't understand why she would do the same thing to protest Obamacare. Surely she must be part of a bigger plan, a larger organization, a plot...probably dastardly.

[JM Hanes]

Daniel Greenfield:

"the point of the Islam ban piece was to demonstrate that it's legally feasible."

I appreciate your responding here! Unfortunately, the equivalence you try to set up between the communist party and Islam simply ignores or redefines religion and the 1st amendment right to the practice of religion out of the picture. You also end up having to treat presumed belief as presumed & actionable incitement -- ironically, in much the same way that Breyer does.

[Darwin Akbar]

NJ Transit has a "code of ethics"?

That I'd like to see.

[Dave (in MA)]

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/12/2010-09-12_lemrick_nelson_stabbed_in_the_head_with_ice_pick_19_years_after_knifing_student_.html?obref=obinsite>Sharptonite murderer survives icepick to the head.

[Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish blog]

When religion functions as a political ideology, with the aim of actually seizing power, it itself discards the protection that it is a faith, and not a political movement.

Or to put it another way, if Communism had set itself up as a religion, it would still be just as problematic. The practice of religion is not itself a shield for criminal behavior or an attempt to overthrow the government.

The legal measures I refer to however were a good deal more moderate in that they targeted actual attempts to overthrow the government, rather than disloyal or critical speech.

And the key issue is membership or participation in an organization whose goal is to seize power, and remove basic legal and civil rights from the population, at the bidding of a foreign entity. Communism and Islamism would both fall into that category.

Whether we should squeeze traditional freedoms and criminalize any form of speech or association in such a way in order to cope with a major threat, was a debate that was going on during the Cold War as well.

It goes back to the, "Do we beat them with our freedoms, or by protecting our freedoms from them" debate. And there are no easy answers.

[JM Hanes]

MayBee:

The name really has made it much easier for the MSM to address the tea party movement as if it were a distinct political entity, and to treat it as though as though it were another iteration of historical third "party" movements which have come and gone. This fits so much more neatly into traditional/familiar MSM narratives. I also think that conservatives battling the GOP establishment are actually narrowing their sights in something of the same way the media has.

For some time now, I've thought that we should be pushing for the use of Tea Parties, -- a sort of pluralistic pluralism (:-) which is much closer to what we all represent. We may be joined by arguably conservative attitudes toward limited government, fiscal responsibility and the empowerment of States, but we're clearly not joined at the hip when it comes to the overarching conservative Republican platform either. It sounds to me like conservatives seem to think they have a monopoly on the tea party franchise -- TINOs will soon be the new RINOs! -- when independents are a critical part of the tea party equation. They were there at the beginning, and these are their tea parties too.

[JM Hanes]

Daniel Greenfield:

"When religion functions as a political ideology, with the aim of actually seizing power, it itself discards the protection that it is a faith, and not a political movement."

This is an arguable assertion on its face, a false either/or proposition, and a broom so broad it could sweep up a whole lot more than Islam. Contra your simple analogy to the 1954 act, the enabling legislation would be a legal, political and constitutional nightmare. You are a long, long way from establishing that it could, in fact, be done, especially when the Communist Control Act is the reed you're leaning on.

"Whether we should squeeze traditional freedoms and criminalize any form of speech or association....

The subject is not "traditional" freedoms it's constitutional freedoms, and I'm afraid that sort of squishiness capsulizes the problem with most of your argument, IMO.

[Danube of Thought]

the point of the Islam ban piece was to demonstrate that it's legally feasible

It demonstrated no such thing. It merely demonstrated that one can advance a legal argument that it can be done, which is altogether different. I can advance a legal argument that a fetus is a person whose life cannot be taken without due process of law. That doesn't make it the law, and doesn't demonstrate that it ever will be the law.

Whether or not it should be done is another debate entirely.

To be preceded by whether or not it can be done. And the answer to the question is that it cannot.

[Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish blog]

JM Hanes, we'll have to agree to disagree then.

A society has to protect itself. If it cannot survive, then its liberties will not survive either.

[Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish blog]

Danube of Thought,

" I can advance a legal argument that a fetus is a person whose life cannot be taken without due process of law. That doesn't make it the law, and doesn't demonstrate that it ever will be the law."

If your argument incorporates relevant precedents, then you have shown that it could potentially become the law.

[Rob Crawford]

A society has to protect itself. If it cannot survive, then its liberties will not survive either.

Step 1 -- enforce the laws we have. It's illegal to provide money to terrorist organizations; the endless charade of "widows and orphans" funds that are used to funnel money to terrorist organizations should be ended, and not only those running the fronts, but the donors, should be imprisoned.

It can be done with what we have, I think.

[Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish blog]

Terrorism is only one part a much larger threat. It's the leading edge, but Europe doesn't have much terrorism, and yet is in much worse shape than we are.

[Dale]

A government employee fired for exercising his 1st amendment rights on his day off?

Uh.. this one is a slam dunk. Fenton was not there representing NJ Transit, he was there as a private citizen making a political statement. He was fired for the same and I'm pretty damned sure that's illegal.

[Danube of Thought]

The argument in favor of the "legal feasibility" of outlawing Islam presents no relevant precedents all. "Precedents," yes. "Relevant" to any sane jurist alive today, no.

[Clarice]

Me, too, Dale.

[Clarice]

Canada Free Press is the source of a number of original but risibly weak legal arguments. Just a few weeks ago it carried an article arguing that the AG and the Az AG were in gross error..that a suit against a state could only be brought in the SCOTUS, confusing original and exclusive jurisdiction.

[Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish blog]

sane jurist = liberal jurist

in this analysis

[Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish blog]

Back on the topic, there's a Democratic NJ State Senator questioning the decision. If the topic continues to stay current, NJ Transit will probably try to shift to claiming he was fired for workplace reasons.

[Danube of Thought]

I wrote to the author of that piece, Clarice, pointing out Supreme Court precedent dating to 1821 allowing for jurisdiction in the district courts. What I got back was raving lunacy.

[Rob Crawford]

Terrorism is only one part a much larger threat. It's the leading edge, but Europe doesn't have much terrorism, and yet is in much worse shape than we are.

Oddly, I suspect the solution to the rest of the Islam/shariah problem is the same solution to our economic, immigration, and other problems: elect people who believe in the American ideals and will not bow to threats.

[Clarice]

Every writer an make an error. Canada Freed Press, however, is making so many lately, it's on my never read again list,DoT.

[Clarice]

Daniel, it is a long time element of unlawful discharge cases, that a shifting rationale for the employer's conduct is a virtual concession of wrongdoing.

[Clarice]

**Can make an error. Canada Free press****

[Dave (in MA)]

Clarice, Canada Free press isn't reading your JOM comments for the same reason. ;-)

[Rob Crawford]

Don't worry, Clarice. It's an element of Murphy's Law that any comment on grammer will contain a grammatical misteak.

[Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish blog]

Rob, yes that is at the heart of it, and it gets back to making common sense decisions.

Clarice, indeed. If there's enough noise made, the backtracking will begin and the case will collapse. The question is if any group will step forward to defend him.

[Stephanie]

((The question is if any group will step forward to defend him.))

And if they don't?

Will any individuals?

Why must a group step forward to defend him? Safety in numbers?

Surely he can find himself a good litigant. Or are all lawyers askeered of the mooslim rage?

[Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish blog]

Because a group can provide motivated legal help, PR and bring a certain amount of attention to bear.