Skip to comments.What Are D.C. Police Doing Enforcing Shariah Law?
Posted on 09/16/2010 1:48:29 AM PDT by Rashputin
What Are D.C. Police Doing Enforcing Shariah Law?
Police officers, at the direction of an imam, remove six Muslim women from the Islamic Center. Their crime? Worshiping peacefully.
The Islamic Center, housed in a magnificent building in Washington, D.C., has been around for over a half-century, but it is seldom in the news. Unless you drive by (on Embassy Row) you would not know that it there. Because it is supposed to be a peaceful place of worship, we would not expect local police to enter.
Yet last March they did. Three D.C. Metropolitan police officers entered the center, at the direction of an imam, and removed six Muslim women. Their crime? They were worshiping peacefully in the main prayer hall after the imam announced that women were forbidden to enter that area.
What happened in Washington, D.C., should remind us of the peaceful sit-ins of the 1960s. The courts found that the police action removing people from private businesses violated the Equal Protection Clause.
In a series of cases the lower federal courts and the Supreme Court reversed convictions of black and white civil protestors who were convicted under state criminal trespass or disturbing the peace laws when they sat in the white-only section of various lunch counters and restaurants and refused to move after having been ordered to do so by the agent of the establishment.
Neither state nor federal laws at the time required the restaurants to serve blacks, but the courts found state action that violated Equal Protection. In Garner v. Louisiana (1961), for example, the Supreme Court reversed the convictions (under a state disturbing the peace statute) of those who had engaged in a sit-in, because the record was totally devoid of evidentiary support that petitioners caused any disturbance of the peace. They sat there quietly.
Peterson v. Greenville (1963) reversed the trespass conviction of blacks who had engaged in a lunch counter sit-in. The store manager asked the blacks to leave because integrated service was contrary to local customs and a local ordinance. The Supreme Court held that these convictions cannot stand, whether or not a local ordinance supported the store manager. In Lombard v. Louisiana (1963), decided the same day, the Court reversed the trespass convictions of three blacks and one white who had sat in a privately owned restaurant that served only whites. The case involved no statutes or ordinances, but the police did say that no additional sit-in demonstrations will be permitted. Justice Douglas, concurring, argued that there was state action when the state judiciary put criminal sanctions behind racial discrimination in public places.
There are precious little differences between the sit-in cases of the 1960s and the Muslim sit-in cases. We knew, in the 1960s, that the Equal Protection Clause forbids discrimination based on color. We know now that the Equal Protection Clause forbids discrimination based on gender. We know that the lunch counters were open to anyone who wanted to eat, except blacks, or blacks had to sit at a special section. We know that the mosque is open to anyone who wants to worship God, except that women must sit at special places sort of like back of the bus.
And we know that the discrimination based on race or sex could not exist without the help of the local police. The question is why the D.C. police who have real crime to worry about are spending their time and taxpayer dollars to enforce sharia law.
Our First Amendment protects the right of people to believe whatever they want to believe. But there are limits to how they can act on their beliefs. For example, a religion may believe that racial segregation is Gods way. They can believe that, but the state cannot aid that belief by, for example, giving federally subsidized loans to colleges that discriminate on the basis of race. The people of Washington, D.C., should not be enforcing shariah law.
Ronald Rotunda is the Doy & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at the Chapman University School of Law.
So if a Segregationist Church were to hold it's ceremonies in it's own building and members of another race show up and, through thier presence alone, disturb the otherwise peaceful congregation - the church has no recourse but accept?
I think not.
This is exactly, precisely, identically, the same thing as enforcing Jim Crow laws
Denying a group access to facilities / businesses that serve the general public (bars, restaraunts, buses etc ...) can not be justified as no persons personal beliefs / liberties are infinged upon by allowing blacks, hispanics, etc ... access. That has nothing at all to do with forcing a religious group to accept persons it deems uncapable of worship access to it's sanctums.
I do not know what odors outside of the mosque have to do with anything, but it appears you are saying we cannot call the police to remove trespassers unless we have private security?
They were apparently breaking the law.
Are these women still alive?
“The police have no role in enforcing private membership rules and/or beliefs.”
Keep in mind, you are reading a news story, which could be
completely false to only part true. I doubt that you or anyone else knows all the facts.
That being said, let me draw an analogy.
If I own a private club, for members only, and some non members enter, I can ask them to leave, and if they refuse, I call the police.
The mosque is probably a private, not public, operation.
Who says that the mosque, does, or should have a private security force?
Islam a crime against humanity!
Fortunately the police removed them before they could be killed.
I clicked on the “American Thinker” link in the title, and it came up “Pajamas Media”.
Something stinks about this.........
and searched American Thinker for the article ......
Dogs are clean and nice.
Bacon is good.
Women should not be beaten.
Animals are not for sex.
Stones are not for throwing at people or praying at.
:)If you dissagree with someone dont cut off their head.
That wasn’t the case. The women were in a section of the mosque that had been designated men only. It was not a case of trespass. Same as the blacks at the lunch counter, the restaurant was not “members only”, the counter was whites only.
However, whether Islam specifically or just Islamic men, they have a variety of sex-segregation rules.
It’s not a church, it’s a club.
And if the people in there are discussing public disturbances and attacks on Americans, it’s not a club, it’s a criminal syndicate.
“It was not a case of trespass.”
No? Is the mosque not private property?
You are falling into the mistake of assuming that all churches/mosques are public property. They are not !
As for the lunch counter, it was a PUBLIC restaurant, not a private club. There is a distinction.
Even if I go into a public restaurant, I can not demand to be seated wherever I like.
As for sex segregation, are not all restrooms, public or private, sexually segregated?
By your logic, I should be able to go into any restroom,
male or female, if it is “public”.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
I don’t see what the issue is. Do we not have a right to have police remove trespassers from private property?
I prefer identifying Islam as many of the founders did —”the cult of Mahammet” They defend their charismatic throat cutter
mad prophet as if he were deity—much like the folk who followed Jim Jones-or David Koresh defended their cult hero.
A club I reserve more for the pervs that visit “gentlemens clubs”
So the question is, is a gutter religion a private business!!!
Wonder if they have been killed since then....
If these were Muslim women who normally worshiped at that mosque, the police had no business becoming involved. Since they were Muslim, it seems it'd be hard make a case for trespassing unless they had been told previously not to come on any part of the property. Probably not enough information.
For years, the police have been called for PC “violations.” So this is not surprising. The police are not there to protect you and me from criminals. The police are there to carry out the policies of the local administration that hired them.
If the police had not removed them, there would have been riots and general mayhen throughout the muzzy world. And it would be all our fault.
(That’s the usual MO for getting their way, isn’t it?)
try this comparison:
a woman in a clerical collar (and a few supporters) walks into a catholic church and goes through the motions of conducting mass. When asked to leave, she refuses.
Should the police respond when called by the rector?
Seems like the police were removing trespassers from private property at the request of the property owners. The reasons the property owners want the individuals removed is of no interest.
On the ohter hand if the women want to pray outside or protest the discrimination, they are free to do so.
It doesn't matter; they are only women, property of some man or another. < /sarc >
‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;’ Congress shall not, states may. DC is under the jurisdiction of Congress. The DC cops were prohibiting the free exercise of religion unconstitutionally!
If it is private, it is not a true religious enterprise, but rather a private one, meaning that Congress may pass laws prohibiting activities or the exercise of those private activities and any and all tax breaks received by said mosque and any "clergy" should be rescinded! They can't have it both ways.
This is a simple case of trespassing.
If I were to decide that I wanted to practice my pagen fertility ritual on the alter of a catholic church in Washington DC, and the cops are called in to remove me (I was asked nicely to leave, but I refuse), is that a violation of my free exercise of religion?
>> Its not a church, its a club.
It’s a war room.
That is what G-d specified when they received the Law at Sinai.
No, Mosque...Agreed and thanks.
Here is a well produced video of 3 Basic Things one you should know about Islam and Sharia Law;
Its only 8 minutes or so and very worth it.
If you have others who would be interested, this should be sent to them.
They're members. The trespassing is then their not playing by the club rules and staying in the back of the bus? I don't think disobeying the club rules is trespass and I find their sitting down a bit less than a disturbance of the peace. I realize people are willing to see trespass due to the fact that they want their own property protected but this is different. They had a right to be there. They are members of the Mosque.
If you don't follow the rules, you aren't a member.
Have you heard of the concept of "trespass on private property"? Because trespass is what happened here, not some membership controversy.
If you have an all-mens club, and a woman shows up uninvited or enters a restricted area, do you not expect the police to come and remove the intruder if called and asked by the property owner to do just that?
Or, if a member no longer in good standing shows up, do the police not have the authority to remove him if asked to do so? This is what you're asserting.
No, "The police have no role in enforcing private membership rules and/or beliefs.", but they do have a role in enforcing trespass complaints from private property owners.
Right, but you do realize that private clubs and religious schools and places of worship are exempt from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, right?
If not, the Catholic Church would not be allowed to disallow women from becoming priests, follow me?
We aren't talking about a lunch counter, we're talking a place of worship. They are not governed by the same anti-discrimination laws.
Let's say you were at Sunday service, and at that service a group of thirty homosexuals sat in the front row holding signs or wearing shirts that were blasphemous to your church. Do you think that the minister/priest/rabbi of your church would have the legal authority to order them to leave, and if they didn't could he call the police, who would then enforce the wishes of the private property owner?
I think you know the answer to that question.
I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. You must not be thinking through what you're saying. Catholic Churches aren't private? Of course they are. They are tax-exempt because they promise not to engage in political dialogue, that's all.
But, the Church controls who is or is not a member, right? Have you ever heard of excommunication? Do you think you have right to appeal your excommunication to the court? Of course you don't. Why? Because the Church, like all churches, is a wholly private enterprise.
Religions have a right to set their own rules—on private property. Orthodox Jews, and even a few Christian groups (the Amish perhaps? some of the Eastern Orthodox?) traditionally separate men and women in worship—as Muslims always do.
If homosexuals came into your Church dressed in drag...attempting to disrupt your service, don’t you have the right to call the police and have them removed?
These women were doing the same kind of protest—as the main prayers in Mosques always separate men and women. When the women refused to follow the rules (even though you and I don’t like Islam’s rules here) they became trespassers, and the Mosque had a right to expect the police to remove them (just like police should remove any protestors from any religious or private property).
We should be concerned about the many Mosques on American soil which preach violence against the government—NOT the ones that simply rely on the same law we all expect to rely on.
What statutes can you cite that define this situation as trespassing? If a teen aged member of a protestant church went to the young adults Sunday School class and refused to leave, are the police required to respond?
Your example of gays dressed is drag disrupting a service is far beyond someone worshiping in an area designated for others. These women were probably regulars in that mosque. And the same concept you cite was once cited by business owners to refuse service on the basis of race rather than sex.
Are there actual statutes that specify situations like this in a place of worship as trespassing, or just your opinion that trespassing laws would apply?
And many here keep saying the mosque is private property. Who owns it? Specifically who has an ownership interest and who does not? I doubt anyone here knows that, or whether Muslims have formal membership requirements, and whether these members were members.
In FL (my state), it's 810.08.
Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so, commits the offense of trespass in a structure or conveyance.
When you are on private property, you are there by invitation. That invitation may be withdrawn at any time. If you are on private property without leave of the owner, you are - by definition - trespassing.
"If a teen aged member of a protestant church went to the young adults Sunday School class and refused to leave, are the police required to respond?"
Yes. One of the roles of law enforcement is to protect the rights of the public. One of those rights, of course, is the right of private property owners. And, as I have pointed out, those "young adults" would be (at least in FL) in violation of FL statute.
"Are there actual statutes that specify situations like this in a place of worship as trespassing, or just your opinion that trespassing laws would apply?"
Are you being argumentative, or sarcastic?
Really, it's not that complicated, which leads me to believe you're being argumentative.
Who owns it? The corporation, partnership or sole propriety that is the religious enterprise owns it. There are officers of that corporation and those officers or designees, enjoy the rights that any private property owner enjoys.
If you walk into a church and the parish priest or his designee tells you to leave and you don't leave, you're trespassing. It's not that complicated.
Or maybe many on here post things as fact they can't really substantiate. At the end of my first post, I said the article probably doesn't provide enough information to draw conclusions. I'm sticking with that unless someone provides some specific statutes or court cases that address this as it relates to mosques or churches. There might not be any precedents for this specific circumstance, and I wouldn't wait for those Muslim women to file a law suit to clarify it.
And one can never be certain how a court might rule on such a highly specific set of circumstances as this. I'm calling it a gray area of the law until it's clarified by reference to statutes or a court case.
Of course it does. You have to use just a little common sense.
You said in an earlier post, "And many here keep saying the mosque is private property."
Of course it's private property. How many mosques or other places of worship are on public property? Here's a hint - ZERO (other than those built, staffed and maintained by the US Armed Forces). In this country (with VERY limited exception), property is either public (owned by the government on behalf of the people), or it's private - deeded and titled to a private individual, partnership, or corporation.
If it's private property - and it's CLEARLY private property - then the owner (and his designee) enjoy the full rights and privileges of any private property owner.
"There might not be any precedents for this specific circumstance, and I wouldn't wait for those Muslim women to file a law suit to clarify it."
Again, think about what you're saying - you think that there might be a chance that plaintiffs in a lawsuit will win an injunction to tell a house of worship how it may exercise its fundamental 1A right. Does that seem at all likely?
To take the thought exercise one step further, do you think a woman could sue a Catholic church because the church wouldn't make her a priest? Does that seem likely? Of course not.
There are a whole host of Supreme Court cases where the Court affirms a private group's right to not associate, Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) and Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) are just two that come to mind immediately. But, there are others.
The Church (or mosque in this case) enjoys a robust 1A right to limit, exclude or define its membership, as well as a robust right to define or structure its religious services, to include the gender segregation of those services. The police in this case did the only thing they could do, and what they were legally obligated to do - enforce the private property rights of the owner, and remove the trespassers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.