Dakota Beacon

[On March 17, Christian speaker, author and critic of Islam, Usama Dakdok, gave a presentation in Grand Forks at the Empire Arts Center.  His visit was followed by a local event, “Meet Your Muslim Neighbor”, held at Sharon Lutheran Church.  On September 3, Mr. Dakdok returned and rebutted information, or disinformation, presented at the Sharon Lutheran event.  The article below refers to the reaction of some local “leaders” as reported in the Grand Forks Herald, on Saturday, September 5.]

The suggestion of Bret Weber that the city act to “shut down hate speech” (Grand Forks Herald, p. 1, 9-5-15) is shocking to say the least.  Yet is what we are beginning to expect of the “leadership” of this community.  It all came about as a reaction to the appearance at the Empire Arts Center of Usama Dakdok, a Christian and outspoken critic of Islam.  At his presentation Thursday evening, September 3, he addressed the “Meet Your Muslim Neighbor” event held at Sharon Lutheran Church after his visit here in March.

Mr. Dakdok showed a video of that event, a question-and-answer type format, and revealed along the way the relevant verses taken directly from the Qu’ran, along with the original Arabic, and showed the audience some great discrepancies.  The Qu’ran does not support the “answers” offered at the event at Sharon Lutheran Church.  His information pointed to the incompatibility of these teachings, as well as Sharia, the code by which they are implemented, with American law.  At no time, however, did he advocate any kind of action against anyone.  At no time did he even suggest silencing anyone, forcibly or otherwise.  At no time did he propose dirty tricks to disrupt their events.  In fact, both times he was here he called upon any Muslims present to come forward if they wished to make or dispute any point.  Neither time did any Muslim acknowledge himself present.  He did take issue with the religion of Islam by showing its teachings through its own book, the Qu’ran.  He believes, based upon these teachings and recent experience, that Islam and Sharia pose a threat to the American way of life and American law.

Obviously he is right.  We should be concerned, because within mere hours of his visit, our Muslim neighbors and their shills among our community’s “Stakeholders” have decided that it is time for them to abrogate the First Amendment.

For those uninitiated in American law, customs and history, that Amendment, of prime importance in the minds of our nation’s founders, protects Americans’ freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom to speak openly and freely.  There are only a few allowable restrictions placed on this freedom:  we are not to use it to incite others to murder or mayhem, or to incite a mob to violence, or to commit mischief, as in shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater.  Everything else, from political stump speeches, to sermons, to flag burning to a crucifix in a jar of urine, is protected under our law as free speech.

The idea of “hate speech” runs counter to the First Amendment.  It is a recent concept which is invoked whenever those in power don’t agree with the opinion expressed in the speech.  I would strongly suggest that Mr. Weber and his fellows preface their attack on our Constitution and First Amendment by defining “hate speech” with particularity.  And they will be well advised to take their time and tread very carefully, lest the place themselves in the awkward and embarrassing position of having to ban the Qu’ran.

So far their ideas aren’t all that original.  That strong-arm “block party” gambit has whiskers.  New York’s famous boss, Jimmy Walker, used it a century ago, and it was recently updated and re-enacted as “Christie-Gate”, where New Jersey’s governor tied up traffic in a huge and costly jam, resulting in loss of life.  It seems to be a form of heavy-handed obstructionism more typically seen Back East.  I can just imagine the glee with which this childish, manipulative and irresponsible ploy was proposed by these “leaders”.

It was disgusting to hear that these “Stakeholders” thought it appropriate that the Bill of Rights go on the table in trade for some perceived economic “bump” to be derived by the city for driving out discussion, like some Old West tin-horn sheriff shoving it on the stage out of town.  They insulted everyone who went to hear Dakdok, in search of information and truth, by likening us to some Neo-Nazi skinhead group that was kicked out of Idaho.  There definitely is something reminiscent of the Third Reich about those who would outlaw discussion, debate and the free exchange of information.  It doesn’t adhere as well to honest American citizens who seek diverse points of view.  These “Stakeholders” more closely resemble a budding Gestapo than do the people who gathered at the Empire to seek information, debate and discussion of the issues.  there is an ominous odor about these “Stakeholders”.  Their optimistic predictions were based on some study c. 2010, by the Gallup Poll, citing the desirability of “openness”.  Aside from the irony in that citation, we could also point to a study showing that 80+% of mosques in the United States endorse radical jihad.  The bottom line is that freedom promotes the greatest economic good.  Just look at the conditions these people left in their homelands - people aren’t streaming into ISIS-controlled areas except as jihadists.

Secondly, as a Stakeholder in something even more exalted than the community of Grand Forks or even its Chamber of Commerce - namely America, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - I find it wholly unacceptable that some self-appointed Poo-Bahs feel themselves empowered to abridge our Constitution in so cavalier a manner on their own say-so to garner some hoped-for economic boon for the Chamber.  Their arrogance is breathtaking.  They were not elected to do this.  It is not their right to do this.  Further, I would suggest, in light of Chamber President Wilfahrt’s statements, that any upstanding business currently a member seriously consider resigning forthwith from that body.  

Freedom is hard-won.  It is hard to hold onto.  It is easy to lose.  Americans have fought and died for it.  We have spilled American blood all over the world - not for riches or empire or conquest - but to safeguard these freedoms.   As great an American as John Adams himself ran aground, when, for reasons he perceived weighed upon our national security, he attempted to “shut down hate speech” through the Alien and Sedition Acts.  They were soundly rejected, and were enough to bring down the career of one of our greatest American heroes and to leave a stain forever on his reputation.  

I note that only one side is demanding that everyone else shut up.  In our culture, in our land, it is customary and expected to debate and discuss issues.  It is how we inform ourselves about each others’ views.  We discuss everything from umpires’ calls, to movies, to under-inflated footballs, to Planned Parenthood, to immigration, to the national debt, to the Iran nuclear deal.  We discuss here.  Those who cannot abide this are  only showing us that they are not ready to participate in American life.

Americans are of every race and ethnicity.  Our people’s ancestors came here from all corners of the earth seeking freedom, opportunity, a better life for their families.  We have no ethnic heritage to bind us together.  What we do have is a shared set of values, a love of and heritage of freedom guaranteed by our Constitution, a freedom to speak out and to hear others’ opinions, guaranteed by our First Amendment.  The “free speech” alluded to in our law is not “Good morning!”, “Aren’t these tomatoes great!” or “I just love green for SUV’s, don’t you?”.  There is no need to protect this.  The intention of the First Amendment is to protect expression of conflicting views or contrasting ideas, just such as those of Usama Dakdok.  However, it is becoming increasingly difficult and sometimes dangerous to exercise our freedom.  This should be deeply disturbing to any American.  The management of the Empire Arts Center is to be commended for its willingness to let all voices be heard.  Do not forget that a few years ago, Mr. Gershman brought in a documentary and discussion from a different point of view - at the Empire Arts Center.  They are allowing a public facility to be used as a public forum, which is only right.

This community has welcomed immigrants and visitors from all over the world, including many Muslims.  But this welcome, it seems, is not enough.  Some or them have decided, as our guests, that they have a right to deprive their American hosts of our God-given, legally protected freedom.  They find it unpalatable.  Perhaps they would be happier in a totalitarian state where these freedoms of speech and assembly do not exist.  If they wish to remain in America they must learn to accept that freedom is a two-way street.  They must learn tolerance.

I would have to agree with the “Stakeholders” on one important point.  Acquiescence does lead to acceptance, and in the case of acquiescence to a demand that we ban open discussion, it might lead to acceptance of a loss of our freedom . . . and that leads inevitably to tyranny and slavery.  Freedom is easier to lose right here at the local level than it is in a far-away capital city.  No need for an act of Congress or a federal agency if we allow a local cartel to take away our liberty at home.  When the people of Grand Forks, or of any other American city, come to the conclusion that they can not “afford” free speech and assembly, the spirit of freedom itself will have died and left behind only a ghost and a foul stench.