BASKING RIDGE, N.J.: U.S. TOWN BANS RESIDENTS FROM CRITICIZING MOSQUE
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
A
New Jersey township that was sued by Muslims for refusing to approve a
massive mosque project is returning to court because of a settlement
agreement that restricts speech regarding Islam.
The
settlement required the township to hold a public meeting about the
mosque project, but it forbade anyone from commenting on “Islam” or
“Muslims.”
A
key tenet of Shariah, the Muslim law that governs both personal and
political life, bans any negative comments about Islam or Muslims.
According to the Thomas More Law Center, which
sued the township on behalf of two residents whose home is within 200
feet of the proposed mega-mosque, the settlement with Bernards Township
“reads more like an instrument of surrender.”
The Islamic
Society of Basking Ridge sued and won a decision in federal court after
its mosque proposal was rejected based on traffic and other concerns.
The Township agreed on a $3.5 million payment and a “public hearing to approve the settlement.”
Residents
Christopher and Loretta Quick challenged the agreement in court,
arguing it restricts speech and violates the Establishment Clause by
preferring Islam over other religions.
“The
Quicks reside within 200 feet of the proposed mosque construction in a
zoned residential area,” Thomas More explained. “Yet, the settlement
agreement prohibits them from describing the many unique features of
Islamic worship which will impact design of the building, traffic
density, water and sewage, traffic control problems, road construction,
and parking arrangements. According to the settlement agreement, ISBR is
permitted to make statements concerning Christians and Jews and their
places of worship, but in contrast, the agreement prohibits commentary
relating to Islam or Muslims. In fact, ISBR has previously discussed the
Christian and Jewish religions and their places of worship.”
Richard
Thompson, chief counsel for Thomas More, said the Islamic center “has
taken the extraordinary step of concealing significant links on their
website to a radical group named by the federal government as an
unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in
America history, the Islamic Society of North America (‘ISNA’).”
“ISNA
is claimed by the Muslim Brotherhood as one of ‘our organizations.’
According to internal documents seized by the FBI, the Muslim
Brotherhood’s strategy is to engage in a ‘grand jihad in eliminating and
destroying Western civilization from within,’” said Thompson.
He
said that while “claiming that the township had a religious animus
against Muslims, ISBR hid from the public view its animus toward
Christians and Jews, by not only hiding anti-Christian and anti-Semitic
verses published on its website, but also hiding its significant ties to
ISNA.”
“Instead
of standing up to defend its citizens against ISBR’s hate-filled
anti-Semitic and anti-Christian bias, the township colluded with ISBR’s
‘Civilization Jihad’ by capitulating to payment of millions of dollars
to ISBR, allowing the construction of the new mosque and Islamic center
in violation of zoning codes, and now even suppressing speech concerning
Islam or Muslims at a public meeting,” Thompson said.
IslamThreat.com
estimates there were nearly 3,200 mosques in the United States as of
2015, with a massive surge following the 9/11 terror attack by Muslims.
The website lists 525 mosques in California, 507 in New York, 302 in Texas, 200 in Illinois and 186 in Florida.
The
Islamic center sued the township when officials refused to permit a
huge project on a lot critics contend is far too small. Later, U.S.
Department of Justice, then under Barack Obama, also sued the township.
The new complaint argues the First Amendment provides no open door for governments to issue blanket censorship orders on speech.
“Defendants
… have put in place a prior restraint on speech that bans citizens from
engaging in free speech at a public hearing on political matters
because of the content,” the complaint asserts.
“The settlement agreement further allows defendants to forbid speech with which they or others disagree.”
Further,
the fact that the agreement doesn’t provide the same protections to
Christians, Jews and others means that “defendants have shown preference
for Islam and Muslims over other religions.”
The
complaint seeks a declaration that the residents’ constitutional rights
are being violated, preliminary and permanent injunctions against the
agreement, and damages.
WND reported earlier this year citizens fought back after the personal communications of critics of the Basking Ridge project were subpoenaed in the case.
Neighborhood
residents, including Lori Caratzola, were named by ISBR in its lawsuit
as a fervent opponent of the mosque. Caratzola faced demands for all of
her personal communications that mention Muslims, Islam, mosques, the
Quran, imams, burkas, hijabs, Shariah, jihad and other features of
Islam.
“ISBR
is setting a dangerous unconstitutional precedent by abusing a court
process to chill and trample on the First Amendment rights of private
citizens whose only involvement was to speak out against the mosque at
public hearings,” Thompson said at the time.
He
asked for the subpoenas to be thrown out “because the U.S. Supreme
Court has held that speech at a public place on a matter of public
concern is entitled to special protection.”
Caratzola
charged the Muslims’ intent with her was “to embarrass, strike fear,
silence and cause financial harm to any citizen who dared oppose his
nonconforming project.”
