Islam

Tatyana photographs the sidewalk display and storefront of some Muslim missionaries in Brooklyn and gets accosted by the Muslims, who try to intimidate her and call the cops. Instead of telling the Muslims that public photography is legal, the cops defer to them and tell Tatyana to stop stirring up trouble. The Muslims file a harrassment complaint against Tatyana and she files one against them. Tatyana notes that if the missionary follows through on his threat to sue her he will be able to find out where she lives, and notes the implied threat.

It sounds like Tatyana could use some good legal advice. Perhaps some of our readers in NYC could provide suggestions?

We weren’t there, of course, but from Tatyana’s description it almost sounds like the NYC police are following a policy of appeasing Muslims to avoid trouble. But of course the cops wouldn’t do that, would they?

Background:

First encounter with the Muslim missionaries.

Second encounter and aftermath.

UPDATE: I am closing comments on this post. My intent here was to provide some modest publicity for what strikes me as troubling behavior on the part of NY police, and also to provide a venue for constructive suggestions for Tatyana. I am not interested in providing a forum for second-guessing. I think it should go without saying that you should be able to photograph people on a NYC sidewalk without someone screaming at you or calling the cops.

This would ordinarily be a minor case for anyone who wasn’t involved. However, we are no longer living in ordinary times. One of the first thoughts I had when I read Tatyana’s posts was that this is the kind of event that happens in Europe, and the NY police officers acted as one might expect French or Dutch police to act. By placating the difficult parties they reward and therefore encourage bad behavior. I think it’s important that this kind of mindless, “we don’t want any trouble” response by government functionaries not become the norm in the USA.

Update: Modern news makes thoughtful discussion difficult; the nature of the media is that reporters do what any sensible human being would not: chop up the Pope’s speech in such a way that drama would abound, a nun would be murdered & churches burned. Those who committed these atrocities are at fault – not the reporters. But the reporters do make any discussion on the level Lex suggets difficult in any public forum. If the press had intelligence & moral levels that came anywhere close to their levels of self-righteousness, real discussions might be more common. Noting all this, the network of 24-hour Anna Nicole Smith did put up a discussion that brings a certain clarity to the discussion of Benedict’s depth.

Second Update: Instapundit links to this piece by the Anchoress (on Pajamas Media) that argues the Pope is, indeed, the person to confront Islamic beliefs. Since the positions Islamists take are religious, they should be, she argues, dealt with in terns if a religious dialogue. Certainly, the validity of forced conversion is the province of the religious and not the secular.

It has been a spectacle for nonbelievers like myself to watch the pope “quote” an emperor from the past that Islam is a religion that has been spread by the sword. What is most savoring about all this is that for the first time it is not George Bush’s “fault”, nor is it a Zionist-Jewish plot to take over the world.

What is amazing about this new fireworks of ignorants going against each other is not that the Ratzinger is actually right. The irony is that the former Hitler youth pope presides over an institution that currently has trouble with its clergy misbehaving with minors and an institution that did not shy away from using the sword itself in exterminating its enemies, including a large number of Christians. As such, the credibility of the message is undermined despite the fact that what Ratzinger said was true and applies equally to his own institution. As I mentioned in a previous post, the Vatican only found out about religious tolerance and human dignity when it was no longer able to extend its interest by force, as it had for centuries, and had to start competing with other institutions of superstition in a secular free market.

Which brings me back to George Bush (and I will leave Jews alone for they never invade my privacy). In the same post I noted that it was wrong for GWB, as my president, to go to JP2’s funeral as the head of the state. Despite all the efforts of GWB to paint Islam as the “religion of peace”, Muslims have proven otherwise on numerous occasions. Therefore, my other hope/wish is that GWB stop calling Islam what it is clearly NOT and instead concentrate on materialistic affairs of this world that both his believer and non-believer supporters care about. Things like tax cuts for the rich, undermining of social security, more military expenditure instead of “investment”, less money for and PR in New Orleans, plans for invasion of Iran, etc. Otherwise, his non-believer supporters will have no reason to show at the voting booth and the Republican party will be left with the “Save Terry Schiavo”-cum-anti-abortion-cum-intelligent design fanatics.

Folks, I still continue to thank Allah for being a US citizen for I strongly believe that “of all tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.”