You can read it here:http://www.cityofdearborn.org/images/stories/PDF/Government/Mayor/mayorletter07-09-2010.pdf

This is my response to his letter:

A Response to the Dearborn Mayor’s Letter “Please Consider the Following Before Condemning Us” It is appreciated that the Dearborn Mayor took time to write a response to the events of the last two years at the Arab festival in Dearborn. I understand that these events, and the subsequent bad press surrounding the events, have placed the mayor in a position of answering to his constituents and to the general American community for what appears to be a violation of four citizens First Amendment rights. The accusation is a grave one. Therefore, I would expect the mayor to be well-informed of the events having made an attempt to speak with those persons individually who upon visiting his city experienced these problems. I would expect such an elected American official to investigate these claims thoroughly in order to best protect people within his community, understanding his responsibility to uphold their constitutional rights. Unfortunately, this letter demonstrates Mayor O’Reilly attempted no such activity and only further instills a sense of distrust of his leadership in me. I will explain why in a systematic approach to his letter. I feel I am aptly qualified to comment as I have personally interviewed all four individuals about the events surrounding the arrests. I also have experienced first-hand the Dearborn Arab Festival as can be witnessed in the video I filmed last year (“Arab Festival 2009: Sharia in the US” on YouTube). 1) Financial gain The mayor pointed out that Acts 17 did this video in order to fundraise for their ministry. This is pure conjecture and ad hominem. It is conjecture because he has provided no documentation as to the funds raised by Acts 17’s activities in Dearborn. It is ad hominem because it seeks to attack their character by suggesting their interests in Dearborn are solely financial. He also fails to recognize the facts of who stands to lose or make more money concerning this festival: Dearborn or the ministry of Acts 17. I would like to see a comparison of dollar amounts between Dearborn’s “economic boost”[1] received by the festival and of donations to Acts 17 in which the donations are based on the festival activity of this ministry. I can safely say the discrepancy between the two would be staggering. The city stands to lose much more money if this festival should be portrayed in anyway as negative: sponsors such as Wal-Mart, Ford, AT&T, and the Federal Bureau of Investigations would be affected by negative press. Therefore, it appears to be in the festival’s best interest to protect their investment; which makes common sense. However, this should not be at the cost of the truth, which appears to be happening. 2) Groups paying a modest fee and being assigned a place to preach the Word of God This is a public festival and while I’m no law expert, I do not believe the average American citizen has to pay a fee to go to a free public festival and proclaim their religious (or anti-religious) views. Acts 17 is not a large or medium-sized organization as are the other Christian groups at the festival; it is comprised of a few American citizens. Therefore, they do not have the funding of the other groups to purchase a booth. Yes, they could do a fundraiser. However, this does not address the problem with just being able to walk around a public festival, record video, and talk to people about beliefs without fear of being arrested. 3) Acts 17 failed to mention the activity of the other organizations in all materials presented by the organization. In a blog dated June 23rd, 2010, entitled, “Responses to Common Questions,” David Wood addressed this question, “How can you say that you were harassed and persecuted when other Christian groups, such as Josh McDowell’s, were not harassed and persecuted?” He mentioned three responses to Dearborn’s policy of public safety by various Christian organizations in accordance with their actions at the festival. Some did exactly what the festival said to do, some did not. This doesn’t address the constitutionality of the festival’s rules or how those rules were being enforced. 4) The festival has a free speech zone I need to see a definition of a “free speech zone” at a public festival in America. Who were the two groups utilizing this space? What were they saying? Is there any evidence for this claim? 5) They lead you to believe they were arrested I’m trying to figure out if the mayor is considerably misinformed or is telling an untruth of which he is aware. Although the press and some television news shows are reporting the arrest in an incorrect manner, I have personally corrected this on two radio shows myself: the Richard Land Live show and Southwest Radio Ministries show. Nabeel has corrected this on a radio program as well. The arrests were not reported incorrectly on the video by Acts 17 posted on Saturday, June 19th on their blog (watch here). This seems an easy enough fact to check for falsification. Why the misleading statement? 6) On Saturday, June 18th, they were behaving differently…aggressively engaging passers-by in confrontational debate Here is another statement that is considerably misinformed or a blatant untruth. The report by David, Nabeel, Negeen, and Paul is that they were only engaging people who first spoke with them. They were diffusing hostile language and arguments with the gospel message of love for all people. They even purchased lemonade and elephant ears for some teenagers before their arrest. So who is telling the truth? The only way to know is to release their video to the public so the public can judge for themselves. If you think Acts 17 is lying, release the footage in its entirety: un-damaged and un-edited for a public review. At least, release the footage to the defense attorneys for these American citizens. 7) Acts 17 is well aware of the public safety policy This statement is true in that we asked the Dearborn police last year if we were doing anything unlawful by videoing questions and interaction with the question and answer booth people. The police said we were doing what was lawful. The only way to know if Acts 17 was participating lawfully in the festival this year is through the video evidence that is being held by the police. 8) They are in an area controlled to protect public safety during the event Generally, this statement means that Dearborn was not allowing pamphlets to be handed out or public preaching just anywhere at the festival because it could cause a crowd to gather which in turn could jeopardize public safety. However, Acts 17 stated that on their video is some footage which demonstrates Muslims were handing out pamphlets, not at an assigned booth, without security altercations. So it seems that the problem only relates to Christians and their activities. If so, that would be discrimination against one religion. 9) Balancing personal freedom and protecting the public This is certainly understood and appreciated. I know that this is a difficult task, which is probably a fine line to walk sometimes. I would want to err on the side of protecting personal freedom, which is hard to regain once lost. 10) “At the time he was arrested on Friday, June 18, Mr. Wood had gathered a large crowd around him” This is another problematic statement as worded in the letter. In this sentence, the reader is led to think that David Wood encouraged a gathering of some kind around himself, which is untrue. A proper way of stating the actual events: “A large crowd gathered around Mr. Wood.” This reveals the event as it happened instead of using a touch of rhetoric to imply intention. Again, the public needs to see the video footage in order to come to a proper understanding. Perhaps a better response by the police would have been to disperse the crowd, rather than arrest the people around which the crowd was gathering. 11) “because they wanted to be arrested” Did the mayor speak with these gentlemen? Did he ask them about their intentions? By this sort of reasoning, I could say this about the investigation so far: “The reason the police department has not released the video footage of the event, undamaged and in its entirety, is because they want people to believe that Acts 17 did something wrong, instead of actively pursuing what is the truth according to the objective eye of the video camera.” However, this is would be conjecture, again. Please, Mayor, make good and reasoned arguments. You are possibly wrong and have possibly violated citizens’ rights. We need the video and we need more objectivity. 12) It makes a good news story….the real violation of First Amendment rights This is just ad hominem. The statement does nothing to instill confidence in the mayor’s endeavor to make sure justice is served for all people involved. The ‘real violation of rights’ statement appears to have no more value then to turn the tide on the victims. The problem is that the statement makes no real sense. Also, it appears a bit flippant concerning the investigation of civil rights. I’m looking for something along the lines of, “Understanding that this nation has shed much blood and fought many battles to ensure the protection of our citizen’s personal freedoms, we, the city of Dearborn, are taking the events surrounding the Arab Festival this year into serious consideration. We are progressively working with all four citizens’ lawyers to make sure all evidence available is reviewed for a full and accurate account of the incident.” After making this statement or something similar, I would then look for actions to confirm that this is indeed the mayor’s true concern. 13) Dearborn Area Ministerial Association (DAMA)… They were unsuccessful in getting a response from Acts 17. This ministerial organization apparently met with the chief of police and the mayor in September of 2009 and somehow no one thought to invite us, the people who were being accused. So they wrote up a letter of condemnation and signed it. After doing so, in as far as I am aware, one pastor mentioned that we should be contacted before they made the letter public. One pastor. If this is a great conclave of churches in the area, why is it that only one person thought to contact the fellow Christians who were accused? So no one else there thought to use the New Testament pattern of discipline or admonishment amongst the believers in Christ? Perhaps someone else did, but I am unaware due to the lack of communication. This is one of the most disappointing aspects of the whole situation. Some members of the Church are willing to publicly condemn others in the body of Christ without contacting them first. It appears they were willing to do so in order to protect and propagate their own ministries (I don’t condemn the aspect of either protecting or propagating any of these ministries, just the manner in which it was done with regard to our situation). I do not see this as a good testimony to the Muslim community. My notification concerning this organization was through Nabeel Qureshi in November 2009. I don’t want to sound accusatory because we all keep busy schedules; especially in ministry and especially David, Nabeel, and me. However, my first personal interaction was nearly six months after the festival and three months after the meeting (December 2009). Yet, the Detroit Free Press reported on me in an article shortly after the incident. My point being: contact with those persons involved should have been before the first meeting of Dearborn area ministries and local officials.
* I do not wish to create any heir of disrespect for the ministerial activities and the difficulties they face ministering in the Dearborn area. That was why I agreed to speak with the one pastor who contacted me, and it was a major reason for why I didn’t press criminal charges last year. I am responding to the mayor’s portrayal of the events associated with this group to show the imbalance of his reporting. I am also demonstrating how he does not interact with the people involved.Our response There was a huge response from us that is unreported in the above statement. We agreed to drop the charges of assault and battery on the security guards at the festival in order to aid the reconciliation process of the ministries to their community. That was our response. We would not agree to publicly condemn ourselves, which is the “response” of which they were asking. I know from one area pastor that the chief of police was pleased to hear of our decision to drop the charges. Turning us into the bad guys Also, I find it disturbing that four people were arrested this year for “disturbing the peace” but the security guards who hit our cameras last year and harassed us where not arrested. Why? These security guards were certainly disturbing the peace. We asked the police to ensure that none of the security guards involved in last year’s incident be allowed to return to the festival for the safety of the public. Unfortunately, one of them returned according to the reports of two of those arrested. 14) “People who would promote hatred and lies to get others to act in ways” Acts 17 have been very open and public about their intentions and actions. They have already responded to this type of ad hominem attack. This appears to be a clever rhetorical device to get people to think a certain way about Acts 17. However, rhetoric does not fill the void of justice surrounding this incident. If the mayor sincerely cares about his community, American citizens, and protecting constitutional rights, then prove it with action and not with words. Call for the release of the video, Mayor, in its entirety and undamaged, so the truth can be known. You should have nothing to fear from that video if you are telling the truth. However, the police department continues to hold onto the actual video footage which would exonerate or condemn these citizens without a public statement as to why they will not release the footage. Remember, the PD has not even given the footage over to the defense lawyers so they can begin to build their case, even though the defense lawyers requested the footage as of Monday, June 21st. If that video is damaged or lost or erased, my distrust in your office and the police department will skyrocket. Hopefully, others will join me in this sentiment. A couple parting thoughts If this festival is completely family oriented and friendly to differing faiths, then I highly recommend a response to the booth that was selling t-shirts of a cartoon character urinating on the flag of Israel from the 2009 festival, which can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ot6EDFS998. This is clear racism and “hate-language” towards a people group, nation, and religion. The flag represents real people, not just a chunk of land. Imagine if the flag were the American flag or a Palestinian flag? The Jewish star represents one of the three major monotheistic religions in the world. This is outrageous and highly intolerant. It creates an atmosphere that says one ethnicity and one faith is not welcome at this festival by plastering it on a shirt for raising funds. The booth was the “Free Palestine” booth. David, Nabeel, Negeen, and Paul have done nothing hateful, yet the mayor felt a need to respond to them. It appears as though clear hatred of a particular people group, if veiled from media-attention, is allowable at the Dearborn festival (thus the t-shirts). However, if private citizens feel as though they are experiencing injustice, hateful attitudes, and threats, and they make this public via the internet, the mayor will not only allow the injustice, but also ridicule the private citizens involved. Again, Mr. O’Reilly’s actions have done nothing to prove his intention to create a safe, peaceful, civil-law respecting community in Dearborn. In conclusionThere was no evidence to substantiate allegations in this letter, but lots of conjecture. There were mistakes that were easily falsifiable by a person making an honest attempt to understand the situation. There is still the problem of the video footage seizure and holding by the police, which is the raw evidence to what happened. This appears as a great abuse of the elected position with which the mayor has been entrusted. Notice, there was no remorse, at all, in the letter for the experience of these citizens. None. Instead, the letter was devoted to an attempt to discredit their integrity, without providing solid evidence for the attack. Respectfully, Mary Jo Sharp