Image of Christ Removed by Police!

[Mommyof02green]

I’m asking for prayers and for as many people willing to spread the word on what’s going on at MY LOCAL abortion clinic (besides abortions). This local clinic has a picture of Christ given the bird (flipping people off) with both hands in its windows. The Catholic League and local residence have pleaded with the city counsel to have the picture removed, saying that it violates a city ordnance. However, the pleads have fallen on deaf ears.

On Oct 7th, 2009 a loving, devotional, picture of Christ that was put on display by a pro-lifer while the pro-lifer was there praying was removed by police. A loving devotional picture was removed, while the picture of Christ given the bird (flipping people off) with both hands still hangs in the window.

A video of this can be seen on youtube (both pictures are shown): youtube.com/watch?v=kCzAjBUjacI Please share this and pray!!

I’m hoping that if the video gets tons of hits it will force the city of Rockford and/or the owner of the abortion clinic to remove the very offensive picture of Christ from the windows along with all the other offensive images and messages. There is a priest shown in the video as well. This priest happens to be my parish priest and I know that from talking to Father that this is all very real!!!

Please pray, Share this with others!

 

[Eucharisted]

I pray this issue gets resolved speedily, Godwilling.

(post edited)

 

[livi]

That’s absolutely disgusting.

 

[Mommyof02green]

I pray this issue gets resolved speedily, Godwilling.

(post edited)

Thank-you for you prayers

That’s absolutely disgusting.

That’s why I’m spreading the word and hope that others will do the same.

 

[Mark77]

**“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.” (JN 15:18)

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!**

mark

 

[Mommyof02green]

It was just been brought to my attention that at about 1:18-1:22 of the video you can see a hand in the window given the bird (flipping people off) as well. I have updated the post on my blog to show a still of this moment. The still is not clear, but when you play the video you can clearly see it’s a hand given the bird. It is my understanding that this hand belongs to the abortion clinic owner.

 

[DOShea]

I’m just curious… on what legal grounds do you expect the image to be ordered removed? Don’t think for a second I’m not with you, I am, but I am asking only a simple, practical question here. Your city council isn’t going to act because they have no reason to… yet. The convenient answer you’re going to get is “nothing we can do… first Amendment, etc.”

I want you to picture this and you tell me what would happen. Same window, but now it’s the Prophet Muhammad giving the double fingers. Think you city council would be sitting still if that happened? Why not?

That’s why you aren’t seeing any action. If you had even 25% of every parish calling city hall expressing anger and outrage, and then calling the city desk of your newspaper screaming about discrimination, writing letters to the editor, holding protest marches and packing your local government meetings demanding microphone time to address this outrage and demanding their plan to rectify it, you would get action. Unless or until you get that kind of motion, no one is going to care about it. You want to change it, make it news everyday.

 

[Dale_M]

I’m just curious… on what legal grounds do you expect the image to be ordered removed? .

The video has a scroll across the bottom of the screen which says the objection is based upon Part I, Chapter 19-3 and Chapter 19-4 of the City of Rockford Code of Ordinance.

Here are those provisions:

Sec. 19-3. Offensive uses of property.
No person owning, or in possession, charge or control of, any building or premises shall use the same, or permit the use of the same, or rent the same to be used, for any business or employment, or for any purpose of pleasure or recreation, if such use shall, from its boisterous nature, disturb or tend to disturb the peace of the neighborhood in which such building or premises are situated, or be dangerous or detrimental to health.
(Rev. Ord. 1936, § 677; Code 1955, § 21-294; Code 1970, § 19-3)

Sec. 19-4. Permitting offensive use of property.
No person owning or occupying any building or premises shall use the same, or permit the use of the same, or rent the same to be used for any business or employment or for any purpose of pleasure or recreation, if such use shall, from its boisterous nature, disturb or destroy the peace of the neighborhood in which such building or premises are situated, or be dangerous or detrimental to health.
(Rev. Ord. 1936, § 653; Code 1955, § 21-265; Code 1970, § 19-4)

municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=14387&sid=13

I dunno…judging from the small size of the offensive picture, and the fact that it is not prominently displayed, makes me think there isn’t grounds for complaint. You have to really look hard to see the picture.

Now, the seizing of that large drawing of Jesus is justifiably upsetting. But I am unsure why the guy who was protesting didn’t just stay close to it, like the first cop, and presumably his supervisor, asked him to do.

 

[Mommyof02green]

I’m just curious… on what legal grounds do you expect the image to be ordered removed? Don’t think for a second I’m not with you, I am, but I am asking only a simple, practical question here. Your city council isn’t going to act because they have no reason to… yet.

This is from the city’s Code of Ordinance.

Rockford:

Sec. 19-3. Offensive uses of property.
No person owning, or in possession, charge or control of, any building or premises shall use the same, or permit the use of the same, or rent the same to be used, for any business or employment, or for any purpose of pleasure or recreation, if such use shall, from its boisterous nature, disturb or tend to disturb the peace of the neighborhood in which such building or premises are situated, or be dangerous or detrimental to health.
(Rev. Ord. 1936, § 677; Code 1955, § 21-294; Code 1970, § 19-3)

Sec. 19-4. Permitting offensive use of property.
No person owning or occupying any building or premises shall use the same, or permit the use of the same, or rent the same to be used for any business or employment or for any purpose of pleasure or recreation, if such use shall, from its boisterous nature, disturb or destroy the peace of the neighborhood in which such building or premises are situated, or be dangerous or detrimental to health.
(Rev. Ord. 1936, § 653; Code 1955, § 21-265; Code 1970, § 19-4)

Source: Rockford Code of Ordinance

It is my understanding that it was under this grounds that that abortion clinic owner was able to convince the police that the protesters image needed to removed.

Also there was a PREVIOUS picture, prior to the one featured in the named video. That picture there was only one hand flipping the bird. In regards to the one handed picture, the local news reported that the city legal director had this to say:

“I have not received a single complaint regarding its’ display from a resident in the neighborhood”.

Source: Local News

Which to me suggests that if a “neighborhood resident” complain they would force the removal of the image. If you read the article you will see that the owner voluntarily removed the one-hand image of Christ, but it was replaced with a 2 handed Christ.

There also has been other images in these windows, such as nuns in coffins, crucifixes hanging from nooses. There’s a video on youtube called “signs of evil” that features many of the things that have been featured in these windows over the last SEVERAL years.

 

[Mommyof02green]

I want you to picture this and you tell me what would happen. Same window, but now it’s the Prophet Muhammad giving the double fingers. Think you city council would be sitting still if that happened? Why not?

Oh I have no doubt in my mind that the property owner would have been forced by the city to remove the image under the ground that it violated the same ordinances that were outlined above.

 

[Mommyof02green]

Now, the seizing of that large drawing of Jesus is justifiably upsetting. But I am unsure why the guy who was protesting didn’t just stay close to it, like the first cop, and presumably his supervisor, asked him to do.

I’m not sure. It seems to me that he wasn’t told that he had to hold it, but tend to it. They were also forced to stop filming that day as soon as the police approached them.

 

[latin_rite]

It was just been brought to my attention that at about 1:18-1:22 of the video you can see a hand in the window given the bird (flipping people off) as well. I have updated the post on my blog to show a still of this moment. The still is not clear, but when you play the video you can clearly see it’s a hand given the bird. It is my understanding that this hand belongs to the abortion clinic owner.

Well after a day killing children. That is probably the least offencive thing that hand has done all day.

 

[JReducation]

Let’s get it right folks. The problem is not the image in the window. In the end, the image in the window does no harm to Jesus for nothing can harm Jesus. The real problem is the lies.

1. The image in the window depicts a lie. We must take offense at the lie. Jesus is not a Lord who abuses his people, no matter how sinful.
2. The word “terrorist” was displayed above the image on the window. Pro-Life people are not terrorists. To call us such is an outright lie. The message that the display on the window is sending to those who look at it closely is that Pro-Life is a terrorist movement that Jesus rejects. No message can be further from the truth. There is no reason for Pro-Life supporters to be offended and to allow such an offense, when there are laws that forbid it.
3. Then there is another lie. I understood that the police asked the gentleman to pick up his picture, which would have been a good idea at the time, rather than responding to them that he was only a few feet away. However, the police reaction was not proportionate to the alleged crime. It was abusive. Even a ticket would have been a more proportionate response than an arrest. Again we allow the legal system to lie to the general public by portraying Pro-Life supporters as criminals.
4. To compound the lie, the allowance of the clinic director to dictate to citizens who are on public property what they can carry or not carry when they are acting in a civil manner makes a mockery out of our legal system. Since when do private citizens have the right to delegate to the police what they allow or no allow on public streets without filing a formal complaint? This is a lie about the law. It sends a message that the law is arbitrary and selective.

These people need the help of every Pro-Life advocate from around the nation. I’ve already sent my letter to the city and to the organization that sponsored the video. I have also requested from them a copy of the video to take it on tour in my religious community’s presentations around the country on Respect Life. We go to different places, where we are invited and train Catholics on the issue and on the teachings of the Church. Hopefully, they will allow me to have a copy of the video for our training seminars, even if we have to beg the money to purchase it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Mommyof02green]

1. The word “terrorist” was displayed above the image on the window. Pro-Life people are not terrorists. To call us such is an outright lie. The message that the display on the window is sending to those who look at it closely is that Pro-Life is a terrorist movement that Jesus rejects. No message can be further from the truth. There is no reason for Pro-Life supporters to be offended and to allow such an offense, when there are laws that forbid it.

As my one post mention there as been other things that have been put on display in these windows, rubber-chickens hanging from nooses, crucifixes hanging from nooses and long with the sign that read “Rubber Chickens on vacation. J.C. fills in”. Nuns in coffins, etc. There is a second video on youtube that shows just what has been in these windows over the last several years.

There also has been other images in these windows, such as nuns in coffins, crucifixes hanging from nooses. There’s a video on youtube called “signs of evil” that features many of the things that have been featured in these windows over the last SEVERAL years.

 

[JReducation]

As my one post mention there as been other things that have been put on display in these windows, rubber-chickens hanging from nooses, crucifixes hanging from nooses and long with the sign that read “Rubber Chickens on vacation. J.C. fills in”. Nuns in coffins, etc. There is a second video on youtube that shows just what has been in these windows over the last several years.

The point here is to offer these people support by writing this clinic, the county and the Pro-Life group.

I wrote last night and already received a response from the Por-Life group.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Mommyof02green]

The point here is to offer these people support by writing this clinic, the county and the Pro-Life group.

I wrote last night and already received a response from the Por-Life group.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

God Bless

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I’m just curious… on what legal grounds do you expect the image to be ordered removed? Don’t think for a second I’m not with you, I am, but I am asking only a simple, practical question here. Your city council isn’t going to act because they have no reason to… yet. The convenient answer you’re going to get is “nothing we can do… first Amendment, etc.”

I want you to picture this and you tell me what would happen. Same window, but now it’s the Prophet Muhammad giving the double fingers. Think you city council would be sitting still if that happened? Why not?

That’s why you aren’t seeing any action. If you had even 25% of every parish calling city hall expressing anger and outrage, and then calling the city desk of your newspaper screaming about discrimination, writing letters to the editor, holding protest marches and packing your local government meetings demanding microphone time to address this outrage and demanding their plan to rectify it, you would get action. Unless or until you get that kind of motion, no one is going to care about it. You want to change it, make it news everyday.

There was a cop who took a sign from one of the Pro-Lifers on the sidewalk. I wonder what would happen if two of the Pro-Lifers politely pointed out that sign in the window - 30 MIN. AFTER THEY ARRIVED - Making sure they mentioned that children see it EVERY DAY, and that he has the legal authority to REMOVE IT. If he didn’t do anything, 30 min. later, a DIFFERENT pair of Pro-Lifers would POLITELY point it out, reminding him that the Pro-Lifer’s sign was taken WHEN THE CLINIC OWNER COMPLAINED, that children have to see the offensive sign EVERY DAY, and that he has the legal authority to remove it.

You understand the Pro-Life Prayers will need to have preachers, priests, mothers, etc., because they’re going to send a DIFFERENT pair of people to talk to the cop who took the Pro-Lifer’s sign away every 30 min., until he either gives in and asks for authorization to take the sign away, calls his supervisor to come on down and take the sign away or asks to be relieved. This may need to be done all day if he’s stubborn & non-responsive - so you need PEOPLE. The technique is called “Broken Record”.

Someone will need to keep a COMPLETE log of contacts - A complete Log of Contacts includes Who including Badge #, Date & Time, Where & What was said for each contact. This will form part of the basis for a “Differential Enforcement” Suit. Most States have statutes forbidding discrimination by Differential Enforcement of the Laws. In this case, the fact the inoffensive devotional sign was taken from the Pro-Lifer at the request of the Abortion Mill Owner while no action has been taken concerning a manifestly offensive placed in the window of the Abortion Mill by its owner sign in spite of repeated requests to the City Council may be a case of Differential Enforcement of the Laws.

At the same time, someone needs to request to get the Pro-Lifer’s sign back. Fill out whatever paperwork it takes = Bring witnesses, and record EVERYTHING. Let the police know the sign they took was offensive to no one but the Abortion Mill Owner while they have allowed him to keep a sign in his window which is a clearly offensive to several people. Keep a record of the conversation - Same as above.

I think it would be interesting to see if the police were really acting on a citizen’s request or if the Abortionist has a “special relationship” to the powers that be in Rockford.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I’m not sure. It seems to me that he wasn’t told that he had to hold it, but tend to it. They were also forced to stop filming that day as soon as the police approached them.

Mommy of 2:

Someone in that Pro-Life Group needs to get press credentials &/or smaller cameras. The police can’t order the Press to stop filming unless it would prejudice the prosecution of a major criminal case. The member of the Press wouldn’t need to have the Credential hanging around his/her neck, just on his her person at all times, and visible when filming while the police are near. Smaller cameras would reduce the chance of being detected while videoing, esp. if 2 or 3 are doing it.

See if the Archdiocese or someone such as Donahue will hire one as a Correspondent/Photojournalist. If all else fails, have them start their own small Non-Profit Pro-Life Newspaper/Newsmagazine. Again, Try to take at least 2 or 3 cameras. If the cops order ONE person to keep filming, the others should keep videoing as if they didn’t hear it or he wasn’t talking to them.

The cops may not like that, but we have Freedoms, such as of the Press and of Information.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Digitonomy]

I finally got around to watching the video. As repugnant as the owners actions are, I don’t see the legal problem with anything he’s done.

1. The word “terrorist” was displayed above the image on the window. Pro-Life people are not terrorists. To call us such is an outright lie. The message that the display on the window is sending to those who look at it closely is that Pro-Life is a terrorist movement that Jesus rejects. No message can be further from the truth. There is no reason for Pro-Life supporters to be offended and to allow such an offense, when there are laws that forbid it.

What laws forbid lying, especially on a subjective matter like this? The owner may well feel terrorized by the protesters and their effect on his business.

3. Then there is another lie. I understood that the police asked the gentleman to pick up his picture, which would have been a good idea at the time, rather than responding to them that he was only a few feet away. However, the police reaction was not proportionate to the alleged crime. It was abusive. Even a ticket would have been a more proportionate response than an arrest. Again we allow the legal system to lie to the general public by portraying Pro-Life supporters as criminals.

Wait, was the protester arrested? Or was the picture simply confiscated? If the latter, it seems the police acted with restraint in not charging the protester with any crime, and in giving him the opportunity to retrieve his poster before they confiscated it. In any case, while you may disagree with the approach the police took, I don’t understand how that would constitute a lie.

4. To compound the lie, the allowance of the clinic director to dictate to citizens who are on public property what they can carry or not carry when they are acting in a civil manner makes a mockery out of our legal system. Since when do private citizens have the right to delegate to the police what they allow or no allow on public streets without filing a formal complaint? This is a lie about the law. It sends a message that the law is arbitrary and selective.

I don’t see evidence of the owner having editorial authority over what protesters are allowed to carry. The issue seems to be that this was a sign not being carried. There were plenty of signs people were carrying that presumably offended the owner, yet the police took no action. Instead, it appears that the owner notified the police when he observed a violation of the law when the actions of a protester went beyond the strictly allowable actions of carrying signs and marching on the sidewalk. Only after carefully considering whether the unattended sign was in fact in violation of the law did the police take action.

As for the city ordinance, I would echo what Dale M said - it’s hard to argue that the small picture is disturbing the peace of the neighborhood, or anything else on that list in the ordinance. Even supposing it were, if the city took action against the owner, it might have a major legal battle on its hands, as the broadly written ordinance may violate the First Amendment. I will take a wild guess and suggest the city’s legal director has wisely chosen not to wade into that morass, the city council agreed with his assessment, and that’s why those bringing up the issue at council meetings are getting no love from officials.

 

[JReducation]

There was a cop who took a sign from one of the Pro-Lifers on the sidewalk. I wonder what would happen if two of the Pro-Lifers politely pointed out that sign in the window - 30 MIN. AFTER THEY ARRIVED - Making sure they mentioned that children see it EVERY DAY, and that he has the legal authority to REMOVE IT. If he didn’t do anything, 30 min. later, a DIFFERENT pair of Pro-Lifers would POLITELY point it out, reminding him that the Pro-Lifer’s sign was taken WHEN THE CLINIC OWNER COMPLAINED, that children have to see the offensive sign EVERY DAY, and that he has the legal authority to remove it.

You understand the Pro-Life Prayers will need to have preachers, priests, mothers, etc., because they’re going to send a DIFFERENT pair of people to talk to the cop who took the Pro-Lifer’s sign away every 30 min., until he either gives in and asks for authorization to take the sign away, calls his supervisor to come on down and take the sign away or asks to be relieved. This may need to be done all day if he’s stubborn & non-responsive - so you need PEOPLE. The technique is called “Broken Record”.

Someone will need to keep a COMPLETE log of contacts - A complete Log of Contacts includes Who including Badge #, Date & Time, Where & What was said for each contact. This will form part of the basis for a “Differential Enforcement” Suit. Most States have statutes forbidding discrimination by Differential Enforcement of the Laws. In this case, the fact the inoffensive devotional sign was taken from the Pro-Lifer at the request of the Abortion Mill Owner while no action has been taken concerning a manifestly offensive placed in the window of the Abortion Mill by its owner sign in spite of repeated requests to the City Council may be a case of Differential Enforcement of the Laws.

At the same time, someone needs to request to get the Pro-Lifer’s sign back. Fill out whatever paperwork it takes = Bring witnesses, and record EVERYTHING. Let the police know the sign they took was offensive to no one but the Abortion Mill Owner while they have allowed him to keep a sign in his window which is a clearly offensive to several people. Keep a record of the conversation - Same as above.

I think it would be interesting to see if the police were really acting on a citizen’s request or if the Abortionist has a “special relationship” to the powers that be in Rockford.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

These are good ideas. Did you send this information to the affected Pro-Life group? We have to give these people support.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF