Historical Context and Recent Developments Related to Protest Laws
In 1994, a group of 17 Republicans in the Senate, including Mitch McConnell, supported the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrance Act. Their intention was to curb questionable practices surrounding protests. The law criminalized anti-abortion demonstrators at clinics, but interestingly, it also included protections for those obstructing access to churches.
As is often the case with “bipartisan compromises,” the results were lopsided. Supporters of life—think grandmothers singing hymns or young individuals praying peacefully—were, alarmingly, facing prison time for non-violent protests. In stark contrast, individuals involved in actual violence or harassment against people of faith were left unprosecuted.
McConnell and his colleagues believed they were making a shrewd move, yet they inadvertently gave conservatives a long history of one-sided enforcement.
Fast forward to last week.
Under the leadership of Harm Muiron at the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, a civil complaint was filed against two radical groups: the Party for Socialism and Liberation and the Palestinian American Muslims, alongside six individuals. Their offense? Violently obstructing Jewish worshippers at a synagogue in West Orange, New Jersey.
Protests at the Synagogue
In November 2024, around 50 protesters linked arms outside the synagogue, interrupting services and attacking several congregants.
Local authorities seemed to turn a blind eye; only two people faced charges. Intriguingly, the charges were directed at individuals from the congregation who attempted to intervene during an assault on a 65-year-old man. None of the attackers faced legal repercussions.
The implication was unmistakable: when radical groups attack Jews, the state is silent. If the roles were reversed—let’s say 50 Christians or Jews stormed a mosque—it might have been treated like the events of January 6.
This time, the Department of Justice took action. The civil complaint outlined how one of the accused, Altaf Sharif, broke through police lines, obstructed worshippers, and used loud noise to cause permanent hearing damage. He also physically assaulted another congregant while shouting anti-Semitic slurs.
The twist? Congregants who stepped in to help the victim were charged, while Sharif walked away unscathed. This is reminiscent of Jim Crow laws, only now occurring in a progressive state that seems to condone extremist behavior.
The Origins of the Palestinian American Muslims
One of the implicated organizations, the Palestinian American Muslims, isn’t just a benign community group. It’s a continuation of the Holy Land Foundation, once linked to Hamas fundraising in the U.S. After the original foundation was required to pay $156 million to victims’ families, this new group emerged in its place.
As noted by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021, AMP has inherited the same leadership and objectives. Essentially, it’s just a rebranded version of Hamas.
The Alliance of Radicalism
This situation underscores a disturbing reality. Radical Islamists and communists are not merely threats abroad; they’re active here too. This is why it’s crucial for political leaders, including President Trump, to fulfill their promises to formally classify both the Muslim Brotherhood and Antifa as terrorist organizations.
The state attorney general should continue scrutinizing supposed “charitable” groups that may be fronts for something more sinister. Just a couple of weeks ago, a Virginia judge found AMP in contempt for failing to provide documents connected to terror financing.
A Call for Legislative Change
It’s worth noting that the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrance Act is, by many accounts, a bad law. Its main purpose was to stifle prayers and songs rather than protect places of worship. It ought to be repealed.
However, if a senior citizen could face ten years in prison for praying outside a clinic, then the same law should be applied against those who violently confront Jews outside their places of worship. For the first time, the Department of Justice has aimed its efforts in a targeted direction.
Let’s not forget, Republicans created this problematic framework and handed it over to the left. McConnell and his colleagues, in their attempt at cleverness, have engendered decades of biased enforcement against conservatives. To remedy this, they should advocate for abolishing the law, or at least recognize that “bipartisanship” isn’t necessarily in our favor.
