Koran burner Derek Fenton booted from his job at NJ Transit

[Harry]

The protester who burned pages from the Koran outside a planned mosque near Ground Zero has been fired from NJTransit, sources and authorities said Tuesday.

 

Derek Fenton's 11-year career at the agency came to an abrupt halt Monday after photographs of him ripping pages from the Muslim holy book and setting them ablaze appeared in newspapers.

 

Fenton, 39, of Bloomingdale, N.J., burned the book during a protest on the ninth anniversary of Sept. 11 outside Park51, the controversial mosque slated to be built near Ground Zero.

 

He was apparently inspired by Pastor Terry Jones, the Florida clergyman who threatened to burn the Koran that day but later changed his mind.

 

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/14/2010-09-14_koran_burner_derek_fenton_fired_from_his_job_at_nj_transit.html#ixzz0zcDyYftR

[Joe]

Shameful.

[metsfan]

Reprehensible and irresponsible. :mad::mad::tdown::tdown:

 

Extreme behavior like this only gives fuel to the radical nutballs/folks who use religion/beliefs as a reason behind unreasonable behavior.

 

- A

[theaveragejoe]

even tho what he did was wrong, They have no legal right firing him since he was not wearing anything to tie him to NJT.

[East New York]

Reprehensible and irresponsible. :mad::mad::tdown::tdown:

 

Extreme behavior like this only gives fuel to the radical nutballs/folks who use religion/beliefs as a reason behind unreasonable behavior.

 

- A

 

I totally agree, but I want to know under what grounds NJT fired him. That can't be legal unless they actually fired him for something else. And not only that, but if more people had decided to do what he did, I'm quite sure the NYPD would not have escorted anyone away.

[St Louis Car 09]

That is messed up that they fired him.That was uncalled for.

[NovaBUSRTS9145]

I totally agree, but I want to know under what grounds NJT fired him. That can't be legal unless they actually fired him for something else. And not only that, but if more people had decided to do what he did, I'm quite sure the NYPD would not have escorted anyone away.

 

They can't fire him for doing this although it was wrong to do....like some1 said, he had NOTHING on to tie him to NJ Transit so what grounds was there to fire him?

[East New York]

They can't fire him for doing this although it was wrong to do....like some1 said, he had NOTHING on to tie him to NJ Transit so what grounds was there to fire him?

 

I just watched a news broadcast on the issue about 10 minutes ago.

 

from New Jersey Transit, as reported by the Daily news, and MSNBC.

 

NJT Spokesperson: "Mr. Fenton's public actions violated NJT's code of ethics. Mr. Fenton violated his trust as a state employee, and was therefore dismissed."

 

 

So there it is. Now let me explain the problem with this. If Fenton was enployed by a private company, they could fire him for whatever they so please. But he didn't work for a private company. He worked for a branch of the NJ government, and what they did violated his First Ammendment rights. No government agency can dismiss an employee for expressing this right, Especially off NJT property. So, all he has to do is file a suit, and he's got his job back.

 

In the words of my boy Keith Olberman: "New Jersey Transit is Today's Worst Person In The World!"

[Tokkemon]

In moral terms, what he did was terrible and shouldn't be given leniency. However, in legal terms, NJT has no legal right to be fired. Only if they are able to fire someone on a moral basis should be be fired. But I doubt such a clause exist.

[INDman]

Reprehensible and irresponsible. :mad::mad::tdown::tdown:

 

Extreme behavior like this only gives fuel to the radical nutballs/folks who use religion/beliefs as a reason behind unreasonable behavior.

 

- A

 

But burning the American flag is ok right?

[INDman]

In moral terms, what he did was terrible and shouldn't be given leniency. However, in legal terms, NJT has no legal right to be fired. Only if they are able to fire someone on a moral basis should be be fired. But I doubt such a clause exist.

 

What does he need leniency for, he was well within his rights to do this.

[Nova RTS 9147]

But burning the American flag is ok right?

 

Of course. First amendment.

Note: Just because you can do something doesn't make it a good idea.

[East New York]

In moral terms, what he did was terrible and shouldn't be given leniency. However, in legal terms, NJT has no legal right to be fired. Only if they are able to fire someone on a moral basis should be be fired. But I doubt such a clause exist.

 

They have no grounds whatsoever to have fired him. Legal or otherwise.

 

But burning the American flag is ok right?

 

Some think it is.

 

The Flag Protection Act.

 

The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was the GOP's first attempt to overturn Texas V. Johnson. (This was the 1989 Supreme Court decision that upheld flag burning as protected symbolic political expression.) Two simultaneous attempts to outlaw flag burning happened at this time: the first Flag Protection amendment was introduced, and was voted down; the Flag Protection Act was passed by both houses of Congress. Then-President Bush allowed the bill to become law without his signature, as an expression of his preference for a Constitutional amendment. The actual "Flag Protection Act" was not new legislation, but an amendment of the existing U.S. Code.

On October 30th 1989, the day the bill went into effect, hundreds of people burned American flags in protest. Shawn Eichman and Mark Haggerty were among those charged with violating the law. The Justice Department admits that the law is unconstitutional under Texas V. Johnson, but plans to prosecute anyway, hoping to get the court to reverse its decision. Federal District courts in both cases dismiss charges, calling the Flag Protection Act unconstitutional. The Justice Department appeals to the Supreme Court.

 

In June 1990 the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Haggerty and U.S. v. Eichman upheld the district court rulings that the Flag Protection Act is unconstitutional. This law is still part of the U.S. Code, although it is not likely to be enforced unless a Flag Protection Amendment passes. I have reproduced the Act verbatim from the U.S. Code (disclaimer: this is a copy, and not the official version. I'm pretty confident it's correct.)

 

-CITE-

18 USC Sec. 700

-EXPCITE-

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I - CRIMES

CHAPTER 33 - EMBLEMS, INSIGNIA, AND NAMES

-HEAD-

Sec. 700. Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties

-STATUTE-

Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

 

This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.

As used in this section, the term ''flag of the United States'' means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.

Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory, possession, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.

 

An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order issued by a United States district court ruling upon the constitutionality of subsection .

 

The Supreme Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the question, accept jurisdiction over the appeal and advance on the docket and expedite to the greatest extent possible.

-SOURCE-

(Added Pub. L. 90-381, Sec. 1, July 5, 1968, 82 Stat. 291; amended Pub. L. 101-131, Sec. 2, 3, Oct. 28, 1989, 103 Stat. 777.)

-MISC1-

 

AMENDMENTS

1989 - Subsec. . Pub. L. 101-131, Sec. 2(a), amended subsec. generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. read as follows: ''Whoever knowingly casts contempt upon any flag of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning, or trampling upon it shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.''

Subsec. . Pub. L. 101-131, Sec. 2(B), amended subsec. generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. read as follows: ''The term 'flag of the United States' as used in this section, shall include any flag, standard colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, color, or ensign of the United States of America, or a picture or a representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, standards, colors, or ensign of the United States of America.''

Subsec. . Pub. L. 101-131, Sec. 3, added subsec. .

SHORT TITLE OF 1989 AMENDMENT

Section 1 of Pub. L. 101-131 provided that: ''This Act (amending this section) may be cited as the 'Flag Protection Act of 1989'.''

[metsfan]

But burning the American flag is ok right?

 

Flag isn't a religious text, though i feel some think it is. I think burning of anything is stupid, but the american flag is not religious.

 

What that guy did is constituted as a hate crime, you don't go in front of a place followers of a religion gathers & burn their sacred text just like you wouldn't in front of someone's home. You cannot encroach on the freedoms of others, and that's what this act was intending to do. He was rightfully fired for violating a reasonable code of ethics, one you sign when hired by the state of NJ. State employees & other civil service employees are supposed to be positive role models, and what this guy did is the antithesis of this idea.

 

I think the term "think before you act" applies here. Stupid behavior brings negative consequences.

 

- A

[R10 2952]

They had no right to fire the guy, as controversial as he might have been. Interestingly enough, they say in the story that the guy is from Bloomingdale in NJ, which happens to be where I have some relatives.

[engineerboy6561]

I believe that this man well and truly deserves to lose his job for this; there have already been incidents of minor hate crimes against Muslims, including one referenced on the forums (see the thread in the "Bus Photos" section about the defaced Muslim outreach ad) and stunts such as public burning of the Koran only serve to fan the flames in the short run and in the long run teach that racially and religiously motivated hatred is an acceptable response to unpopular decisions. And before anyone argues that this is an example of a pro-Muslim bias, think how big the backlash would be if people burned Bibles during a papal visit as a way of protesting the widespread child abuse/molestation scandals in the Catholic church.

That said, NJT may or may not have legal right to fire him for this incident. They only have an unquestionalbe right to terminate if he is formally charged with and convicted of a bias crime for his conduct in this incident and ( NJT policy does not permit people with criminal records to obtain or keep jobs here. Not that I agree with what he did as per above, but this gets hairy. Technically, Connick v. Myers only came down against the public employee in question because the statement was not a public statement but an internal action and the legal waters are very muddy on this issue. Personally, I believe that the UCMJ is the only employer policy capable of superseding the First Amendment and only then in a particular context.

[Joe]

I believe that this man well and truly deserves to lose his job for this

 

But where would your outrage be if he were found to be burning bibles? Oh wait, that's right, there would be no outrage by you.

 

:-)

[INDman]

But where would your outrage be if he were found to be burning bibles? Oh wait, that's right, there would be no outrage by you.

 

:-)

 

Selective outrage, it's a liberal pinhead thing. We wouldn't understand Joe.

[engineerboy6561]

Selective outrage, it's a liberal pinhead thing. We wouldn't understand Joe.

 

I never said that I would condone nor agree with burning copies of the Bible in public any more than I condone the burning of the Koran, nor have I any grievances against Christians as a religious or ethnic group any more than I do against Muslims. The reason my arguments here tend to be more frequently on the side of Muslims is because right now they are the ones whose rights are being infringed upon. I assure you that if Christians were a minority in this country and subject to public attacks on the order of Bible-burning I would be right there with you demanding the jobs of those who crossed the line.

By the way, your response to my post has merely proven me right about the general anti-Muslim atmosphere; you are completely accepting of destruction of the Muslim book of faith in public under the guise of protest and yet the mere mention of the shoe being on the other foot has earned me an accusation of selective outrage and the label of "liberal pinhead." If you look at the groups giving substantial positive press to the anti-mosque protest groups (take lookattheleft.com as an example) they are the same far-right groups that are referring to Obama as a rabid communist and generally spreading lies and fear about the left. One final thing to chew on: an old Spanish proverb says: "Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres." With whom do you walk?

[East New York]

Flag isn't a religious text, though i feel some think it is. I think burning of anything is stupid, but the american flag is not religious.

 

What that guy did is constituted as a hate crime, you don't go in front of a place followers of a religion gathers & burn their sacred text just like you wouldn't in front of someone's home. You cannot encroach on the freedoms of others, and that's what this act was intending to do. He was rightfully fired for violating a reasonable code of ethics, one you sign when hired by the state of NJ. State employees & other civil service employees are supposed to be positive role models, and what this guy did is the antithesis of this idea.

 

I think the term "think before you act" applies here. Stupid behavior brings negative consequences.

 

- A

 

Clearly!! But If this guy decides to take this to court, NJT will have a hard time trying to prove that one! But even though what he did was wrong IMO, he still should not have been fired.

 

Selective outrage, it's a liberal pinhead thing. We wouldn't understand Joe.

 

Actually "selective outrage" seems to be the banner for the Republican party these days IMO! I could list about 30 examples off the top of my head. But..... You wouldn't understand.

[INDman]

Clearly!! But If this guy decides to take this to court, NJT will have a hard time trying to prove that one! But even though what he did was wrong IMO, he still should not have been fired.

 

 

 

Actually "selective outrage" seems to be the banner for the Republican party these days IMO! I could list about 30 examples off the top of my head. But..... You wouldn't understand.

 

Wouldn't understand my ass. Stick to being a mod, that's all your good for.

[East New York]

Wouldn't understand my ass.

 

LOL!! I just call it like I see it!

[INDman]

LOL!! I just call it like I see it!

 

I thought you weren't going to give your shit head opions anymore since your a mod and should keep out of such descussion?

[East New York]

I thought you weren't going to give your shit head opions anymore since your a mod and should keep out of such descussion?

 

Actually, since you want to go there, let's get it right. I'm a Senior Moderator, and I said long ago that I changed my mind. That being said, I will continue to give "my shit head opinions" as you call them. But unlike some hard right, and hard left types, when I engage in political discussions, I back my shit head opinions up with visible facts 99.95% of the time.

[INDman]

Well ain't that just teriffic.