A recent WJBK report out of Dearborn, Michigan, entitled “CAIR MI Urges Community to Avoid Anti Islam Agitators Coming to Dearborn” was intended to reassure the public. It did the opposite.
The segment concerned Jake Lang, who was physically assaulted in Dearborn after speaking out about the treatment of Christians and critics of Islam in the city. Whatever one thinks of Lang, his politics, or his style is not the issue. The issue is whether a person can speak lawfully in Dearborn without being attacked — and whether police and local officials understand whose conduct is the problem when violence follows speech.
WJBK put Dearborn’s police chief on air to ask the public not to come to Dearborn’s city council unless they had business there. Lang’s previous visit, viewers were told, had “sparked violence.” The chief also described Lang’s message as “provoking for some folks.”
At the same time, he called Dearborn peaceful and welcoming.
That contradiction is the story.
A peaceful and welcoming city does not need to warn outsiders away from a public meeting because residents might find someone’s speech provocative. A city that respects the First Amendment does not treat the speaker as the public-order hazard, while turning a blind eye to the conduct of those who respond with violence.
Yet that is the pattern Dearborn has shown for years. The issue is whether Dearborn’s institutions have repeatedly treated criticism of Islam, Christian evangelism, and dissent from local Muslim political priorities as dangers to be managed, rather than as speech to be protected. The record is not reassuring.
Dearborn Has Been Here Before
In 2010, Christian missionaries David Wood, Nabeel Qureshi, Paul Rezkalla, and Negeen Mayel were arrested at the Dearborn Arab International Festival while engaging Muslims in discussion and distributing or possessing Christian material. A jury later acquitted them. Dearborn eventually settled the resulting lawsuit and apologized.
The city’s apology acknowledged that the Christians had been arrested while “engaging in a peaceful dialogue” about their faith. That should have been a turning point.
It was not.
In 2011, the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of Pastor George Saieg, who had challenged restrictions on distributing Christian literature at the Arab International Festival. The court held that Dearborn’s restriction violated the First Amendment. Once again, Christian evangelism in Dearborn had been restricted, and once again the courts had to intervene.
Then came the Bible Believers case.
In 2012, Christian evangelists appeared at the Dearborn Arab International Festival. The crowd reacted with hostility. Bottles and debris were thrown. One evangelist was injured. Instead of controlling the hostile crowd and protecting the speakers, law enforcement ultimately threatened the evangelists with disorderly conduct citations if they did not leave.
The Sixth Circuit later recognized the obvious First Amendment problem. Police may not silence protected speech because a hostile crowd reacts badly. That is the classic heckler’s veto. This is not merely opinion. It is federal appellate law.
Dearborn and Wayne County had already been told what the Constitution requires. The burden is not on peaceful speakers to leave because others may attack them. The burden is on police to protect lawful speech and punish violence.
Yet WJBK’s segment suggests that the same old instinct remains alive: if criticism of Islam provokes people, discourage the critic.
The Modern Version of the Same Problem
The Jake Lang incident appears to be the modern version of the same constitutional failure.
The police chief’s message was not simply “Do not commit violence,” or “Dearborn will protect all lawful speakers.” It was also, in effect, “Do not come here unless you have business, because your presence may provoke some people.”
That framing matters.
It shifts responsibility away from those who assault, threaten, or intimidate and onto those whose speech triggers the reaction. It turns the hostile audience into a fact of life and the speaker into the variable that must be controlled.
That is how a no-go zone forms. Not by formal law. Not by a sign at the city limits. Not by an ordinance saying critics of Islam may not enter.
It forms when officials, police, media, and advocacy groups all begin acting as if certain speech is too dangerous for the public square because the local reaction cannot be trusted.
That is what WJBK effectively endorsed.
Official Hostility Has Also Been a Problem
The problem is not limited to crowds.
In 2025, Dearborn Mayor Abdullah Hammoud told resident Ted Barham that he was “not welcome” in the city after Barham objected to street signs honoring Arab American News publisher Osama Siblani, and cited Siblani’s controversial statements. Hammoud also said the day Barham moved out would be the day he would “launch a parade.”
That was not a heckler in the crowd. That was the mayor of Dearborn speaking to a resident during a public controversy.
A city whose mayor tells a dissenting resident that he is not welcome cannot be surprised when outsiders begin to question whether Dearborn is truly open to dissent.
Nor can the city’s defenders point to “peaceful and welcoming” slogans while ignoring the public record.
Dearborn has also seen repeated demonstrations featuring extreme anti-Israel, anti-American, and pro-Hezbollah sentiment. In 2024, the city drew national attention over chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” at a rally. Older evidence exists as well. In 2006, a Dearborn rally reportedly turned into strong public support for Hezbollah, with chants for Hezbollah and images of Hassan Nasrallah.
This context matters, because Dearborn’s leadership is quick to characterize criticism of Islam or the city’s political culture as dangerous, bigoted, or provocative. Yet far more aggressive rhetoric inside the city is often contextualized, softened, or explained away.
That imbalance is impossible to miss.
WJBK Should Have Known the History
WJBK’s report should not have presented Dearborn’s official reassurance without the city’s First Amendment history.
Viewers should have been told that Dearborn has already been at the center of multiple major disputes over Christian speech and criticism of Islam. They should have been told about the Christian evangelists’ arrests and the subsequent apology. They should have been told about George Saieg. They should have been told about Bible Believers and the Sixth Circuit’s warning against the heckler’s veto.
Without that context, the chief’s comments sound like reasonable public safety advice.
With that context, they sound like the continuation of a long pattern.
CAIR’s Role
The support of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for the chief’s message only reinforces the point.
CAIR routinely presents itself as a civil-rights organization, but in Dearborn, it appears once again on the side of discouraging speech it dislikes. The organization has every right to criticize Jake Lang. It has every right to oppose his views. It has every right to urge calm.
But when a man is assaulted after speaking critically about Islam in Dearborn, the first principle should be simple: violence is the problem. Not the speech. Not the provocation. Not the discomfort of the audience.
A genuine civil rights organization should understand that.
Instead, the pattern is familiar. Criticism of Islam becomes “provocation.” The hostile reaction becomes foreseeable. The burden shifts to the critic to stay away.
A First Amendment Danger Zone
Dearborn may not be a formal no-go zone. Americans can enter the city. They can attend meetings. They can speak, at least in theory.
But a city becomes a First Amendment no-go zone when lawful speech can predictably bring intimidation or violence, and officials respond by warning the speaker or the public rather than confronting the hostile audience.
Dearborn’s record is too long to dismiss.
Christian evangelists arrested. Literature restricted. Bottles and debris thrown at speakers. Courts forced to correct the city and county. A mayor telling a dissenting resident he is not welcome. Rallies featuring extreme anti-Israel and anti-American rhetoric. Now a police chief warning people away from city council because criticism may provoke “some folks.”
That is not the record of an American city that is welcoming and peaceful. It is instead, the record of a captured Sharia enclave.
It is the record of a city where public order too often means managing critics rather than restraining those who threaten them.
WJBK should revisit the story.
The question is not whether Jake Lang is popular, polite, or wise. The question is whether Dearborn officials will protect lawful speech when the speech criticizes Islam, local Muslim politics, or the city’s own record.
The First Amendment does not exist only for speech Dearborn finds welcoming.
It exists precisely for the speech some people find provoking.
WJBK FOX2 newsdesk: (248) 557-2000
email: fox2newsdesk@foxtv.com
Wellington says
Islam is not compatible with the First Amendment. Easy call here.
somehistory says
The name of the sheriff is a clue to what will happen if someone speaks and violence brakes out against the speaker.
Dearborn is like a little afghanistan or pakistan. The residents speak some English, but only to warn and threaten non-muzzies.
In olden days, when criminals took over a city, the Feds would go in and clean out the trash. Dearborn needs a Marshal Dillon or Wyatt Earp. Or maybe an Elliot Ness.
somehistory says
breaks out. ..it should read.
James Lincoln says
If Dearborn, Michigan is this bad WITH a First Amendment, imagine how bad it would be WITHOUT one.
It would now be like London – or worse.
Anti islam so-called “agitators” need to flood into Dearborn.
Winston 101 says
If only we had had historical precedents that could have warned us, in advance, of what happens to a country when Islam gains entry into a nonMuslim country. A warning before granting Islam entry into the United States. Oh, wait. . .
If only we had current day examples from multiple countries, of what would happen if Islam was allowed entry into the United States. Oh, wait. . .
If only we could read Islamic texts to see what they actually say, as opposed to what George Bush and Mehdi Hassan report they say. Oh, wait. ..
If only we had the writings of our own Founding Father’s like Adams and Jefferson to warn us about the nature of Islam. Oh wait. . .
If only we had the battle hymn of the United States Marines. . .”from the shores of Tripoli”.
Why would the United States allow anyone, calling themselves a Muslim, to enter the United States?
Muslims believe in Islam. There is no separation of Mosque and State in slam. Islam is the State.
The thought and belief system of Islam is in direct opposition to our United States Constitution.
Muslims believe in Sharia. Sharia, Islamic Law for All, is in direct conflict with our Constitution.
Why would you allow Muslims in?
Muslims who believe that their State, as commanded by their god, Allah, should eliminate and replace our Government.
You say you know friendly Muslims who are nice and don’t believe those “written down” things?
And, how do you know this? Oh, they said so. Oh well. Then I guess that’s all we need to know.
Just like the “nice” mayor of Dearborn, Michigan.
Tony says
Islam and its Muslims are enemies of all Non-Muslims. Islamization, like Cultural Marxism, deceives, manipulates, propagandizes, and virtue-signals against the enemies of Allah, the Non-Muslims, using Islamic Law dba Islam, discrimination, segregation, violence, and terrorism through our Western Institutions with Muslim MONEY and Muslim LIVES as taught in Islam’s Qur’an(Qur’an 2:191; 3:54; 4:89, 91; 7:99; 8:30; 9:5, 29, 41, 111; 49:15, etc.). Islam is the daily practice of Islamic Law, Sharia. Furthermore, Muslim Islamization includes Muslim Criminal-Terrorist-Gang Organizations using Governments, Bureaucracies, Mosques, Muslim Homes, Muslim Schools, Halal Organizations, Islamic Centers, Sharia Courts, Muslim Non-Profits, etc. to fund, to educate, and to support Islam Law and Muslim Propaganda against all Non-Muslims(Qur’an 1:5; 3:51,1 01, 118; 5:3, 48; 8:60, 45:18; etc.). Islam’s Muslims are murderous, Totalitarian Terrorists of Allah operating as a Criminal-Terrorist-Gang Enterprise under Islamic Law to ultimately conquer the enemies of Allah, the Non-Muslims, with Islamic Law DBA Islam(Qur’an 8:60; 9:5, 29, 111; 49:15, etc.). Genocidal Allah in Qur’an 8:39 commands, “And engage in war with them[Non-Muslims] until there will not be sedition and the religion will be completely to Allah…” Ultimately, Allah desires to fill hell with Non-Muslims(Qur’an 7:18; 11:119; 32:13; 98:6, etc.).
Andrew Blackadder says
islamism is nazism in a turban.. Both adore Adolf Hitler and everything he did.
Can somebody please get the word out to those Far Left Queers and Feminists that they are supporting a gang of thugs like The Hamassholes who all love old Adolf…
So when they look in their bathroom Mirror they will see a nazi supporter…Oh the shock.
KK says
Dearborn has sold out to islam. I would look at the pocketbooks of the so called authorities their.
Walter Sieruk says
That Dearborn city of Dearborn, Michigan is American first Muslim majority city . It’s even as they are attempting to set up an Islamic colony in the North American State of Michigan. Many of them by calling for an Islamic revolution in the United States are obviously very dangerous and subversive to America with the US Constitution , for they would scrap in an install Sharia in its place.
Therefore, What might be needed is an undated and revised version of the Monroe Doctrine, which was originally designed to stop any further colonialism of the Americas by the European nations, as Spain, Portugal, and France.
That Monroe doctrine included the Latin countries In other words; it would halt European colonialism also in those lands.
Therefore, a new updated and revised version of that Doctrine would put an end , as in not tolerate,, any further “colonization” of the United States by any Islamic countries , if it be by massive Muslim immigration or “political interference ” from or by Islamic nation as ,for example, Iran , Afghanistan , Pakistan.