text:
About the American Center for Law and Justice
Founded in 1990 with the mandate to protect religious and constitutional freedoms, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) engages legal, legislative, and cultural issues by implementing an effective strategy of advocacy, education, and litigation that includes representing clients before the Supreme Court of the United States and international tribunals around the globe.
As ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow continued to build his legal and legislative team, the ACLJ experienced tremendous success in litigating cases at all levels of the judiciary – from the federal district court level to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Over the last two decades, Sekulow has appeared before the Supreme Court of the United States on numerous occasions, successfully arguing precedent-setting cases before the high Court: Protecting the free speech rights of pro-life demonstrators. Safeguarding the constitutional rights of religious groups to have equal access to public facilities. Ensuring that public school students could form and participate in religious organizations, including Bible clubs, on campus. Guaranteeing that minors could participate in the political process by protecting their free speech rights in the political setting.
Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the ACLJ's work reaches across the globe with affiliated offices in Israel, Russia, France, Pakistan, South Korea, and Zimbabwe. In addition to its religious liberties work, the ACLJ also focuses on constitutional law involving the issues of national security, human life, judicial nominations, and protecting patriotic expression such as our National Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance.
JaySekulow.comFacebookTwitterYouTubeFlickrGodTubeTownhallRegentBeliefNet
A Record of Accomplishment
Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus
In his first of what has become a long career of successful cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, Jay Sekulow won a unanimous victory for religious free speech rights. Jews for Jesus, a Messianic Jewish organization, engaged in a practice of Christian witnessing by passing out religious tracts to passersby at the Los Angeles International Airport. Airport officials then created a policy forbidding all "First Amendment activities." Jews for Jesus members continued distributing Christian tracts and were arrested.
Sekulow approached this case from, what at the time was, a unique angle, arguing for the free speech rights of his clients instead of relying solely on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. This approach resulted in a unanimous decision in favor of Jews for Jesus, and began what has become a fixture of First Amendment jurisprudence: religious speech is given the same protection as all other protected speech. The unanimous Court held that the regulation at issue was overbroad on its face; in other words, it was so overreaching and violative of the First Amendment that "no conceivable governmental interest would justify such an absolute prohibition of speech." It was a resounding win for free speech and religious liberty.
Board of Education v. Mergens
When a group of public high school students were denied the right to form a Christian club on campus by school administrators, ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow took their case all the way to the Supreme Court. Sekulow successfully argued that the Equal Access Act and the Constitution required that these students receive the same privileges to form a student club as other students on campus, regardless of the religious nature of their club. In an 8-1 decision, the Mergens Court upheld the constitutionality of the Equal Access Act, which requires public schools to allow student-initiated Bible Clubs or prayer groups equal access to meet on campus. The Supreme Court held that the Equal Access Act was constitutional because allowing equal access to religious clubs does not violate the Establishment Clause. In fact, the Court explained that the Establishment Clause actually mandated that government be neutral with respect to religion.
Because of the Supreme Court's decision in Mergens, every federally funded secondary school in the nation that permits non-curricular clubs such as 4-H, Chess Club, and other service-type clubs to meet and hold events on campus, must also permit student-initiated and student-run Bible clubs and prayer groups to meet to the same extent.
United States v. Kokinda
ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow served as lead counsel and presented the oral arguments in a case involving the regulation of literature distribution and fund solicitation on sidewalks in front of a post office. A group set up a table to solicit funds and distribute literature on the sidewalk that ran between a parking lot and the post office. In a deeply divided decision, the Supreme Court held that due to its location and purpose as the only way to enter or exit the post office that particular sidewalk was not a public forum open to unrestrained free speech activity.
The Court held: "Regulation of speech activity on governmental property that has been traditionally open to the public for expressive activity, such as public streets and parks, is examined under strict scrutiny. ... But regulation of speech activity where the Government has not dedicated its property to First Amendment activity is examined only for reasonableness." The Court found that because solicitation is more invasive than other forms of speech and the postal service required free flowing traffic in front of its office to be operable, the restriction satisfied this "reasonableness" test; and thus, the Court held that these convictions were constitutional.
American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) founded
Dr. Pat Robertson, a graduate of Yale Law School and broadcasting entrepreneur, saw the need for a legal organization to counter the growing impact of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In 1990, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) began in Virginia Beach, VA, with a small staff of attorneys. With a mandate to defend constitutional and religious rights, the ACLJ quickly engaged issues that focused on faith and freedom, blazing a legal trail that dramatically changed the landscape of religious liberty law. Building on significant victories at the Supreme Court, the ACLJ has become one of the most respected and effective public interest law firms in the world.
Under the direction of Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ has been recognized by BusinessWeek as "the leading advocacy group for religious freedom" and named "a powerful counterweight to the ACLU" by TIME Magazine. The ACLJ's work expanded over the years with offices across the globe. Utilizing U.S. constitutional law, European Union law, and human rights law, the ACLJ's commitment to protecting freedom and liberty is unwavering.
Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic
Members of a pro-life group, Operation Rescue, were demonstrating in front of an abortion clinic and were arrested and charged under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which outlawed the discrimination of a group of people. Law enforcement officials charged that the pro-life demonstrators were discriminating against women as a class of citizens. ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow presented oral arguments before the Supreme Court on behalf of the pro-life advocates. Sekulow argued that the protesters were not opposed to women in general, but to the practice of abortion; and thus, the 120-year-old anti-discrimination law should not apply.
However, after eight months of deliberation, the Supreme Court ordered new oral arguments in the case. Speculating about the ordered reargument, the New York Times stated: "The bench for the new argument will presumably include Justice Clarence Thomas, who was not on the Court when the case was first argued and so could not participate. That does not necessarily mean, however, that the Court was locked in a straightforward 4-to-4 stalemate in a case that presents several complex issues of statutory interpretation." Sekulow returned to the Supreme Court the following year to re-argue the case before all nine Justices, including Justice Thomas.
Re-argue Bray
A year after initially arguing this case before the Supreme Court ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow successfully reargued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of the ACLJ's pro-life clients. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, a 120-year-old anti-discrimination law, did not apply to pro-life demonstrators because for that law to apply there must be a "class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus [underlying] the conspirators' action." In other words, the government would have to prove that the abortion protesters were protesting abortion because of their general dislike for women. The Court found that there was absolutely no evidence that the protesters disliked women but that they "share[d] a deep commitment to the goals of stopping the practice of abortion and reversing its legalization." As such, the Supreme Court reversed the convictions of the pro-life activists.
Also, in addressing the abortion clinic's argument that the protesters somehow violated the so-called "right to abortion," the Court again agreed with the ACLJ, holding that because they were private individuals seeking to discourage abortions and not the government forbidding the practice, abortion protesters could never violate that "right." This was a significant victory for the rights of pro-life Americans and the right of free speech.
The first ACLJ Television show is aired
From the very beginning, ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow understood the power of television and the essential role it would play in the formation and development of the American Center for Law and Justice. What began as A Call to Action television program, hosted by Sekulow on a Christian television network, was soon transformed into a weekly television program produced by the ACLJ.
In 1992, ACLJ This Week began as a 30-minute show that focused on the work of the ACLJ. Whether it's defending faith and freedom before the U.S. Supreme Court or protecting the rights of pro-life advocates, ACLJ This Week takes an in-depth and comprehensive look at the issues of the day - providing interviews with top legal and Congressional decision-makers. Over the years, ACLJ This Week has expanded its reach and has become even more influential. By providing answers to tough questions, ACLJ This Week enables viewers and supporters to mobilize and become involved. It's a call to action that produces results.
Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School District
An evangelical church desired to rent a school facility for an evening showing of a film series produced by Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family ministry. The church's request for use was denied by school administrators because it was "church-related." Although the school facilities were available to community groups for social, civic, and recreational purposes, the rules and regulations specifically prohibited any religious use. ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow represented the church before the Supreme Court, arguing that it was unconstitutional to deny the church access to the government facility solely because of the religious message they wished to convey.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled against this prohibition, stating that the religious exclusion was unconstitutional. The impact of the Lamb's Chapel case is significant. Every government agency, from school boards to city councils, that has access policies in place for its properties must now allow groups engaged in religious speech to utilize those facilities as well. Today, thousands of churches conduct meetings and hold services in schools and other public facilities as a direct result of this victory in the Lamb's Chapel case.
The National Law Journal twice-named Sekulow one of the "100 Most Influential Lawyers" in the United States.
In 1994, ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow was honored for his exemplary legal work by one of the nation's most prestigious legal publications. The National Law Journal named Sekulow one of the "100 Most Influential Lawyers" in the United States. He would go on to receive this award again in 1997. The National Law Journal honor recognizes lawyers who have had a significant impact in their field and beyond.
Sekulow received recognition for his groundbreaking work for religious liberties and his defense of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Several landmark cases argued by Sekulow before the U.S. Supreme Court had already become part of the legal landscape in the area of religious liberty litigation. In the Mergens case (decided in 1990), Sekulow cleared the way for public school students to form Bible clubs and religious organizations on their school campuses. In the Lamb's Chapel case (decided in 1993), Sekulow defended the free speech rights of religious groups, ensuring that they be treated equally with respect to the use of public facilities.
Jay Sekulow Live! radio show goes on the air
There is nothing more compelling than live radio. In 1995, ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow continued his commitment to broadcasting with the launch of a national, live radio broadcast that airs Monday through Friday. The 30-minute, call-in radio show enabled the ACLJ to reach a new and diverse audience. Jay Sekulow Live! quickly became a legal resource, of sorts, addressing the critical issues in real time - in a live setting - providing the kind of information that listeners could use in their daily lives.
Jay Sekulow Live! also developed into a powerful, influential program that mobilizes thousands of Americans instantly. Whether it's generating support for pro-family legal and legislative issues, or opposing actions or policy that's damaging, Jay Sekulow Live! provides a fast-paced, timely look at the legal, legislative and political landscape of the day - providing listeners and supporters with the facts and an opportunity to become involved. Jay Sekulow Live! continues to expand its reach and is also heard on XM and Sirius satellite radio, as well as streamed live online at the ACLJ website.
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of W.N.Y.
ACLJ Chief Counsel, Jay Sekulow served as lead counsel and presented oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that focused on the constitutionality of "floating" speech-free "bubble zones" around abortion clinics. A pro-abortion group obtained an injunction against pro-life protesters, forbidding them from coming within 15 feet of an abortion clinic and, also, from coming within 15 feet of any person or vehicle seeking to gain access to the abortion clinic.
The Court agreed with the ACLJ that the "floating buffer zones" were an unconstitutional restriction on the free speech rights of pro-life demonstrators. As a result of this case victory, pro-life "sidewalk counselors" are permitted to approach abortion clinic patients to convey their pro-life message.
The American Lawyer: Sekulow joins distinguished attorney group "Public Sector 45"
In 1997, ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow was honored for his exemplary legal work by another of the nation's most prestigious legal publications. The American Lawyer named him to a distinguished group of attorneys known as "The Public Sector 45" (January/February 1997). The magazine stated that the designation represents "45 young lawyers outside the private sector whose vision and commitment are changing lives."
At the time that Sekulow received this recognition for his groundbreaking work for free speech and religious liberties, he had already argued six cases before the United States Supreme Court. Several landmark cases argued by Sekulow before the Supreme Court had already become part of the legal landscape in the area of religious liberty litigation. In the Mergens case (decided in 1990), Sekulow cleared the way for public school students to form Bible clubs and religious organizations on their school campuses. In the Lamb's Chapel case (decided in 1993), Sekulow defended the free speech rights of religious groups, ensuring that they be treated equally with respect to the use of public facilities.
European Centre for Law and Justice in Strasbourg, France founded
Founded by Jay Sekulow and Thomas Patrick Monaghan, the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) began as an effort to mobilize Christian lawyers internationally. The ECLJ opened its official headquarters in the center of the European institutions in Strasbourg, France, on July 2, 1998, and has quickly become one of the leading advocates for religious freedom in Europe and around the world. As an international, Non-Governmental Organization, the ECLJ has held special Consultative Status before the United Nations (U.N.)/ECOSOC since 2007.
The ECLJ was founded for the legal and legislative defense of religious freedoms, human dignity, and the family among the Member States of the Council of Europe and the European Union (EU). Through litigation before the European Court of Human Rights and work with the UN and EU legislative bodies, the ECLJ acts to further the implementation and respect for these ideals. The ECLJ is a Christian-inspired organization and bases its action on "the spiritual and moral values which are the common heritage of European peoples and the true source of individual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law, principles which form the basis of all genuine democracy" (Preamble of the Statute of the Council of Europe). The ECLJ is affiliated with offices in Israel, Kenya, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe.
Slavic Centre for Law and Justice in Moscow, Russia opens
The Slavic Centre for Law and Justice (SCLJ) was founded in 1998 and originally functioned as a dedicated legal services provider to religious organizations and individuals. As a union of two non-profit organizations – the Institute of Religion and Law and the Christian Legal Center – it has grown and developed into a well-respected and authoritative non-governmental, non-profit organization, with the principal goal of protecting religious rights and freedoms of individuals and associations in Russia. It is the only organization in Russia that deals specifically with religious freedom cases and raises a voice whenever the right to believe is violated.
The SCLJ's mission is to help people and organizations realize and enjoy their right to freedom of conscience. It does this through litigation and by providing legal help and advice and supporting other lawyers and organizations willing to defend religious freedom and civil rights. SCLJ lawyers have litigated dozens of cases to a successful conclusion in various regions of Russia, including cases before Constitutional and Supreme Courts of Russia. Clients include Russian and foreign nationals, missionaries, charity workers, large denominations, and tiny churches. The SCLJ won one of the first Russian religious freedom cases – Moscow Salvation Army v. Russia, in the European Court of Human Rights.
Washington DC office opens
Though it was originally founded in Virginia Beach, VA in 1990, the American Center for Law and Justice opened its national headquarters in Washington, D.C. in 2000. Located in the heart of Capitol Hill, the ACLJ's office is just steps away from the Supreme Court and Congress. This physical expansion to the nation's capital matched the expanding work of the ACLJ as it continued its flourishing Supreme Court practice involving issues of national security, human life, marriage, judicial nominations, pornography, and protecting patriotic expression including our National Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance. It also allowed the ACLJ to continue to broaden its focus to include legislative matters to compliment its litigation strategy.
The ACLJ maintains its original office in Virginia Beach, VA and continues to expand its network of attorneys nationwide. The opening of the D.C. office provided another catalyst to advance the ACLJ's mission to protect the universal, God-given and inalienable rights to freedom and liberty in the United States and around the world.
Hill v. Colorado
Continuing the ACLJ's support for the rights of pro-life activists cases before the United States Supreme Court, ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow served as lead counsel and presented oral arguments in a case that centered on a Colorado law that restricted free speech activity outside abortion clinics. The Colorado law required that anyone within 100 feet of an abortion clinic to get another person's consent before approaching that person to distribute "a leaflet or handbill to, display a sign to, or engage in oral protest, education, or counseling with [that] person."
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, concluded that the law was "not a regulation of speech. Rather, it is a regulation of the places where some speech may occur." The Court held: "Although the statute prohibits speakers from approaching unwilling listeners, it does not require a standing speaker to move away from anyone passing by. Nor does it place any restriction on the content of any message that anyone may wish to communicate to anyone else, either inside or outside the regulated areas." However, the Court did not overrule its decision in Schenck, argued nearly five years earlier by Sekulow, that a 15 foot "floating buffer zone" preventing speech near people approaching an abortion clinic was unconstitutional.
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow served as lead counsel and presented oral arguments in a case involving the constitutionality of student-led prayer at high school sporting events. A public high school authorized student-led prayer to be performed at each school football game by the student chaplain who was elected by the student body.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits school officials from taking affirmative steps to facilitate prayer at school functions such as school football games. Several factors were key to the Court's ruling in Santa Fe: 1) the school board had historically been involved in prayer at school functions; 2) the school board adopted a policy allowing students to vote on whether to have an invocation or message before football games; and 3) the policy also allowed students to elect the student who would give the invocation or message at each football game during the school year. The Court concluded that the school district "failed to divorce itself from the religious content in the invocations." The Court also found the majoritarian selection process problematic and held that the prayers offered at football games bore the imprint of the State. The court did conclude however that "nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by this Court prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the schoolday."
Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women
In a major victory for pro-life organizers, the Supreme Court determined that a federal racketeering law could not be used against pro-life demonstrators for their nonviolent protests. The National Organization for Women (NOW) filed a suit alleging that pro-life supporters had engaged in "a pattern of racketeering activity" in a conspiracy to shut down abortion clinics in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute (RICO) – a federal statute targeting drug dealers and organized crime. ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow served as Counsel of Record for Operation Rescue in this case.
In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court concluded that pro-life demonstrators were not racketeers engaged in extortion and that the RICO statute could not be used against them. The Supreme Court forcefully rejected the argument that pro-life demonstrators were racketeers engaged in extortion. This was the largest concerted effort on the part of pro-abortion forces to silence the pro-life movement. The decision removed a cloud that had been hanging over the pro-life movement for 15 years, allowing pro-life organizations to operate free of the fear of criminal penalty.
McConnell v. FEC
The ACLJ represented a group of minors whose right to contribute to political campaigns was denied by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which prohibited individuals 17 years old or younger from making political campaign contributions. ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow participated in oral arguments in this case before the Supreme Court of the United States on September 8, 2003, asking the high court to let stand the decision of a special panel that had considered the case and ruled in favor of allowing minors to contribute to campaigns. On December 10, 2003, the Supreme Court returned a unanimous decision, upholding the panel's decision concerning the unconstitutional restriction on the free speech of minors. The Court held that "minors enjoy the protection of the First Amendment." The Court also held, "Limitations on the amount that an individual may contribute to a candidate or political committee impinge on the protected freedoms of expression and association."
This decision has implications far broader than political campaigns. The court reiterated the constitutional principle that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." It, once again, re-established that students are, in fact, protected on their school campuses for free speech, including religious activities.
Gentala v. City of Tucson
In an important equal access case, the ACLJ successfully fought on behalf of a group of citizens who applied to use a public park for a National Day of Prayer event. The city officials agreed to let them use the park for free but charged a fee for use of the amplification equipment. This fee was waived for other similar groups. However, our clients were singled out for unequal treatment because of their message.
Following its decision in Good News Club v. Milford Central School, the Supreme Court vacated a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against our client and ordered the trial court to reconsider the case in light of the Good News Club decision. Finally, after six years of litigation, on November 20, 2003, the federal district court held that the City of Tucson's discriminatory treatment of Mr. Gentala based on his religion must end because it infringed upon his right to equal access to a public park.
Locke v. Davey
ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow served as lead counsel and presented oral arguments in a case involving the free exercise rights of a college student who was denied a state scholarship because he declared his major to be pastoral studies. The majority decision determined that Washington's policy prohibiting state scholarship funds from being used to assist students who pursue a degree in religious studies from a religious perspective is constitutional. However, the decision does not prohibit states from restructuring scholarship programs to permit the pursuit of a degree in devotional theology.
Therefore, while Congress or a State can extend funding to institutions and individuals pursuing religious means without violating the Establishment Clause, should they choose to place restrictions on funding for religious organizations or individuals pursuing religious means, such restrictions will not violate the Free Exercise Clause. In other words, the State is not required to make scholarship funds available for religious studies; but if it chooses to do so, it is a constitutionally permissible use of government funds.
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow
The American Center for Law and Justice filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court on behalf of nearly 70 members of Congress and more than 260,000 Americans asking the high court to uphold the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance and the phrase "One nation under God." The ACLJ's brief urged the court to reject the lawsuit challenging the Pledge arguing that Michael Newdow, the California atheist who initially brought the suit, did not have legal standing to make the challenge.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court, did just that - dismissed the case saying that Newdow did not have legal standing to file the suit and removed the decision of the federal appeals court which ruled the Pledge was unconstitutional. This decision allowed the Pledge of Allegiance to remain as a symbol of patriotism and our nation's heritage.
TIME Magazine: Sekulow is one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in America; ACLJ is a "powerful counterweight to the liberal American Civil Liberties Union"
The February 5, 2005 issue of Time Magazine named Jay Sekulow as one of the "25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America." Looking over Sekulow's body of work and ACLJ's impact on Constitutional law, the articles states: "His Washington-based American Center for Law & Justice has argued and won several high-profile religious-freedom cases, including Supreme Court decisions that allowed Bible-study clubs on public-school campuses and that protect the right of anti-abortion demonstrators to rally outside abortion clinics."
The article goes on to call the ACLJ "a powerful counterweight to the liberal American Civil Liberties Union."
BusinessWeek: ACLJ is "leading advocacy group for religious freedom"
The April 25, 2005 issue of BusinessWeek called the ACLJ "the leading advocacy group for religious freedom." The article opens, "Jay Sekulow is best known as the nation's top legal advocate for all causes Christian." It noted that "Sekulow has argued a dozen cases before the Supreme Court." Several of the landmark cases Sekulow argued before the Supreme Court had already become part of the legal landscape in the area of religious liberty litigation. In the Mergens case (decided in 1990), Sekulow cleared the way for public school students to form Bible clubs and religious organizations on their school campuses. In the Lamb's Chapel case (decided in 1993), Sekulow defended the free speech rights of religious groups, ensuring that they be treated equally with respect to the use of public facilities.
The article goes on to chronicle Sekulow's active role in battling to see conservative judges placed on the federal bench, judges who stick "to the letter and intent of the Constitution and ignore shifting cultural mores, international law, popular opinion, and other outside influences."
Van Orden v. Perry
By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court on June 27, 2005 overturned a federal appeals court clearing the way for the constitutional display of thousands of monuments that have been in place across America. The decision came in a case in Texas where the Fraternal Order of Eagles donated a Ten Commandments monument which has been in place outside the state capitol in Austin since 1961. The ACLJ filed an amicus brief at the high court asking the Justices to overturn a lower court decision declaring the monument unconstitutional. In its decision, the high court said the Eagles monument was constitutionally permissible.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who cast the deciding vote in favor of upholding the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments display, cited the ACLJ's amicus brief as an example of the scholarly debate taking place in support of the proposition that "the Ten Commandments played a significant role in the development of our Nation's foundational documents." The four-justice plurality concluded that the display merely represented the nation's tradition of recognizing the Ten Commandments' historical meaning, stating that "simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the establishment clause."
Gonzales v. Carhart
On April 18, 2007 the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the national ban on partial-birth abortions with a 5-4 decision. Congress had approved a national ban on the procedure. The law was challenged in three separate cases in the federal court system in Nebraska, New York, and California. In all three cases, the ban was declared unconstitutional. The high court reviewed this case out of Nebraska, along with a separate one from California. The ACLJ, which has been involved in defending the national partial-birth abortion ban since its passage by Congress, supported the government's position defending the ban and represented nearly 80 Members of Congress and more than 320,000 Americans in an amicus brief filed with the high court.
The Supreme Court upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her dissent noted the magnitude of this victory for the pro-life cause, stating that the Court majority's "hostility to the right Roe and Casey secured [i.e. abortion] is not concealed." This is a resounding victory that will have a significant impact on the fight for life.
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life
In a 5-4 decision issued June 25, 2007, the Supreme Court of the United States loosened limits on election advertising saying a pro-life group should have been permitted to air ads in the final months leading up to a 2004 election. In the consolidated cases of FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, the high court concluded that a key provision of a campaign finance law violated the group's First Amendment rights and unreasonably limits speech.
In an amicus brief filed with the high court on behalf of itself and Focus on the Family, the ACLJ urged the high court to remove the prohibition of grassroots lobbying organizations from taking part in issue advertising leading up to an election. In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts cited the Brief of the ACLJ in support of the issue advocacy ads being allowed to air within the 30 and 60 day periods. While the Justices stopped short of overturning the troubling provision, they did acknowledge that the pro-life speech in this case was wrongfully censored. This decision was widely praised as a significant step forward for the free speech rights.
Chicago Tribune: ACLJ has "led the way" in Christian legal advocacy
The September 5, 2007 edition of the Chicago Tribune recognized the outstanding work of the American Center for Law and Justice for liberty and freedom in America and around the world. The article called the ACLJ "a leader in the flourishing field of Christian legal advocacy that … is … determined to see its views prevail in the nation's courts and, ultimately, its culture." The article concluded that under the direction of Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow the ACLJ has "led the way" in Christian legal advocacy by delivering what it called, "polished presentations inside the highest courts in the land."
The article noted that the ACLJ's work "cover[s] a broad range of religious issues, from defending a Texas high school's practice of prayer at football games to an Illinois pharmacist's right not to dispense drugs that violate his religious beliefs," and defends religious liberties which are continually "under attack by those who want to expunge all religious reference from public life." It even pointed out that opponents of the ACLJ respect its prestige, quoting Barry Lynn, the Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, as saying "They're a very, very significant player in constitutional law, particularly regarding the 1st Amendment."
U.S. v. Williams
By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the constitutionality of the PROTECT Act of 2003, a federal law that provides prosecutors with another tool to combat the pandering or promotion of child pornography. On May 19, 2008, the Supreme Court held that the statute "raises no constitutional problems whatever" and rejected arguments that the PROTECT Act violates the First Amendment. The Court stated, "In sum, we hold that offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment." The high court's decision overturns a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which declared a provision of the Act unconstitutional.
ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow called the Supreme Court decision "a very sound and reasoned decision that is long overdue." The ACLJ filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court representing itself and 18 Members of Congress - including several co-sponsors of the Act. The ACLJ amicus brief supported the government's position and urged the high court to uphold the constitutionality of the measure.
Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles
On January 5, 2009, the American Center for Law and Justice began representing a former employee of the Planned Parenthood (PP) affiliate in Los Angeles, who is now a federal whistleblower, in a multi-million dollar fraud case against PP affiliates in California. The federal False Claims Act (FCA) forbids government contractors from submitting "false or fraudulent" claims for payment. The FCA also authorizes private individuals to bring suit against the offenders to recover the fraudulently-obtained funds.
This case alleges that PP affiliates in California illegally marked up the supposed cost of various birth control drugs when seeking government reimbursement, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of overbilling – at taxpayer expense. State audits in both California and Washington State have found PP affiliates guilty of overbilling. After winning a significant victory in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing the trial court's decision to dismiss the suit, we continue representing our client as this case goes to trial. This is the largest lawsuit filed against Planned Parenthood to date, and a verdict in our client's favor in this case could deal a crippling blow to the nation's largest provider of abortions in California and around the country.
Pleasant Grove v. Summum
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark First Amendment ruling on February 25, 2009 clearing the way for governments to accept permanent monuments of their choosing in public parks. The ACLJ represented the Utah city of Pleasant Grove when a group challenged a display of the Ten Commandments in a city park.
ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow presented oral arguments to the high court on November 12, 2008. The ACLJ asked the high court to overturn a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that ordered the city to accept and display a monument from a self-described church called Summum because the city displayed a Ten Commandments monument donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles. The ACLJ successfully argued that the lower court ruling was flawed - a ruling that said private parties have a First Amendment right to put up the monuments of their choosing in a city park, unless the city takes away all other donated monuments. The Supreme Court held that the Ten Commandments display was government speech; and as such, the government could choose its message, allowing local governments to choose what monuments they will accept as opposed to being inundated with ridiculous monuments.
FCC v. Fox Television Stations
The Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the Federal Communications Commission acted within its statutory power when the regulatory agency declared the use of expletives during the broadcast of a nationally-televised awards show indecent. This decision overruled a prior decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which ruled against the FCC saying that the agency's decision was wrong and that it overstepped its authority. The FCC had asked the high court to overturn the lower court decision.
The ACLJ represented itself and 18 Members of Congress in filing an amicus brief with the high court. The brief supported the FCC position and contended that the indecency policy affords children greater protection from the harm associated by exposure to indecent material without infringing on the constitutional rights of adults. This was a significant victory against the pervasiveness of indecency over the television airwaves.
Unshaken: A True Story of Faith and Hope documentary released
Unshaken: A True Story of Faith and Hope is the ACLJ's documentary shot on location in Israel and includes interviews with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Shimon Peres, and leading military officials. Unshaken tells the story of the hope and faith of one family who paid the ultimate price for running a Christian bookstore in the Gaza Strip and their journey out of Islamic Gaza to the safety of Israel.
This compelling film was also the first to be released by the new ACLJ Films. Founded to be a partner in ACLJ's mission of protecting free speech and religious liberty across the globe, ACLJ Films has gone on to release several more movies. Each new documentary has not only told the important personal stories of individuals struggling for life, religious freedom and freedom of speech but also informs the public with revealing facts from experts and officials around the world.
Jerusalem office is launched
In 2009, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) opened an office in Israel. Located in Jerusalem, this physical expansion has allowed the ACLJ to increase its already significant legal efforts in defense of Israel's right to exist including defending Israel's right to sovereignty and the right of every free nation to defend itself from terrorists before the International Criminal Court.
The Jerusalem office has facilitated the ACLJ's legal work in Israel as well as providing an educational opportunity for legal students to study international law, furthering the ACLJ's goal of raising up future legal advocates for free speech and religious liberty. The ACLJ's staff in Jerusalem includes not only highly skilled Israeli attorneys, as well as knowledgeable members of the Israeli military who complement the ACLJ's already extensive national security team.
New York City office opens
In 2009, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) opened an office in New York City. This physical expansion into New York has facilitated the ACLJ's increased legal presence in one of the most influential cities in the world. The ACLJ has been able to defend the memory of 9/11 first responders by opposing the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque on the site where landing gear from one of the planes the terrorists crashed in the World Trade Center landed. This office has also served as our base of operations in defending pro-life pregnancy centers in New York City against a law pushed for by pro-abortion groups as an attempt to put these lifesaving groups out of business.
The New York office has also served at the center of the ACLJ's work before the United Nations, which has its main offices in New York City. The ACLJ's international affiliate the European Centre for Law and Justice has held special Consultative Status before the United Nations (U.N.)/ECOSOC since 2007 and regularly submits reports, files religious liberties requests, and appears before the international organization.
Center for Law & Justice – Pakistan Opened
The Center for Law & Justice – Pakistan (CLJ-P), located in Lahore, Pakistan, is an affiliate of the ACLJ and provides legal representation to those persecuted for their faith in Pakistan. Opened on July 1, 2009, the CLJ-P is already recognized in Pakistan as one of the top Christian organizations dealing with persecution and representing persecuted Christians. In several cases, the office has been able to stop aggression against Christians and rescue Christians from illegal detention. The office represents Christians falsely implicated in theft, robbery, and blasphemy cases.
The CLJ-P faces unique challenges in Pakistan due to the fact there is little of rule of law, rampant corruption, religious conflict between Christians and Muslims, police bias in favor of Muslims, and bribes. Being mindful of these challenges and difficulties, the CLJ-P is committed to excelling in professionalism and building its capacity to represent those persecuted for their faith. CLJ-P is committed to the continued fight for religious equality in all aspects of the law. As a long-term goal, the CLJ-P hopes to lobby for an amendment in the Blasphemy Laws of Pakistan and eliminate discrimination based on religion or caste.
Townhall Magazine recognizes Sekulow as "one of the top lawyers for religious freedom in the United States"
The April 2009 issue of Townhall Magazine named ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow to its "Townhall of Fame," calling him "one of the top lawyers for religious freedom in the United States."
Highlighting Sekulow's first case before the Supreme Court representing Jews for Jesus, a messianic Jewish group, the article explained: "The dispute itself revolved around the proselytizing activities that Jews for Jesus engaged in at various public places, including airports. Los Angeles International Airport grew exasperated with the group's solicitation of travelers and banned 'all First Amendment activities' on its grounds. When one of the members of Jews for Jesus was arrested for defying the prohibition, the organization sued, and the case made its way to the high court. Though Sekulow wasn't a seasoned litigator, he proved a wise one in his read on the case. 'I ran the case on a free speech basis, which was a remarkably different approach,' he says. 'Usually cases like this were argued on free exercise of religion grounds, but I thought that First Amendment protections of free speech gave us more to work with.' Sekulow won a unanimous victory in his first appearance before the court. His success assured it would not be his last."
African Centre for Law and Justice (AfrCLJ) Launched
On January 5, 2010, the African Centre for Law and Justice (AfrCLJ) opened its doors in Zimbabwe. The AfrCLJ was created to assist building a sustainable nation, to educate the nationals about a Christian worldview, to influence the rule of law as it develops under a new Constitution, to provide practical training workshops for the uneducated, and to facilitate healing and reconciliation. In this developing nation, the AfrCLJ is uniquely positioned to help build a foundation for the rule of law that is based on God-given rights and liberties. The AfrCLJ's mission is "to facilitate, protect and defend people's constitutional rights and religious freedoms through education, promulgation, conciliation, compassion, and litigation where necessary."
Although the AfrCLJ's work in Zimbabwe primarily focuses on the country's constitution-making process, it also provides legal training and legal research facilities to attorneys throughout the country. The AfrCLJ has taken proactive steps to assist orphanages and single mother centers as well. The AfrCLJ also sponsored a country-wide cleanup campaign to rid the streets of discarded trash. Dozens of local churches, aid groups, and government agencies joined in the initiative. After a national loss of skilled manpower in Zimbabwe, the AfrCLJ participated in economic empowerment initiatives, provided nourishment in a dilapidated community, and provided financials assistance to train up a new generation of leaders.
East African Centre for Law and Justice (EACLJ) Launched
The East Africa Centre for Law and Justice, based out of Nairobi, Kenya, is committed to ensuring that freedom of religion remains a preeminent human right for all East Africans. With new or proposed constitutions in many of the East African countries, the EACLJ is positioned to affect at a foundational level the constitutional development of religious liberties. Bishop Mark Kariuki of the Deliverance Church in Kenya, who has always had a passion for the defense of religious rights and freedoms in Kenya, found that his engagement of this issue always put his church in the line of fire. Through divine appointment, Bishop Kariuki met ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow. Bishop Kariuki realized that having an organization that specifically looks out for religious groups' interest would be beneficial to the Body of Christ, and would allow the pastors and bishops to concentrate on church matters.
After much discussion and planning, the ACLJ partnered with Bishop Kariuki to create the EACLJ in Kenya. The EACLJ went right to work educating the people, already in the midst of forming a new constitution, about the need for protections for religious liberties. The EACLJ advocates for the rights that God endowed all mankind with and takes a proactive role in ensuring the products of the National Assembly, Judiciary and other government actors do not further erode the rights and liberties for people of faith.
Partnership with Handong International Law School in South Korea Began
On December 10, 2010, the ACLJ formed a strategic partnership with Handong International Law School in South Korea - a program designed to provide both education and training for law students in U.S. and international law.
At a time when Christians face increasing discrimination, violence, and even death for practicing their faith, it is critical to provide training and experience for the next generation of defenders - attorneys committed to protecting religious freedom. Located in Pohang, South Korea, this office serves as another strategic location for defending clients around the globe.
Salazar v. Buono
The ACLJ filed an amicus brief in support of the constitutionality of the Mohave Desert cross on Sunrise Rock. The war memorial in question was first erected in 1934 by Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) to honor fallen service members in a remote area that is now part of a federal preserve. Congress eventually designated the cross and an area of adjoining property as a national World War I memorial and gave the land to the VFW to be maintained. An individual who was "offended" by the memorial sued to have it removed. Our argument focuses on the illegitimacy of "offended observer standing" under the Article III standing doctrine.
The Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision that had struck down a federal law that preserved a federal veterans' memorial by ensuring that it would become privately owned. A three-Justice plurality held that the plaintiff had standing to seek enforcement of an injunction obtained several years earlier in the litigation, but did not address the issue of whether offense at a religious symbol's presence on federal land gives rise to standing because the government had declined to appeal a previous ruling dealing with that issue. On the merits, however, the plurality rejected the lower court's analysis of the secular purpose and effect of Congress' actions. Two other Justices agreed with the ACLJ that the Plaintiff lacked standing. The result of this case was that the Mohave Desert cross was constitutionally permitted to stand.
African Centre for Law and Justice participates in constitution-making process for nation of Zimbabwe
The African Centre for Law and Justice (AfrCLJ) has been an integral part of Zimbabwe's constitution-making process. On June 16, 2010, the same day that the Government of National Unity officially launched the Constitutional Outreach Program, a team from the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), led by the ACLJ Director of Policy and International Relations, Jordan Sekulow, arrived in Harare, Zimbabwe. In collaboration with the ACLJ- Zimbabwe Team, their objective was to conduct a series of meetings with government officials and key business and church leaders in the country, as well as to evaluate and consolidate their humanitarian efforts in vulnerable sections of society. The meetings all proved to be very constructive and provided insight into the progress in Zimbabwe and the potential for reconciliation, restoration, and reconstruction.
The ACLJ team met with leaders from all three of Zimbabwe's main political parties, including the Prime Minister, Vice President, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Constitutional and Parliamentary Affairs, and Minister of Tourism. The AfrCLJ's participation in the constitution-making process has focused on helping to bring restoration to the country and preserving peace throughout the long and arduous drafting process. The AfrCLJ is hopeful that through continued efforts, Zimbabwe will have a new constitution that protects life, liberty, and freedom for all of its citizens.
Choosing Life documentary released
In 2010, ACLJ Films released Choosing Life, a full-length documentary chronicling the history of the pro-life movement. It is one of the most powerful and influential movements in America today. Intensified by the Supreme Courts landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, the battle to protect the life of the unborn has spanned decades, yet still remains one of the most critical and provocative issues of our day.
This is the untold story of the pro-life movement from the perspective of the people who lived it. This powerful documentary brings new light to the years of struggle, the victories, and the setbacks as chronicled by pro-life leaders who waged the legal, legislative, and public relations battles to protect the sanctity of human life. This compelling story of the pro-life movement includes never-before-seen video of protests and demonstrations from the archives of ACLJ Films and features interviews with pro-life leaders such as ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, and Rev. Rob Schenck of Faith and Action. Choosing Life provides a unique behind-the-scenes look at history in the making of a movement that transformed the nation.
The Export: Radical Islam's Map to the End of Democracy documentary released
In 2011, the ACLJ Films released THE EXPORT: Radical Islam's Map to the End of Democracy, a feature-length film, in order to educate the public on the dangerous threat that radical Islam poses to the Middle East, Israel, America, and the world. It exposes the truth about radical Islam and Sharia law and features hard-hitting footage of the threat posed by fundamental Islamic nations like Iran and its puppet terrorist organization Hamas.
The ACLJ team traveled with ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow from Washington, D.C., to New York, Jerusalem, and Tel Aviv, as well as to an Israeli military base on the border of Lebanon in order to deliver in-depth analysis from the ground. This powerful documentary features expert commentary from senior Israeli officials as well as former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, U.S. Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, and others.
Shari'ah Law: Radical Islam's Threat to the U.S. Constitution booklet released
In 2011, the ACLJ released Shari'ah Law: Radical Islam's Threat to the U.S. Constitution, a booklet about the threat of Shari'ah law infiltrating the judicial system of the United States. In this timely booklet, ACLJ attorneys show how Shari'ah law is wholly incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. As the booklet explains, "We are now seeing that some Muslim communities in the United States are seeking to be governed by Islamic Shari'ah, which is not only foreign to this country and not enacted by the proper authorities, but is also incompatible with the existing law of this land and, in many respects, contrary to natural justice.… Islamic Shari'ah is different from other religious law … [i]t encompasses all aspects of life, from crimes and punishments to personal family matters and mere greetings to passersby."
The booklet provides a side-by-side comparison between the principles of the U.S. Constitution and Shari'ah law. For example, while the U.S. Constitution requires "due process" in the courts and "equal protection of the laws," under Shari'ah law, a "woman's testimony is equal to half that of a man['s]" in court. This booklet is a powerful resource in protecting our constitutional system of law from the assault of Islamic Shari'ah law.
The Jordan Sekulow Show launched
Live from Washington D.C. where it is heard daily on WAVA 780 AM and throughout the nation, The Jordan Sekulow Show takes the edge and immediacy of Twitter to talk radio with cutting analysis of today's politics and media landscape.
The host, Jordan Sekulow, is an attorney and the Director of Policy and International Operations for the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), contributor to the Washington Post, and one of the most followed conservatives on Twitter. The show regularly features elected officials and conservative leaders from the U.S. and across the globe.
Victory for Israel at the International Criminal Court
When Israel defended its borders from terrorist attacks in 2009, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) launched an inquiry into whether Israel committed war crimes against the Palestinian Authority (PA). In an attempt to have Israeli soldiers charged with war crimes they did not commit, PA officials lodged a declaration in The Hague accepting ICC jurisdiction over "the territory of Palestine." Yet, under the Rome Statute, which governs the ICC, only "States" are permitted to freely accede to ICC jurisdiction.
Beginning July 9, 2009, the ACLJ aggressively engaged this issue with the ICC. Jay Sekulow, ACLJ Chief Counsel, presented key legal arguments before the International Criminal Court in defense of Israel and the Israeli people who were victims of terrorism not war criminals. On April 3, 2012, the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC agreed with the ACLJ that the PA was not a state and thus could not accede jurisdiction to the ICC. The Chief Prosecutor of the ICC refused to pursue any potential charges against Israeli soldiers, ending a three- year battle to protect Israel's right to defend itself and its citizens.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


After a couple of emails to the folks at Spares2Repair they helped my find the correct power board for my old Samsung TV. Luckily they had one in stock and I ordered it straight away. It was packaged really well and came in an anti-static bag. It's really easy to swap out the old board with the not so old board and boom - everything is working again. The TV is used by the wife whilst ironing so it didn't make any sense to buy a new one. For a small £35 outlay I have fully working TV again. Happy days. Big thanks to all at spares2repair!
My Samsung Smart tv went 'bang ' and the fuse in the plug blew. Needless to say replacing the fuse didn't fix it. After looking on Youtube it seemed likely to be the power supply board. Getting the back off was more difficult than expected - after removing all the screws it was very tight but just needed brute force. The new board arrived promptly and it all worked perfectly. A new TV for £30 !!
grazie per la vostra collaborazione. Siete stati ok .continuero' ad effettuare ordini.eccellente.
thanks for your collaboration. You were ok. I will continue to place orders. Excellent.
If you know what part you want, get it here, it is cheap, quick and effective! I'd ordered and received the part well before I even received a reply to my query to the local recommended Samsung repair company. Would be good if you could use packaging that goes through the letterbox tho. Other than that brilliant service.
Hello, thank you for the review and feedback. We have looked at thinner boxes that would fit in a letterbox, but after testing we decided that we couldn't get them strong enough to protect the boards we would send.
Great service and prompt delivery even across the othe side of the world. Great to get a follow email to make sure everything was ok. Great job.
Dear dears, fixed my Sony TV today with the part supplied. Up and running again at a fraction of the cost I would have had to meet had I used my local TV supplier. Thank you very much for your excellent service and congratulations on you good work recycling good electronic components. Absolutely first class. Regards and best wishes. Charles Helps, Hayling Island.
Very prompt response to my order. Item packaged securely and arrived on one piece. I ordered a board for my luxor TV and fitted it myself. TV is now working perfectly and I'm relieved i don't have to spend money to buy another TV.
I ordered a PSU for a Samsung 32 LED tv.
Arrived 3 days later to N Ireland.
Worked treat, delighted with the service.
Здравствуйте . Блок питания получил . Благодарю за доставку , все хорошо работает. В дальнейшем буду работать с Вами.
Hello . Power supply received. Thank you for the delivery, everything works well. In the future I will work with you.


2012 mustang cobra jet specs muscle cars news and pictures. 2016 mustang cobra jet 1000hp factory race car hot cars. ford shelby mustang cobra jet personal vehicle wrap project. 1968 ford mustang gt fastback r code 428 cobra jet. 1969 mustang mach 1 cobra jet 428 classic throttle shop. twin turbo cobra jet engine pics ford mustang forum. ramey motorsports performance trends big block 2010 mustang. flywheel manual transmission mustang 428 cobra jet. ford mustang history 1987 shnack com. drift alliance fox body mixes it up with gang of beaters.
Mustang Cobra Jet - 1973 Mustang - history,restoration,how-to's and parts info.


text:
Q: WSO2 restrict scope by client application I'm using WSO2 IS and API Manager and would like to restrict access token scope acquiring by client.
For instance, client_key_1 is able to request access token only with scope_for_client_key_1 scope and client_key_2 is able to request access token with scope_for_client_key_2. But if client_key_1 will try to request a token with scope_for_client_key_2, then it'll receive 403 or something like that.
Is there a way to configure it in WSO2?

A: You have 2 ways to achieve this. But since this is not OOTB supported by WSO2, you need to write some custom java code.
1) Introducing a new scope issuer with a new scope prefix.
Default role based scope issuer is here. You can extend it and write your own scope issuer with a new scope prefix. Within the implementation, you can check for Client key mapping as well. Then you can set the new prefix to all your scopes.
If your jar is not OSGi, add the jar to <APIM_HOME>/repository/components/lib/ and your class will be automatically picked. If it is OSGi, add the jar to <APIM_HOME>/repository/components/dropins/.
2) Customize default scope issuer, if you don't want to use a prefix to your scopes
Customize default class, build the jar and patch the pack, by adding it to <APIM_HOME>/repository/components/patches/patch0001/.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Fix It | My 2001 Volvo S60 moon/sunroof won't close and is halfway open.
My 2001 Volvo S60 moon/sunroof won't close and is halfway open.
Q.My 2001 Volvo S60 moon/sunroof won't close and is halfway open. Fuse is good switch won't work. How can I manually get it closed until it can be repaired.
Answer Hi there now on your car there is no easy way manually to close the sunroof, but what I will tell you to do is put the key in the drviers door and lock and unlock the car about 5 times do this a few times and this will help reset the computers and it may let you close the sunroof after the on-board computers are reset as some do go to sleep at times, also you can try to unhook the battery and hold the cables together for about 20min.
This will also let the computers reset but the key thing works well.


text:
Matt Roloff Shocks 'LPBW' Fans With Instagram Post
'Little People, Big World' Fans Go Off on Matt Roloff's Latest Instagram Post
Matt made a major announcement about Roloff Farms.
By Good Housekeeping Editors Published: May 15, 2022
Fans of the hit TLC show Little People, Big World have seen the ups and downs when it comes to operating Roloff Farms.
As many viewers know, Matt and Amy Roloff purchased the farm over 30 years ago and raised their children — Jeremy, Zach, Molly and Jacob — and their businesses on it. It's been the backdrop for the show, and during the latest season, when Matt bought Amy out of her share of the farm, was one of the family's main storylines.
So, it's only natural for fans to be shocked after Matt revealed on Instagram this week that he was selling part of the farm. "Well the cats out of the bag. I want to make sure You all hear the big news directly from me.. All of @rolofffarms has brought me and our family great joy for the past 30+ years! Today 16 acres of the farms 109 acres go up for sale including our original family home and bright red barn. It's a tiny bit scary but mostly exciting. ….its time to move toward the next season of life," he wrote.
While it's just part of the farm — the north side to be exact — it's still clear that things are about to change in a major way for the family.
"Admittedly this makes me sad. Wishing your whole family peace with this direction," one person wrote on the post. "I'm shocked," another said. "I think it's sad," someone else wrote.
Many were also super quick to comment that they wish one of Matt and Amy's kids would have purchased the land. In past seasons, Jeremy had been vocal about wanting to run the family farm, and most recently, Zach made his dad a deal to buy it. But as we see in the new teaser for season 22, that deal fell through and there appears to be a lot of tension between the family now.
First Look: This Season on Little People Big World!
So far, no one else from the family has commented on the news, but we're hopeful everyone will find peace with this decision.


text:
Collaborative Robot ROI Gets Calculated Task-by-Task
Measuring the ROI on a collaborative robot acquisition requires comparing of human cost to the total cost of the machine over time.
Rob Spiegel
ATX East - New York
With the costs of robots coming down – particularly collaborative robots – the return on investment (ROI) is an easier reach. Yet that doesn't mean it's an easy reach. While many tout the value of a machine that can work 24/7 and doesn't take vacations, that doesn't necessarily translate into ROI.
The ability to earn back the investment in a robot depends on the type of work the robot can complete, and that value of that work. At Amazon, warehouse managers found that human workers were more efficient at packing boxes, but robots beat humans at gathering the products that need to be packed. If the company had deployed robots for packing, they may have missed the ROI.
Value Beyond Dollars
Some robot deployments are determined by what the robot can do that would endanger a human. While that value my not be in dollars, it is value. "The challenge of getting ROI out of a robot depends on what value the customer places on the process and what the objective is," Brian Dillman, area sales manager at Universal Robots, told Design News. "The goal might be to remove the person for safety reasons or to avoid repetitive motion issues, thus letting the robot do the dangerous work. The goal might be to reallocate the person to a more value-added role."
Factors such as productivity or the ability to work in conditions that are inhospitable to human workers also comes into play when determining the value of a robot. "Other ways to get ROI from a robot include implementing automation to increase productivity," said Dillman. "That can include adding a second shift of production in a lights-out environment. Or you may want to bring work in-house that had been outsourced. Bringing it in-house can offer value in the ability to control cost, control processes, or control lead time."
Turning Laborers into Technicians
The question about whether robots require a team of skilled workers has been answered by advances in configurability. A new generation of robots can be configured for work by technicians rather than programmers. "Robots don't require skilled workers," said Dillman. "Quite the contrary. Operators can easily program the robots designed by companies such as Universal Robots. That's part of the value proposition of these new robots.
Dillman points out that robot deployments do not usually deliver a net reduction of workers. "Robots don't replace workers; they allow workers to upgrade their posts at the company from laborer to technician," said Dillman. "This change may or may not speed production, but speed is not necessarily part of the equation."
READ MORE ARTICLES ON ROBOTICS:
With Isaac, Nvidia Trains Robots in Virtual Environments
Grippers Take Center Stage at Rethink Robotics
Universal Robots Academy Offers Do-It-Yourself Robot Programming
In order to calculate the ROI on using the robot to replace human labor, it's necessary to determine exactly what tasks the robots will take over. "You must know what tasks are being done and you need to know what the costs-to-operate are with people in order to calculate the ROI," said Dillman. He noted that the ROI for robotics investment can't be determined in general terms. The equation must be done on a task-by-task basis. "Calculating the ROI in general terms is not valid. You need specific cases along with resource comparisons."
To learn more about calculating the ROI of robotics investment, you can attend Brian Dillman's session, Getting the Best ROI Out of a Collaborative Robot, at the Atlantic Design and Manufacturing show in New York, June 13-15.
Images courtesy of Universal Robots.
Rob Spiegel has covered automation and control for 17 years, 15 of them for Design News. Other topics he has covered include supply chain technology, alternative energy, and cyber security. For 10 years, he was owner and publisher of the food magazine Chile Pepper.
CAN ROBOTS FILL THE SKILLS GAP?
With labor costs increasing and robot costs declining, collaborative robots have become an alternative to human labor in some cases. They are becoming less expensive, more flexible, and increasingly filling a skills and cost niche. But does that mean you'll get an easy ROI? Check out Brian Dillman's session, Getting the Best ROI out of a Collaborative Robot. Register today for the Atlantic Design and Manufacturing show, June 13-15 in NYC.
Beckhoff Automation Offers OPC UA Integration in TwinCAT Scope Software


text:
Smart Robots Can Now Work Right Next to Auto Workers
It used to be too dangerous to have a person work alongside a robot. But at a South Carolina BMW plant, next-generation robots are changing that.
by Will Knight
BMW has taken a huge step toward revolutionizing the role of robots in automotive manufacturing by having a handful of robots work side-by-side with human workers at its plant in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
I, auto-worker: A robot works in unprecedented proximity to humans at BMW's manufacturing plant in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
As a new generation of safer, more user-friendly robots emerges, BMW's man-machine collaboration could be among the first of many examples of robots taking on new human tasks, and working more closely alongside humans. While many fear that this trend could put people out of work (see "How Technology Is Destroying Jobs"), proponents argue it will instead make employees more productive, relieving them of the most unpleasant and burdensome jobs.
Robots have been a part of automotive manufacturing for decades. The first industrial robot—a hulking 4,000-pound arm called the Unimate—attached die castings to car doors at a GM production line in 1961. Such manufacturing robots have been powerful and extremely precise, but it's never been safe for humans to work alongside them. As a result, a significant number of final assembly tasks, in auto plants and elsewhere, are still performed almost entirely by hand.
At BMW's South Carolina plant, robots made by the Danish company Universal Robots have broken through this barrier and are helping workers perform final door assembly. The robots are working with a door sealant that keeps sound and water out of the car, and is applied before the door casing is attached. "It's pretty heavy work because you have to roll this glue line to the door," says Stefan Bartscher, head of innovation at BMW. "If you do that several times a day, it's like playing a Wimbledon match."
According to Bartscher, final assembly robots will not replace human workers; they will extend their careers. "Our workers are getting older," Bartscher says. "The retirement age in Germany just rose from 65 to 67, and I'm pretty sure when I retire it'll be 72 or something. We actually need something to compensate and keep our workforce healthy, and keep them in labor for a long time. We want to get the robots to support the humans."
In recent years, robot manufacturers have realized that with the right software and safety controls, their products could be made to work in close proximity to humans. As a result, a new breed of more capable workplace robot is rapidly appearing.
One of the most prominent examples is Baxter, made by Rethink Robotics, a Boston-based company founded by the robotics pioneer Rodney Brooks. Baxter has a torso, a head, and two arms; it is safe to work alongside, and it can be taught to perform new tasks simply by moving its arms through an operation (see "This Robot Could Transform Manufacturing"). So far, Baxter has largely been deployed in small U.S. factories, where it helps package items moving along a conveyor. BMW's effort represents a more significant push into heavy-duty manufacturing.
BMW is testing even more sophisticated final assembly robots that are mobile and capable of collaborating directly with human colleagues. These robots, which should be introduced in the next few years, could conceivably hand their human colleague a wrench when he or she needs it. The company is developing the newer robots in collaboration with Julie Shah, a professor in MIT's department of aeronautics and astronautics. "Oftentimes, the robot will need to maneuver closely around people," says Shah. "It'll need to possibly straddle the moving floor—the actual assembly line; it'll need to track a person that is potentially standing on that assembly line and moving with it."
Shah's team has built robots capable of these tasks on a simulated production line at MIT. After the control software has been tested sufficiently at BMW's lab, the robot will be deployed on one of its real assembly lines. "It's a fantastic navigation and controls challenge, and it hasn't been solved before," Shah says.
TaggedArtificial Intelligence, Robots
Will Knight


text:
Q: Minor allele frequency matching? I have a list of SNPs that I have already obtained their proxy SNPs with MAF and LD from 1000 genomes pilot 1.    I want to know when everybody mentions about MAF matching, do they need to be exactly the same?
For example, the SNP of interest has MAF 0.35, if the proxy SNP has MAF 0.37, can it be used as a good proxy? Given LD of the two >0.8
Do have absolutely have to choose a proxy that has a MAF equals 0.35?

A: LD as measured by R-sq is dependent on MAF ie high R-squared implies MAFs are similar. See:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18572214
So, very high R-squared usually means MAF between the SNPs are similar.
Also, selection of proxy SNPs is typically dependent on LD measure only. As mentioned MAF is "incorporated" into the calculation, so matching for it is not necessary. If you have multiple proxies with same LD, then choose one with most similar MAF.


text:
Fælledparken er en folkepark på Østerbro i København, med et areal på 0,5 km2 (ca. 59 ha), der blev anlagt i årene 1908-1914 af landskabsarkitekt Edvard Glæsel, ingeniørerne Svend Koch og O.K. Nobel i samarbejde med Københavns Kommune.

Den blev anlagt på den fælledgrund, der tidligere udgjorde de militære områder på Nørrefælled, Østerfælled og Blegdamsfælled. Trioen Koch, Nobel og Glæsel havde vundet en ud af to højeste præmier i en åben konkurrence om en "folke- og idrætspark" i 1905.

Fælledparkens tidligste periode
I 1893 indgik Københavns kommune og staten en aftale om en opdeling af arealerne, hvorved den nuværende Universitetsparken, Rigshospitalet og den tidligere Garderhusarkaserne tilfaldt staten. Både stat og kommune havde planer om at bebygge arealerne, men på grund af københavnernes stigende interesse for friluftsliv blev kommunens byggeplaner bremset.

Borgmester Jens Jensen, der havde været primus motor i etableringen af dette åndehul, plantede det første træ i parken 26. april 1909. Promenadevejen, der oprindeligt slyngede sig gennem parken fra Nørre Allé hele vejen til den nuværende Poul Henningsens Plads, blev i 1928 opkaldt efter Jens Jensen. Strækningen gennem parken nord for Østre Allé er i dag nedlagt, mens strækningen syd for blev omdøbt til Edel Sauntes Allé i 2009.

I tiden omkring 1. verdenskrig blev en strimmel af Fælledparken reserveret til randbebyggelse, og mange gullaschbaroner opførte her store palæer, der senere blev ambassader og advokatkontorer. Poul Henningsen var i Kritisk Revy stærkt kritisk over for de huse, der skød op langs Øster Allé og Blegdamsvej. Københavns Kommune havde mageskiftet dele af Fælledparken, nemlig Rigshospitalet og Niels Bohr Instituttets kommende arealer, mod selv at få en strimmel af Kongens Have til en udvidelse af Gothersgade. PH var kritisk over for denne kortsigtede skalten og valten med offentlige grunde.

Filosofgangen, populær blandt joggere, danner en ca. 1,2 km lang rundtur i den mindre nordlige del af parken og en cirka 1,7 km lang rundtur i den større sydlige del.

Fredning
Fælledparken blev fredet 1956. Fredningen skulle forhindre, at der blev snuppet flere bidder af fælleden, hvilket var sket med etableringen af randbebyggelsen (bl.a. Den Danske Frimurerorden (1927) og Niels Bohr Institutet (1920), med Rigshospitalet (1910 og 1970), med Rockefeller Instituttet (1928) og med Universitetsparken (1930'erne).

Anvendelse

Hestevæddeløb
De første organiserede hestevæddeløb i Danmark blev afviklet på fælleden i 1771 på initiativ af den engelskfødte Dronning Caroline Mathilde. Kongens og dronningens livlæge Struensee organiserede løbene. Efter afsløringen af Struensees forhold til dronningen og Struensees efterfølgende henrettelse i 1772 blev løbene forbudt.<ref name=kulturhis>{{Cite web |url=http://www.trav.dk/media/1130/dhv_kulturhistorie_web.pdf |title=Hestevæddeløbssportens kulturhistorie, Lars Donatzky |access-date= 5. december 2018 |archive-date= 6. december 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181206001902/https://www.trav.dk/media/1130/dhv_kulturhistorie_web.pdf |url-status=ok }}</ref>
I 1832 blev der igen afholdt løb på fælleden, men Treårskrigen satte en midlertidig stopper for de populære løb, bl.a. fordi  Christian August af Augustenborg som var den drivende, stod på oprørernes side under krigen.

Efter afslutningen på Treårskrigen blev løbene på fælleden genoptaget, og i 1859 fik Danmark sin egen godkendte jockeyklub, der blev stiftet under navnet "Dansk Galop (Foreningen Til Den Ædle Hesteavls Fremme)". En af medstifterne var den daværende Kronprins Christian. Det første autoriserede galopløb blev afviklet i 1867 og allerede i 1868 blev det tilladt at spille på hestene for at forbedre foreningens økonomi.

 Idrætsanlæg i og ved Fælledparken

Idræten holdt sit indtog på fælleden i 1860'ene. Den første cricketkamp mellem Jylland og København blev spillet på Østre Fælled i 1867 i øsende regnvejr.

KB begyndte i 1876 at spille langbold. Fodbold kom kort efter med klubben "Football Club", de to klubber trænede ved siden af hinanden på Blegdamsfælleden.

I 1908 bevilligede Københavns Borgerrepræsentation et stort beløb til anlæggelse af en idrætspark på 17 – 18 tønder land, men allerede da, havde B93 lejet 6 tønder land på Fælleden.

I anslutning til selve Fælledparken ligger dette idrætsanlæg med Østerbro Stadion (1912) og Danmarks nationalstadion, Parken (1911), hvor det danske fodboldlandshold og fodboldklubben F.C. København har hjemmebane. Områdets idrætsanlæg  benævntes Centralanlægget og omfattede også Idrætshuset (1914), Østerbro svømmehal (1930), ejendommen på Østerbrogade med Parkteatret, Parkteatrets restaurant og selskabslokaler, træningslokaler og skydebaner, samt frem til Parkens seneste ombyggning, B93s fodboldbanen ved Øster Allé og Per Henrik Lings Allé, samt den gamle hovedtribunen ved Per Henrik Lings Allé med fælledklublokaler og den nu nedlagte Østerbro Skøjtehal (1975-2008). Desutom havde B93 sine tennisbaner og tennishal (1911) som nu er ombygget til atletikhallen Sparta Hallen.

Med nedrivningen af Parkens gamle hovedtribunen af beton (D-tribunen), færdigbygget i 1955 og revet 2009, blev Fælledklubberne hjemløse under nogle år. Kommunen byggede derfor Fælledklubbernes klubhus, Fælledklubhuset, som blev færdig i december 2011. Huset indeholder omklædningsrum med sauna og en café med udsigt ud over Fælledparken. Huset er tegnet af Vilhelm Lauritzen A/S. Fodboldklubberne, Boldklubben Skjold, Boldklubben Heimdal, Østerbro Idræts-Forening, Handelsstandens Boldklub og Boldklubben Viktoria af 1900, træner og spiller kampe på de seks turneringsbaner og den ene kunstgræsbane i Fælledparken.

Den nye skatepark i Fælledparken overtog i 2009 den gamle skateparks plads. Fælledparkens Skatepark er inddelt i tre sværhedsgrader så alle kan gøre brug af parken.

Fælledparken bruges også til flere løbestævner. Bl.a. et af verdens største motionsløb: DHL-stafetten København med ca. 130.000 deltagere.

Under åren 2001-2012 kørtes Copenhagen Historic Grand Prix, et motorløb med veteranbiler, årligt på alléerne rundt om og i Fælledparken, arrangementet er nu flyttet til Bellahøj Park.

 Andre aktiviteter
Fælledparken årligt har 11 millioner besøgende og bruges året rundt til blandt andet:

 Gå-ture
 Solbadning
 Motionister
 Børnehaver, som besøger parkens legepladser
 TrafiklegepladsTrafiklegepladsen Fælledparken Citat "...På Trafiklegepladsen ved Gunnar Nu Hansens Plads kan børn lære at færdes i 'trafikken' i trygge rammer...", backup
 Festivaler som Karneval i København
 Koncerter

Fælledparkens sydlige del lagde indtil 2007 også græs til Flyvevåbnets redningshelikopter. Efter at have modtaget en større donation fra A.P. Møller og Hustru Chastine Mc-Kinney Møllers Fond til almene Formaal, har man nu opført en helikopterlandingsplads på Rigshospitalets tag, hvorefter der næppe bliver flere landinger i Fælledparken.

Politiske møder
Fællederne var i løbet af den sidste del af 1800-tallet blevet stadigt mere benyttet til forskellige møder, dyrskuer m.v. I denne periode begyndte arbejderbevægelsens traditionsrige møder på fællederne, og det var et af disse møder, der i 1872 førte til det berømte Slaget på Fælleden, som var en konfrontation mellem en gruppe arbejdere og politiet på Nørrefælled 5. maj 1872, Fællederne og Fælledparken har siden været pladsen for større politiske møder i København bl.a de årlige grundlovsmøder 5. juni fra 1870erne og 1. maj-arrangementer. I København foregår 1. maj i Fælledparken. Sådan blev det, da politiet i 1890 forbød arbejderne at gå i demonstration på gaderne. Derfor mødtes arbejderne i stedet på Fællederne. I en overgangsperiode brugte de socialdemokratiske arbejdere Søndermarken til 1 maj festplads (1902-05). Fra 1905 til 1912 benyttedes Rosenborg Have.

I 1913 stod den ny Fælledpark færdig og 1. maj skulle igen fejres på Fælleden. En af nyskabelserne var en talerstol hugget ud i en kæmpe granitblok. LO's formand, Carl F. Madsen, var den første taler der samtidig indviede stolen.

Fra 1925 blev det almindeligt med to 1. maj-arrangementer Fælledparken, et socialdemokratisk og et kommunistisk. Under besættelsen blev alle 1. maj-møder og demonstrationer aflyst, men genoptaget efter krigen, I 1968 begyndte det ny parti Venstresocialisterne at deltage i 1. maj-møderne i Fælledparken fra 1969 blev partiet arrangør af et eget arrangement, det år havde Socialdemokratiet og LO ikke noget 1. maj-arrangement i Fælledparken.

I 1970'erne havde 1. maj møderne mange arrangører og blev præget af politisk turbulens med dannelse af nye partier, organisationer og fraktioner. Arbejdsmarkedet blev præget af strejker og høj arbejdsløshed og fagbevægelsen styrkedes medlemsmæssigt. Folketinget havde fra 1973 ti forskellige partier og fra 1975 var der fire arbejderpartier: Socialdemokratiet, SF, DKP og Venstresocialisternem som alle havde 1. maj-møder i Fælledparken. Venstresocialisterne og de mange øvrige fraktioner på venstrefløjen tiltrak en lang række solidaritetskomiteer, venskabsforeninger og Fælledparken blev 1. maj præget af en lang række etniske minoriteter. Med tre arrangører i Fælledparken med hver sit arrangement blev 1. maj en gigantisk festdag hvor man kunne høre talere det ene sted, lytte til musik det andet sted eller få underholdning det tredje sted. Det drejede sig ikke alene om hvem der var arrangør, men også hvor de gode tilbud f.eks i form af mad og musik var til stede. I 1983 var der 120.000 tilhørere i Fælledparken.

I 1981 startede Fremskridtspartiet med 1. maj-møder i Fælledparken. I 1983 blev det for meget for socialistiske demonstranter, der oversmurte lederen Mogens Glistrup med æg og maling og drev partiet ud af Fælledparken.

Ældre historie
Området, som Fælledparken ligger på, har i middelalderen hørt til landsbyen Serridslev, men i 1525 afløstes landsbyens jord af byen Københavns Fælled. Oprindelsen til Fælledparken er Øster Fælled, som var en af København fælleder, dvs. fælles græsningsarealer for kreaturer, overdrev og som militært øvelsesterræn. "Kloster Fælled" er det navn nordenden af Øster Fælled har efter det tidligere benediktiner-kloster på den anden side af Jagtvej.

I 1716 lå Zar Peter den Store med 30.000 russiske soldater på Øster Fælled. Det var meningen, at de skulle indgå i et angreb på Sverige for at tilbageerobre Skåne, Halland og Blekinge.

 Øster Fælled som rettersted

Fælleden blev undertiden også anvendt til henrettelser: Det var her, Johann Friedrich Struensee og Enevold Brandt blev henrettet 28. april 1772 for øjnene af omkring 30.000 mennesker. På en lille høj ud mod Øster Allé står den såkaldte "Struensee-sten". Det er en kvartmilepæl fra Ole Rømers opmåling af de danske landveje i 1690'erne, og den har således intet med Struensee at gøre. Men det var i nærheden af dette sted, Struensee og Brandt blev henrettet. Henrettelsespladsen beskrives i samtiden som liggende "200 alen fra Nøjsomhedsvej", dvs. omtrent hvor parken siden blev anlagt.

Efter slaget på Reden 2. april 1801 blev to af flådens mænd dømt for fejhed. Kaptajnløjtnant Philip Schultz fra linjeskibet Sjælland og kaptajn ved Norske livregiment, Niels Vesterholdt, var sejlet i land, før skibet strøg flaget, og før besætningen fik lov til at gå fra borde. At forlade sin post under et slag er alvorligt, og begge blev dømt til arkebusering i ryggen, dvs at skydes bagfra. Straks efter dommen blev de frataget sabelen, og måtte klæde sig om fra uniform til fangedragt. Men da de 11. august 1801 ankom til retterstedet på Øster Fælled, benådede kronprins Frederik dem med livsvarigt fængsel. (De kom kun til at sidde knapt to år på Munkholmen.)

Koleraen 1853
I 1853 brød koleraen ud i København. For at få folk ud af byens værste kvarterer, opføres en barakby på Øster Fælled nord for Trianglen. Det medførte, at Lægeforeningen efter epidemien stoppede opførte seks længer med små boliger til 250 af barakbyens fattige familier. Brumleby, verdens første sociale boligbyggeri, var skabt.

Mindesmærker Milestenen. Parkens ældste element er kvart-milestenen, som er opsat i 1698. Den er orienteret mod Øster Allé, som er den historiske indfaldsvej til København.
 Mindestenen for de omkomne flyvere. Mindestenen står  på hjørnet af Serridslevvej og Gunnar Nu Hansens Plads. På monumentets sokkel er på den ene side indhugget ordene: For danske, der satte livet til i flyvningens tjeneste. På soklens modsatte side er der indhugget foreningens emblem og ordene: Rejst af Foreningen Danske Flyvere 1938.Ulrik Birchs mindesten. Mellem Husarkasernen og stadion fandtes en sten med følgende indskrift: Til Minde om Marineflyveren Ulrik Birch. Han blev det første danske Offer for Flyningen. 10. Oktober 1913.Fredrik Bajers mindesten. Danske fredsorganisationer og danske kvindeorganisationer rejste 1923 i Fælledparken et af billedhuggeren Einar Utzon-Frank udført mindesmærke for Fredrik Bajer.Mindesmærke for F.J. Borgbjerg. Mindesmærke for F.J. Borgbjerg (1866-1936) i bronze og grønlandsk marmor udført af Svend Lindhart 1938-39.En fodboldspiller''. En bronzestatue af en fodboldspiller af kunstneren Jean Gauguin, hans bror Emil Gauguin var målmand i AB. (1939)

Referencer

Eksterne henvisninger

 Fælledparken  – fra Danmarks Naturfredningsforening.
 Om Fælledparken  – fra Københavns Kommune, Teknik og miljøforvaltningen.
 Udviklingsplan for Fælledparken  – fra Københavns Kommune, Teknik og miljøforvaltningen.
 Helikopterplatform på toppen af Rigshospitalet
 Klubhus Fælledparken i arkitekturbilleder.dk

Parker i København
Østerbro
Fodboldstadioner i Danmark
Idrætsanlæg i Danmark
Fredede arealer i Danmark
Bygninger, konstruktioner og anlæg i Københavns Kommune

Monumenter i Danmark
Folkeparker i Danmark

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
The racism around the Black Country Flag
"It's just a flag. The chains aren't slave chains. The chains represent the industrial heritage of the Black Country. The black is for the coal and the red is for the fire. It was designed by a 12-year-old schoolgirl, for goodness sake. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with racism."
Sorry folks, but you have completely missed the point.
It doesn't matter that it was designed by a schoolgirl. It wouldn't matter if it had been painted by a unicorn to represent the divine conception of her majesty the Queen. At the end of the day, it looks like slave chains. For anyone who is familiar with the slave trade – and granted many people may not be familiar with the horrors of the slave trade because colonial history is so seriously neglected in our schools – the image of those chains immediately triggers an association to slave shackles and manacles.
Were your ancestors shipped, lying in their own faeces, hundreds of miles across the seas to be put to work and die? Were they hunted and captured and sold like animals, their cultures and societies annihilated in the most large-scale atrocity in the last 500 years? Do you now live in a country whose history includes being party to this atrocity that decimated your ancestors? No?
Well then it's not up to you to decide whether the flag is offensive or not. Your right to use the symbol of a chain for whatever purpose you see fit is less important than honoring the millions killed by slavery and showing sensitivity to their descendants – who still live in a system rigged by those original power structures.
If black people are coming forward to say it looks like slave chains and its offensive, then believe them. As the countless online articles about this "row" demonstrate, anyone suggesting that the flag is anything but a beacon of Black Country pride is met with derision, othering and exclusion. Turning around and saying to all your friends, colleagues, and even constituents, that a flag they all really love is actually really offensive to your ancestors is not easy by any stretch.
The fact that people are dismissing concerns by saying "they're not slave chains, they represent the industrial heritage of the Black Country" just shows a lack of appreciation for the scale of the horrors of the slave trade. You wouldn't put something that looked like an Auschwitz symbol on a flag – even if it was supposed to be something else.
Using an image so alike to a symbol of an atrocity tantamount to genocide on a flag is offensive. Using that image on a flag for a region that was complicit in that genocide is even worse.
"So you're saying just because chains were used in the slave trade we can never use the image of chains again?!"
Yes. And I'm sorry, but is that really such a sacrifice? Given that Western powers have failed to make any kind of reparations to African nations or black people over the horrors of the slave trade, or to even acknowledge the ways that they still enjoy the fruits of past colonialism today, giving up the image of chains is the bloody least they can do. White British people's right to feel proud about their history does not trump the need to acknowledge the injustices that occurred and understand how they still shape our discourse today.
This all speaks to the wider disregard and selective history on how the UK has exploited other nations through colonialism and still to this day oppresses ethnic minorities within the UK. It is telling that the trauma from these horrors did not even factor into the decision making process when selecting the schoolgirl's design for the flag. In appropriating these symbols, their true meaning is erased and it makes it easier to pretend that horrors like the slave trade never happened. We see the same being done with the slave spiritual "swing low", which has been appropriated by Brits as a rugby song.
The absolute cherry on this sour cake, is the fact that there is clear evidence that the Black Country's chains were indeed used during the slave trade. So actually, the chain that "isn't racist" and "only represents the industrial heritage of the Black Country", does represent a heritage that includes making chains to shackle slaves.
People of the Black Country, your ancestors did a really bad thing many years ago, can you just show some respect to the descendants of the victims of that atrocity by not making its symbol your regional flag? Otherwise you demonstrate that racism determines whose experience you deem valid, whose voice you value, and who you choose to respect.
Karissa Singh, Human Rights Campaigner and Founder of Post Ref Racism
Published by PostRefRacism
Post Ref Racism is a safe space to document the increase in racism and xenophobia in the UK following the vote for Brexit. Press contact: postrefracism@gmail.com	View all posts by PostRefRacism
Analysis, Racism
Shaista Aziz gives speech at Oxford City Council
Throwback to your post-brexit stories


Creates a new array which will contain all of the items of the two given arrays. Different from concatenation because the number of times a value occurs will never exceed the maximum number of times it was found in one of the arrays.
First array to union with the second array.
Second array to union with the first array.
An array of all of the items from array1 and array2 but limiting the occurrences to never exceeding the maximum number of times the value occurred in either array.
Creates a new array which is the difference of the two given arrays.