PLAINTIFF.

THE MUSLIM SOCIETY OF ALL THE PEOPLE V FIRST DEFENDANT Eleanore Monaghan & SECOND DEFENDANTROLAND CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP

Background The plaintiff filed a case against the defendant for an injunction order, defamation, and loss occasioned to life, in the plaint the plaintiff alleged that the defendants action occasioned loss to property and further made their credibility be questioned their good name tarnished. The case also touches on key provisions of the First Amendments which essentially deals with the rights and freedom of speech and expression. The case also involves damage to property which belongs to the plaintiff by the defendants and a further cause of action of causing malicious damage to property. The plaintiff organization also raised serious questions of rights and freedoms especially dealing with the freedom of religion and on the other of speech and expression.

Plaintiff brief In brief, the plaintiffs the case is of defamation and damage to property. The defendant published some defaming material on the internet and uploaded a YouTube video which contained material that tarnished the plaintiffs reputation. The plaintiffs are then seeking remedies for an injunction and compensation for damage done. The injunction is to stop the defendants from publishing more information about the plaintiffs organization while the damage is for the injury that the plaintiffs have already suffered so to the effect of the publications. The plaintiff also relies on the court to find the defendants liable for damage of property which was occasioned as a result of the demonstration that was organized by the defendant. Hence the plaintiffs urged the court to award them coat of damages and other available remedies that the court deems fit. The plaintiffs tabled evidence of the YouTube video and also the publication sources so as to prove the case against the defendants. The main legal authorities that the plaintiffs lawyer relies on are the provisions of the First Amendment of the Constitution to prove that the plaintiff is guaranteed to worship and that the rights of the defendants in relation to speech and expression are limited.

FACTS PLAINTIFFS CASE The plaintiff is a duly registered religious society which offers facilities of praying and support to those who profess the Muslim Faith. They are a Muslim religious organization that helps to nature the Muslims both in faith and offer other supports such as fellowshipping. The 1st defendant Eleanore Monaghan is a well renowned Christian preacher and is the head of the Roland Christian Fellowship, which is the 2nd defendant. The plaintiffs case is leveled against both the two defendants. The plaintiff alleges that both the first and second defendants have jointly and/ or separately published uttered, uploaded, published or spread defaming content and information that the plaintiff has been engaged in terrorism behavior and activities in the recent past. The 1st defendant Eleanore Monaghan published a document in the second defendants website that alleged portrayed the plaintiff as a terrorist. The publication link is www.theHighlandsChristianFellowship.com/2222222/241/ (the document is titled WE ARE HABOURING TERRRORISTS attached as evidence and was retrieved on 16th January 2014. This document was published by the second defendant on the 6th of January 2014. The 1st defendant has also been seen on TV interviews claiming that the plaintiff is a terrorist. The publications are not justified at all since the defendants have no concrete evidence if the plaintiff organization is a terrorist organization. The publication has dirtied the plaintiffs credit and credibility in the entire country and area. It has made the Muslim believers to shun the organization instead of seeing it as a safe haven. This is not true at all as the plaintiff is a peace loving organization not as the defendants have tried to portray them. The plaintiff claims that due to these publications they are being investigated by the police. The defendants have been involved in publishing this kind of information from last year December which has been affecting the reputation of the plaintiff as a peace loving religious organization. The defendants have also managed to spread these defaming words, videos and audios over the internet. The two have also in collaboration or acting together managed to upload a controversial video over the internet which highly defames the repute of the organization. The video was uploaded on YouTube on the 22nd of December 2013 with the link www.youtube.com/terroristin-the-usa/efghi. This YouTube video has had more than 30 million views. Furthermore there are other articles which have been published by the two defendants which warn the public to avoid doing business with and shun the plaintiff. Both the defendants organized a demonstration which as a result caused damage to property which belonged to the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that on the 8th of January 2014, during

these demonstrations, the defendants and other believers of the Christian religion demonstrated and matched in front of the plaintiffs entrance gate with large banners and stickers that read THE MUSLIM SOCIETY OF ALL THE PEOPLE IS A TERRORISTS ORGANIZATION. Since these demonstrations were conducted in front of the gate, they caused a huge inconvenience for the plaintiffs who were unable to carry out their daily activities such as worshiping and praying. Furthermore, the defendants in collaboration with their followers started a fire in front of the gate and the plaintiff members could not access the premise and neither could the others leave after worshipping. The demonstration got violent and the plaintiffs gate was broken down by the defendants and/ or their followers. They also threw stones and petroleum gases into the compound of the plaintiffs.

The attacks have caused fear, panic, and apprehension to the Muslims in the town and they are afraid to live in the society freely because of the fact that they have been falsely branded as being terrorists even though they are peace loving citizen. This to them is like a threat since most Muslims who visit the place are afraid of their life. There was also another criminal case against the defendants for assault occasioning grievous harm and murder in the criminal division.

Lawyer of the plaintiff The plaintiffs lawyer made submissions in the case also, he said that as citizens, the Muslims have a right to worship and express themselves. He quoted the First Amendment in the Constitution that allows for this freedom. He added that no person should be discriminated against because of their religion, should they be Christians, Muslims, Hindus, pagans etc. He continued that there should be a very distinctive and clear separation of the state and the church which is a key concept that was championed by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptist. The lawyer also touched on the freedom of security and life which is guaranteed by the Constitution. He went further and made comments on the freedom of movement especially of those Muslims who had been threatened by the actions of the defendant and could not come out of the house. The lawyer quoted the case of New York Times V Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964) where he argued that the statements had been published about the plaintiff was untrue; they were peace loving

citizens who were involved in nothing more than worshipping their God and being a peaceful family. The lawyer added that the actual malice which is a requirement that is set by this case had been proved fully by the fact that the defendants went ahead and attacked the plaintiffs premise during the demonstration. On damage done to property, he drove the point through citing that the defendants caused damage to the plaintiffs property and should be held liable and compensates the plaintiff organization. The plaintiffs lawyer went ahead and punched holes in the defense of freedom of speech and expression which the two defendants were relying upon. He argued that it is no doubt true that the Constitution under the First Amendment assured them the right of expressing their feeling but added that the right is a limited right. He cited the case of Grant v. Torstar Corp. 2009 SCC 61; he insisted that the court cautioned that a party should always ensure a certain acceptable level of truth and responsibility so as to verify the information before publishing. In closing the plaintiff case he urged the court to find the defendants liable for defamation and damage to property. He also prayed for an injunction to stop the defendants from publishing further defaming article and video both on online publication and YouTube,