Last week's approval of a conditional use permit for a pagan White supremacist hate group worship center by the Murdock Coty Council continues to generate headlines.
For the Washington Post, Kim Bellware reports in Facing a First Amendment fight, a small Minnesota town allows a White supremacist church:
City leaders, meanwhile, were advised that denying the AFA’s permit could leave Murdock vulnerable to a potentially devastating religious discrimination suit.
Concerns turned to anger following Wednesday’s virtual city council meeting and were exacerbated by the council’s decision to conduct an off camera voice vote with no roll call. Although meeting minutes identified how each member voted and most residents recognized each member by voice, Mayor Craig Kavanagh later apologized that the cameras were shut off.
In a statement following the vote, Kavanagh defended the council as only wanting what’s best for the city and affirmed that “the City of Murdock condemns racism in all its forms: conscious, unconscious, any place, any time, now and in the future.” . . .
Murdock’s issue underscores the deficiencies with the First Amendment and exposes a lack of neutrality in who it really protects, argued Laura Beth Nielsen, who chairs the Sociology Department at Northwestern University and wrote the 2004 book “License to Harass: Law, Hierarchy and Offensive Public Speech.”
“Right now, every local government is broke trying to deal with coronavirus. The idea that you would arguably subject yourself to a costly lawsuit — what town would want to do that?” Nielsen said. “But letting these organizations flourish and take root is scary, especially if you’re the Black or the Jewish family in town.”
She said Murdock’s individual battle is taking place in a broader legal and social environment where, “in the universe of the First Amendment, White people tend to win.”
Ranging from the White Protestant roots of the Ku Klux Klan to the anti-gay demonstrations of the Westboro Baptist Church, hate groups have long exploited their religious status for First Amendment cover. In recent years, White supremacist groups have started to co-opt obscure folk religions and promulgate hateful views under the guise of ancestral worship. . . .
Read the rest of the fascinating in-depth analysis at the Post.
Closer to home, the editorial board of the West Central Tribune mused in Murdock City Council must learn from its poor virtual meeting:
The Murdock City Council failed in their attempt at transparency during the council's meeting Wednesday when they made a decision on the conditional use permit for the Asatru Folk Assembly, an alleged white supremacist religious group, to use the abandoned Lutheran church it purchased as its third “hof” in the United States. The council did not hold a roll call vote as required by the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.The Murdock City Council conducted a virtual meeting Wednesday with all members basically hidden due to the video option being turned off, council members not stating who was speaking or being heard sufficiently by the public, and, finally, failing to use roll call vote.
This all occurred while making a decision to approve a conditional use permit allowing an alleged white supremacist religious group, the Asatru Folk Assembly, to use the abandoned Lutheran church as its third “hof” in the United States. The group is designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and faces significant resistance from town and area residents.
This was likely the most significant issue to come before the Murdock City Council in its 139-year history, but the public was basically left in the dark Wednesday night.
The Minnesota Open Meeting Law reads:
“A state entity may hold meetings by telephone or other electronic means as long as specified conditions are met to ensure openness and accessibility for those who wish to attend. …
In general, those conditions include the following:
All members of the body can hear one another and can hear all discussion and testimony.
Members of the public at the regular meeting location can hear all discussion, testimony, and votes.
At least one member of the body (or, in the case of a health pandemic or other emergency, the chief legal counsel or chief administrative officer) is present at the regular meeting location. ...
All votes are conducted by roll call. …”
The non-transparent Murdock City Council simply did not do so - either intentionally or unintentionally.
This Murdock City Council instead ended up hiding behind a no-video feed and avoided speaking clearly for the audio feed. And the public often could not hear what was said or knew who was speaking.
And the vote was not a roll call vote as required by statute.
And to make matters worse, the City Council’s action may have violated the Minnesota Open Meeting Law or, at least, the spirit of the statute.
The City Council’s decision plus its non-transparent actions made news across the Midwest and the nation by the end of the week. It was not a good week for the City Council, the city of Murdock and its residents. . . .
Finish reading the editors' opinion at the West Central Tribune.
Related posts:
- Star Tribune: Murdock council anonymous vote on Asatru Folk Assembly permit may have violated Minnesota's open meeting law
- Murdock city council approves permit for whites-only Asatru Folk Assembly to re-purpose church
- Baldurshof: Third Hof of the Asatru Folk Assembly setting up in Murdock, Minnesota
- AFA gothar coordinator's life changed from police shoot-out & prison to serving old Gods
- Bluestem in the news: Strib & the Intercept
- Quiet protest is start of anti-hate movement in Murdock (West Central Tribune)
- WC Trib: "Murdock City Council, on advice of city attorney, not commenting" on whites-only group
- Resident: "We really don’t want to be known in Murdock as the center of hate in Minnesota"
Photo: The former Lutheran church in Murdock that's becoming a "hof" for the Asatru Folk Assembly.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
NEW: I'm now on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments