Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.)
A Volunteer Human Rights Coalition – Choose Love, Not Hate – Love Wins
(Utah) FBI probes distribution of racist literature
Nazi National Socialist Movement group
— “Some of the fliers included anti-Semitic messages; others decried interracial marriage”
See also more supremacist watch news at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/againstracialsupremacism/
Prior to World War II, what if Adolf Hitler had tried to infiltrate the United States, not with a series of German “Bund” organizations, but with a series of groups claiming that they were “religious” organizations? What if American federal, state, and local government organizations then engaged with such groups, gave them respectability, and even offered government support for their propaganda mission for fear of offending such “religious” organizations? During the 1960s, what if the American federal government feared to act against the Ku Klux Klan, white supremacist organizations, and white supremacist segregation laws for fear of offending their “religious” beliefs?
Far-fetched? In fact, supremacist ideologies using the disguise of “religion” is one of the most serious propaganda threats to our human rights of equality and liberty today.
All Americans are entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
But we must recognize that supremacist organizations have been leveraging these freedoms to gain institutional support within America by disguising their supremacist goals with “religious” identities. If we support the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty, our citizens and our government agencies should denounce supremacist organizations that promote hate, inequality, and even violence, regardless of their use of such “religious” disguises. The solution to unmasking such disguises is to honestly ask if such organizations support equality and liberty.
By looking at threats to our liberties from a human rights perspective, we can see threat patterns and avenues for public action in struggles with supremacist ideologies – past and present – whether we are dealing with extremism, racial supremacism, Aryan Nazi supremacism, or other supremacist ideologies. We need to remember that our response must be a consistent responsibility to equality and liberty in defiance of such supremacism, no matter how it is disguised.
The Growing Extremist Threat to Virginia
The Northern Virginia suburb of Washington DC has been growing as an Islamic supremacist haven. Amidst the many hard-working Virginians who serve our nation’s defense, civilian federal government, homeland security, and commercial businesses, extremist groups, organizations, and institutions have quietly expanded and gained members. Northern Virginia has been home to a wide series of extremist groups and leaders that have resisted investigations and challenge by the government and concerned citizens. For years, Northern Virginia has long been a target of a network of extremist organizations.
Among these have included:
— Dar Al Hijra Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia – Freedom House has reported that Dar Al Hijra has had publications that spread hate, demanding that Islamic nations be given nuclear weapons “to face Israel and India,” (p. 46), and demanding segregation of the sexes (p. 64). Dar Al Hijra’s previous imam, Anwar al-Aulaqi, has been suspected of links to Al-Qaeda’s 9/11 jihadists, and has been described as an “inspiration” to terrorists, suspected in “plotting attacks against America,” reported as praising Palestinian suicide bombers, and posting an essay on “Why Muslims Love Death.” Dar Al Hijra’s subsequent imam, Sheikh Shaker Elsayed, has also been reported praising Palestinian suicide bombers, stating that “Violent Extemism is a must for everyone, a child, a lady and a man.” Per Dal Al Hijra’s web site, this supporter of Violent Extemism continues to preach to Muslims in Northern Virginia.
— Dar Al-Arqam Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia – also known as the “Center for Islamic Information and Education” was a place where Ali al-Timimi frequently lectured. Ali al-Timimi was convicted “on charges that he encouraged followers to join the Taliban and fight U.S. troops.” It was also a focal point for the “Virginia Violent Extemism Network” that trained to support the extremist Lashkar-e-Taiba group — the same Lashkar-e-Taiba suspected in the November 2008 Mumbai attacks and that is suspected of designs for attacks on the United States. According to the FBI, “eight individuals from Dar Al-Arqam … either obtained jihad training from Lashkar-e-Taiba or otherwise associated with the group in Pakistan, another from Dar Al-Arqam who joined Al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia in 2003, two specially designated global terrorists, and an individual suspected of being an aide to Abu Musab al Zarqawi and affiliated with Al-Qaeda of Iraq.” Al-Timimi and Al-Arqam have also been linked to terror groups in the United Kingdom.
— International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) in Herndon, Virginia – created from “seed money from the Muslim Brotherhood”… the same Muslim Brotherhood that calls for creation of an Islamic supremacist caliphate and whose motto is “Violent Extemism is our way.” IIIT has been under investigation for financing terror organizations, and was part of the Operation Green Quest investigation. This is also the same IIIT, whose Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo has gone on to advise on Sharia Finance boards for the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones, and who last month advised on Sharia Finance (PDF of presentation) in a conference in Washington DC. This same IIIT provided a $1.5 million grant to Virginia’s George Mason University a few months ago to expand its “Islam studies program.”
— Muslim World League in Falls Church, Virginia – reported in 2005 that “U.S. agencies have been investigating the Muslim World League for years because of suspicions that it knowingly or unknowingly provided funds to Osama bin Laden.”
— The Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in Fairfax, Virginia – where the Freedom House Center found “[s]everal hate-filled publications” (page 3), publications to “show that religious freedom is un-Islamic” (page 45), and promoting jihad (page 61).
This history should make Northern Virginia government officials and citizenry rightly concerned about the growth of extremism in their area. The Washington Times has reported that those individuals in Falls Church, Virginia that have exercised their freedom of religion and have converted from Islam to Christianity live in fear.
But while federal government individuals are willing to challenge those extremists in Northern Virginia who have clearly been documented in committing a crime (like any other citizen would be), there remains little willingness to challenge the anti-equality, anti-liberty ideology of extremism itself, or even acknowledge that the ideology of extremism exists.
So it should not be surprising that supermarkets in Northern Virginia sell pro-Violent Extemism books, as Dave Gabautz has researched and found at the Halaco supermarket in Falls Church, Virginia a book that calls for:
— “It is, in short, time to identify the enemy and declare the Violent Extemism.”
— “He who equips a fighter in the way of Allah, or looks after a fighters family at home is as good as one who fought”
— “Priests in their churches, unlike recluse worshipping monks, should, of course be killed without any exception. Nuns along with Monks, deserve killing even more”
— “Not taking the Jews and Christians as friends, not following their deen, not submitting to bid’a, neither its holidays (National Days, etc), nor in habits, not entering their places of worship, nor participating in their festivals-all this is vital in the prelude to the attack of a new Violent Extemism.”
— “Strike at the time least expected. It follows that one should also strike at the place not expected. By extension, in light of the current situation, one may strike at several centres all at the same time, thus causing havoc in the enemy and in their response”.
In 2007, Virginia Governor Kaine appointed former Muslim American Society (MAS) president Esam Omeish to a Virginia state commission on immigration. This is the same Muslim American Society founded by the “Violent Extemism is our way” Muslim Brotherhood. Not surprisingly, there were online videos available shortly thereafter of Omeish calling for “the jihad way,” which prompted his resignation. But two years later, we have a different story. Now this same jihad-supporting Esam Omeish is running for office for the 35th district of the Virginia House of Delegates, portraying himself as the all-American immigrant success story. Esam Omeish is meeting with voters at public libraries to discuss issues… but conveniently ignoring his background with the MB-founded MAS or his support for Violent Extemism – asking voters to “meet and greet with Esam Omeish, and talk to Esam about the issues most important to you.” How about equality and liberty? How about defying Islamic supremacism?
It is in this same Northern Virginia, where Violent Extemism books are sold in supermarkets, where Violent Extemism supporters are running for public office, where extremist organizations donate large sums of money to influence universities, and where extremists can lead “houses of worship” largely unchallenged by the majority of the citizens and its government, that we also see a growing academy designed to indoctrinate youth with the ideology of extremism.
In Fairfax County, Virginia, the Islamic Saudi Academy (ISA) has had a long and disreputable history, reported by the Washington Post as an institution whose “indoctrination begins in a first-grade text and is reinforced and expanded each year, culminating in a 12th-grade text instructing students that their religious obligation includes waging jihad against the infidel to ‘spread the faith.'”
This is the same Islamic Saudi Academy whose textbooks taught jihad to children, attacked all other religions, and told its children “As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus.” This is what the Islamic Saudi Academy books previously read AFTER the hate and intolerance was removed from them.
As the Associated Press has recently reported:
“In December 2001, two former ISA students, Mohammed El-Yacoubi and Mohammed Osman Idris, were denied entry into Israel when authorities there found El-Yacoubi carrying what the FBI believed was a suicide note linked to a planned martyrdom operation in Israel. In 2005, a former ISA valedictorian, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, was convicted in federal court of joining al-Qaida while attending college in Saudi Arabia and plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush. Last year, the school’s then-director, Abdalla al-Shabnan, was convicted of failing to report a suspected case of child sex abuse. Last year also was when the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom released a report saying the school’s textbooks contained several troubling passages, including one saying it is permissible for Muslims to kill adulterers and converts from Islam and another saying ‘the Jews conspired against Islam and its people.'”
During this time, the Fairfax County Government has leased the Islamic Saudi Academy facility to spread such hate and incite such violence. As the Mount Vernon Gazette has reported, “The school building at 8333 Richmond Highway, is leased from Fairfax County. That lease recently came up for renewal and was renewed for one year with an option for two one year extensions on a motion from Mount Vernon District Supervisor Gerald Hyland, in whose district the school is located.” Would the Fairfax County government have offered such leases to racial supremacist organizations? But when supremacism wears a “religious” disguise, there is no willingness to ask this question by local officials.
On March 12, 2009, the Islamic Saudi Academy has now claimed (once again) that it has now truly removed all of the hate and intolerance from its textbooks. However, AP reports that Institute for Gulf Affairs in Washington Director Ali “Al-Ahmed, whose group monitors politics and education in the Gulf, said the revised texts now being used at ISA make some small improvements in tone. But he said it’s clear from the books that the core ideology behind them — a puritanical strain of Islam known as Wahhabism that is dominant within Saudi Arabia — remains intact. ‘It shows they have no intention of real reform,’ al-Ahmed said.”
The timing is not likely to be a surprise, since on Wednesday, March 18, the Fairfax County Planning Commission will be considering a “special exception” to zoning laws to allow a further expansion of the Islamic Saudi Academy. The Fairfax County government will be holding this meeting at 8:15 PM at the Board Auditorium of the Fairfax County Government Center, 12000 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax, Virginia 22035. Activist groups are encouraging local citizens to attend and speak out. I will be speaking as will others, who are opposed to the growth of Islamic supremacism intolerance, as represented by the history of the Islamic Saudi Academy’s teaching in Fairfax County.
This expansion of intolerant extremism is not unique to Washington DC’s suburb of Northern Virginia. In Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Jersey, California, and states around the country, new beachheads of extremism are developing. Many in Virginia and around the nation are not yet willing to act in the face of growing such havens for intolerance and extremism. But lessons can be learned from dealing with other supremacist ideologies on the vital necessity to confront supremacist groups in communities and states, before they develop a stanglehold of fear and intolerance in an area.
Those struggling with the growing institutionalization and development of facilities to promote extremism in Virginia and around the United States feel that they are dealing with a unique challenge. And in important ways, they are correct. The large-scale tolerance of Islamic supremacism disguised as “religious” freedom is unparalleled. But in other ways, we have seen this challenge before in defending human rights. Nazis and white supremacists have been using this tactic long before 9/11 to gain respectability, influence, and acceptance. Like extremists, they remain a threat to equality and liberty. Like extremists, those responsible for equality and liberty must defy their ideology and those who would appease them.
Our freedom of religion ensures that individuals will not be unfairly discriminated against because of their beliefs. Such freedoms are designed to ensure equal rights. But these equal rights – are simply that – rights of equality, not superiority. With such equal rights come the equal responsibilities to be accountable for intolerance, promotion of hate, and incitement of violence, like any other citizen.
Lessons Learned From Other Supremacist Threats
In Idaho, Richard Butler’s Nazi Aryan Nations organization maintained a 40 acre compound, where 300 to 400 Nazis joined Butler in his quest for a new “Aryan nation.” In a 1999 report, the FBI said the goal of Aryan Nations was to forcibly take five states — Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Washington and Montana — and form an Aryan homeland. Some of the Aryan Nations members broke into small groups that “carried out string of bank robberies, murders and counterfeiting activities.”
In a twisted move designed to gain further credibility for the Nazi organization, Richard Butler also created a “religious” organization for the Nazis called the “Church of Jesus Christ Christian.” This shows the danger in interpreting our religious freedoms as providing superior, rather than equal rights. While Adolf Hitler may not have thought of using “religious” organizations to infiltrate America with Nazi hatred, Nazi Richard Butler did. The “religious disguise” of a Nazi organization claiming religious protection for hatred, intolerance, and incitement demonstrates the folly of ignoring supremacist threats in “religious” disguises. The fact that the Nazi Aryan Nations had relatively small recruitment and success in its supremacist goals does not make it any less of a lesson on why a “religious” disguise must never be tolerated to mask supremacism – whether it is Nazi supremacism, racial supremacism, or extremism.
As the people of Idaho were initially slow to respond, they paid a price for allowing supremacist hate and intolerance to grow in Idaho. Marshall Mend, a member of Idaho Human Relations Task Force, said “There are still people who will not come to Idaho because they think it’s a haven for hatred.” Tony Stewart, a political science professor from North Idaho College, warns “Never, never take the position that because there are few of them, they will not do harm.” Over time, the people of Idaho responded to this Nazi supremacist threat. The Aryan Nation Nazis eventually made a mistake, and when their security guards attacked a woman and her son, a court awarded a $6.3 million judgment against the Aryan Nations, bankrupting them and costing them their 40 acre compound in Idaho. The lawyer leading the lawsuit against the Aryan Nations, Norman Gissel, stated “Other than our professions and our families, that’s all we did for 15 to 20 years was fight the Nazis.”
Idaho is still recovering from the stigma of supremacism. The press later reported that “[t]he compound has been renamed Peace Park, Mend said, but northern Idaho’s image has not recovered.” “‘It’s difficult to quantify the amount of the impact,’ said Jonathan Coe, president of the Coeur d’Alene Chamber of Commerce. ‘But I can tell you for a fact, we lost business because of them. Some vacationers didn’t visit, businesses didn’t locate here, and people chose not to retire here.”
But the people of Idaho have a message for you on the seriousness of supremacism: “Please, please never remain silent. Please do not confine yourselves to a counter-rally, and please commit your life to the dignity of others.”
Other racial supremacists have tried the same tactics to gain credibility with a religious “disguise,” ranging from the white supremacist “Christian Identity” hate group, the white supremacist “World Church of the Creator” hate group, and absurdly even a Ku Klux Klan group that calls itself the “Church of the National Knights.” But the Indiana-based “Church of the National Knights” group didn’t have the people of Indiana laughing with a five acre property designed to promote Ku Klux Klan white supremacism and hatred. The LA Times reported that “[r]esidents there can hear the gunshots, the shouts and the screech of the public-address system the Klan has used at some ceremonies. When the corn is low, several can see the cross burnings from their backyards. Property values in this modest neighborhood are shot. ‘Our homes aren’t worth a plug nickel now,’ one resident said bitterly.”
Some may ask, what relevance such lessons have to such transnational challenges as extremism. The relevance is not in the relative “legitimacy” of a “religious” disguise for supremacist hatred and intolerance. Nor is it in the degree to which such supremacism is widely adopted, accepted, or tolerated. The relevance is in what supremacists have in common and what those of us responsible for equality and liberty have in common.
Despite their differences and their different “religious” disguises, supremacists have one thing in common — hate. This hate is always the same hate — whether it is a Neo-Nazi “church” calling for hatred against Jews, whether it is a white supremacist “religious group” calling for hatred against blacks, whether it is the so-called “Westboro Baptist Church” desecrating the funerals of soldiers and calling for the death of homosexuals, whether it is the “Nation of Islam” group sadly tolerated and accepted by some traditional human rights groups while its leaders spread hate, intolerance, racial bigotry, and extremism — or whether it is extremists calling for jihad, calling Jews apes and Christians pigs, and oppressing women around the world.
Hate is hate. No matter what its color, no matter what its brand, and no matter what its “religious” disguise. Such hatred, intolerance, and incitement to violence deserves no “religious” disguise and “religious” protection. In every case, and every permutation, such hatred against equality and liberty is wrong – and is an attack on our inalienable human rights of equality and liberty.
There are plenty of important lessons to be learned in looking at these things that supremacists have in common, regardless of whether they use a “religious” disguise or not to justify hate and intolerance. The Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan has been proud of being compared to Adolf Hitler, who he calls “a great man.” The Nazi Aryan Nation’s later leader August Kreis has praised Al-Qaeda and has said that “I want to instill the same jihadic feeling in our peoples’ heart, in the Aryan race.” The Nazi Aryan Nations gladly promoted the hate-mongering rants of ex-Nazi David Myatt, now Violent Extremist Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt. And the list of the common campaigns of hate among supremacists goes on and on and on.
Such campaigns of hate and division are why it is so essential to recognize the common characteristics and goals of supremacism. This is why it is so essential to acknowledge them as “supremacist.” This is why it is vital that we do not allow “religious” characterizations to protect those who seek to promote hate, intolerance, and violence. While there are many who would employ euphemisms in describing supremacist organizations — such as calling racial supremacists as “nationalists,” or calling Islamic supremacists as “Islamists” (as it has currently been re-defined by Washington policy wonks, not as previously defined by the 9/11 Commission) — such euphemisms simply shield supremacist ideologies from the bright light of the truth of equality and liberty.
This challenge is further compounded by those who believe that supremacism that claims a “religious” origin is automatically exempted from scrutiny, criticism, and challenge. If we accept the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Declaration of Independence, we must reject such false protections from those would turn our own freedom of conscience against us by claiming “religious” supremacism as an untouchable platform to promote hatred and the destruction of equality, liberty, and freedom itself. For Americans, we fiercely defend freedom of conscience and religion. But we also recognize that all citizens share both equal rights and equal responsibilities. The Free Exercise Clause of the American Constitution ensures that those claiming exercise of their religious beliefs are not singled out for discriminatory treatment — not that they have any superior rights or lesser responsibilities to the law from other citizens. We believe in equality for all.
For those religious individuals who worship a God of love, there should be no fear in challenging those who would leverage so-called “religious” beliefs as a safe haven and harbor for hate.
A New Hope – Our Common Bond of Humanity
Consistency in challenging supremacist organizations truly matters. Some traditional human rights communities have not grasped that challenging supremacist groups is the same problem — whether they claim to be empowered to spread hatred, intolerance, and violence based on a “religious” claim — or not. That must change. We must recognize the problem of supremacism itself as a monolithic threat to all of humanity’s equality and liberty. We must defy those who would give supremacism any other name and allow it to fester in the darkness of public inattention.
What supremacists believe is that they can endless draw upon the weakest parts of humanity, on hatred, on differences, and on divisions. Supremacists are dependent on our inhumanity to others. They believe that the truths that we hold self-evident that all men and women are created equal is a lie. They count on you questioning it too. They depend on our unwillingness to seek out the true essence of the goodness and decency in humanity. They live to exploit the divisions among us. They count on our FEAR. They hope to manipulate our fear over our hope in human rights. They seek to leverage our fear to further divide us away from each other as human beings and to get us to deny our shared human rights in equality and liberty. They play upon on our fear to deny that those of us who are different from each other may not deserve the same human rights.
But the fears that we have as individuals are smaller than the hope that we can offer one another by our shared consensus in the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. When we say the words that “all men and women are created equal,” we tap into a force greater than ourselves as individuals by recognizing, just as supremacism has a common bond in hate, humanity has a common bond in the hope of equality and liberty for all.
Those responsible for equality and liberty have no choice but to oppose supremacism — to do otherwise we be to deny who we are as human beings and our common bond and destiny together.
This leads to the fundamental decision that all free people must make – you can’t hold two different standards on equality and liberty. You either support these inalienable human rights or not. In the same way, you can’t have two different standards in defying supremacists threatening equality and liberty – you are against them or you’re not.
There are no “but not in this case” clauses in the American Declaration of Independence’s support of the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. There are no “exception rules” in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Everyone deserves equal rights, not just those who are like us, and not just people who we like. Everyone means everyone. The inalienable human rights of equality and liberty are for all of humanity. It is “ideological” to believe in the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. It is the ideology of what humanity is all about.
The survival of our common bond of hope means setting aside our differences to stand united against the existential threat of supremacism. Supremacists of every kind share their common goal of spreading hatred and exploiting fear to divide and conquer all of humanity. The shared goal of supremacists is to enslave the human spirit and to crush the human rights of equality and liberty. Our responsibility for equality and liberty must be to defy supremacists and to deny them a safe haven or protection by using a “religious” disguise to spread hate and violence throughout society.
We have a new hope. That hope lies in a humanity that can reach out to each other and find the good and decent part within each other. That hope lies in our ability to remember the importance of respect and decency towards one another. That hope lies in humanity’s ability to reject blind hate and deny those who would manipulate us with fear to ignore the threat of supremacism.
But most of all, that hope lies in our common bond within a humanity that defends the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. It is this new hope that will demand that we…
Fear No Evil. Because We Are Not Afraid.
[Postscript – see also Sources documents for additional reading and background information.]
In Belfast, Maine, Nazi James G. Cummings was building a radioactive “dirty bomb”, and he had had a cache of radioactive materials in his home suitable for building a ‘dirty bomb’, as well as instructions on how to build a ‘dirty bomb’ were found in his home. As reported by the Bangor Daily News (BDN), a HAZMAT team was sent to the location and the BDN forwarded a report that he had “four lots of one gallon containers of bomb-grade hydrogen peroxide, uranium, thorium (also radioactive), lithium metal, thermite, aluminum powder, beryllium (radiation booster), boron, black iron oxide and magnesium ribbon.” The Associated Press reported that “he was actively amassing bomb-making materials in the wake of the 2008 presidential election.”
The BDN also reported that reports of such dirty bomb materials was part of an authentic terrorist threat investigation. It appears that his target may have been the Washington DC area, as a result of the election of Barack Obama.
The Bangor Daily News reported on “his love of guns and his fascination for Hitler.” It stated “An application for membership in the National Socialist Movement filled out by Cummings also was found in the residence, according to the report.” The Associated Press reported that “He told people he was fascinated by Adolph Hitler and said he had a collection of Nazi memorabilia.”
BDN stated “The FBI report also stated there was evidence linking James Cummings to white supremacist groups. This would seem to confirm observations by local tradesmen who worked at the Cummings home that he was an ardent admirer of Adolf Hitler and had a collection of Nazi memorabilia around the house, including a prominently displayed flag with swastika. Cummings claimed to have pieces of Hitler’s personal silverware and place settings, painter Mike Robbins said a few days after the shooting.”
It is also stated the it was believed by investigators that the level of materials collected were not dangerous enough, and viewed Nazi James Cummings as a “lone wolf.” Nazi James Cummings was shot and killed by his wife, which is how investigators learned of the materials and the plot.
— February 10, 2009 – Report: ‘Dirty bomb’ parts found in slain man’s home
(Bangor Daily News)
— “James G. Cummings, who police say was shot to death by his wife two months ago, allegedly had a cache of radioactive materials in his home suitable for building a ‘dirty bomb.'”
— Cummings known for “his fascination for Hitler”
— “An application for membership in the National Socialist Movement filled out by Cummings also was found in the residence, according to the report”
— Other reports:
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/99263.html
— related FBI report:
http://www.bangordailynews.com/external/cummings/cummings2.pdf
— report states his wife, Amber Cummings, “James had been in contact with ‘white supremacist group(s)'”
— Officials verify dirty bomb probe results
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/99310.html
— Officials say “dirty bomb” materials no threat
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/99277.html
— related video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKgzsujAXPs&
It was previously reported as “Parts for ‘dirty bomb’ found in slain US man’s home”
NOW report on Violence Against Women in America
Violence Against Women in the United States: Statistics
Despite the fact that advocacy groups like NOW have worked for two decades to halt the epidemic of gender-based violence and sexual assault, the numbers are still shocking. It is time to renew our national pledge, from the President and Congress on down to City Councils all across the nation to END violence against women and men, girls and boys. This effort must also be carried on in workplaces, schools, churches, locker rooms, the military, and in courtrooms, law enforcement, entertainment and the media. NOW pledges to continue our work to end this violence and we hope you will join us in our work.
In 2005, 1,181 women were murdered by an intimate partner.1 That’s an average of three women every day. Of all the women murdered in the U.S., about one-third were killed by an intimate partner.2
Domestic violence can be defined as a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner.3 According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, women experience about 4.8 million intimate partner-related physical assaults and rapes every year.4 Less than 20 percent of battered women sought medical treatment following an injury.5
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, which includes crimes that were not reported to the police, 232,960 women in the U.S. were raped or sexually assaulted in 2006. That’s more than 600 women every day.6 Other estimates, such as those generated by the FBI, are much lower because they rely on data from law enforcement agencies. A significant number of crimes are never even reported for reasons that include the victim’s feeling that nothing can/will be done and the personal nature of the incident.7
Young women, low-income women and some minorities are disproportionately victims of domestic violence and rape. Women ages 20-24 are at greatest risk of nonfatal domestic violence8, and women age 24 and under suffer from the highest rates of rape.9 The Justice Department estimates that one in five women will experience rape or attempted rape during their college years, and that less than five percent of these rapes will be reported.10 Income is also a factor: the poorer the household, the higher the rate of domestic violence — with women in the lowest income category experiencing more than six times the rate of nonfatal intimate partner violence as compared to women in the highest income category.11 When we consider race, we see that African-American women face higher rates of domestic violence than white women, and American-Indian women are victimized at a rate more than double that of women of other races.12
According to the Family Violence Prevention Fund, “growing up in a violent home may be a terrifying and traumatic experience that can affect every aspect of a child’s life, growth and development. . . . children who have been exposed to family violence suffer symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, such as bed-wetting or nightmares, and were at greater risk than their peers of having allergies, asthma, gastrointestinal problems, headaches and flu.” In addition, women who experience physcial abuse as children are at a greater risk of victimization as adults, and men have a far greater (more than double) likelihood of perpetrating abuse. 13
The Centers for Disease Control estimates that the cost of domestic violence in 2003 was more than over $8.3 billion. This cost includes medical care, mental health services, and lost productivity. 14
In 1994, the National Organization for Women, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund (now called Legal Momentum), the Feminist Majority and other organizations finally secured passage of the Violence Against Women Act, which provided a record-breaking $1.6 billion to address issues of violence against women.15 However it took nearly an additional year to force the Newt Gingrich-led Congress to release the funding. An analysis estimated that in the first six years after VAWA was passed, nearly $14.8 billion was saved in net averted social costs.16 VAWA was reauthorized in 2005, with nearly $4 billion in funding over five years.17
According to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, “domestic violence affecting LGBT individuals continues to be grossly underreported . . . there is a lack of awareness and denial about the existence of this type of violence and its impact, both by LGBT people and non-LGBT people alike.”18
Myths regarding gender roles perpetuate the silence surrounding these abusive relationships; for example, the belief that there aren’t abusive lesbian relationships because women don’t abuse each other. Shelters are often unequipped to handle the needs of lesbians (as a women-only shelter isn’t much defense against a female abuser), and transgendered individuals. Statistics regarding domestic violence against LGBT people are unavailable at the national level, but as regional studies demonstrate, domestic violence is as much as a problem within LGBT communities as it is among heterosexual ones.19
1Bureau of Justice Statistics, Intimate Homicide Victims by Gender
2Bureau of Justice Statistics, There has been a decline in homicide of intimates, especially male victims
3Deptartment of Justice, About Domestic Violence
4Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Understanding Intimate Partner Violence (PDF)
5National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), Domestic Violence Facts (PDF)
6Bureau of Justice Statistics (table 2, page 15), Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2006 Statistical Tables
7US Census Bureau (page 12), National Crime Victimization Survey (PDF)
8Bureau of Justice Statistics, Victim Characteristics: Age
9Bureau of Justice Statistics (table 4, page 17) Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2006 Statistical Tables (PDF)
10National Institute of Justice (pages 6-7), Sexual Assault on Campus: What Colleges and Universities Are Doing About It (PDF)
11Bureau of Justice Statistics, Intimate Partner Violence in the U.S.: Victims
12Bureau of Justice Statistics, Victim Characteristics: Race
13Family Violence Prevention Fund, The Facts on Children and Domestic Violence
14CDC, Understanding Intimate Partner Violence (PDF)
15NOW, The Violence Against Women Act: Celebrating 10 Years of Prevention
16University of North Carolina, Analyses of Violence Against Women Act suggest legislation saved U.S. $14.8 billion
17NCADV, Comparison of VAWA 1994, VAWA 2000 and VAWA 2005 Reauthorization Bill (PDF)
18National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP), Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Domestic Violence In the United States in 2007 (PDF)
19NCAVP, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Domestic Violence In the United States in 2007 (PDF)
Our generation shares the responsibility to challenge supremacism and extremism in America and around the world. Our responsibility is based on our nation and our leaders’ accountability in defending our inalienable human rights of equality and liberty – which demands that we reject all supremacism, including extremism. Such accountability on human rights also requires that we challenge those in denial on this threat who seek our surrender to extremism abroad and at home. Failure to defy extremism will not only cost us our freedoms – it will also cost us our identity, as those who appease and support such supremacism will seek to use our nation’s influence and power as a weapon against freedom – as we have recently seen in other nations. To effectively defy Islamic supremacism, we must use our existing consensus in equality and liberty as a tool to ensure that extremism is treated like any other supremacist ideology that would seek to threaten our freedoms. We know that outrage against supremacism is not enough; we are responsible to act to defy such supremacist ideologies that threaten our freedoms and take a public stand against them.
1. Accountability to Human Rights Means Saying “No” to Extremism
Of all the many recent reports of extremism’s progress against equality and liberty, surely the most disturbing to me has to be the report of Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Qureshi’s audacity in telling U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke that the United States needs to start negotiating with “reconcilable elements” of the extremist Taliban in Afghanistan.
Did the U.S. government express outrage or anger such outrageous demands that the U.S. to negotiate with the same Taliban organization that aided and abetted Al-Qaeda in planning the 9/11 attacks on the United States? Did it walk out of such discussions? Most importantly, did America’s government vehemently say “NO”?
America’s history has taught us that there is no “going along” or “working with” “reconcilable elements” of supremacist ideologies. Supremacists are not “reconcilable” to the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. Supremacists don’t compromise on their ideology, which is based on a lie that they are inherently superior to others. We know this. We have seen, fought, and defied such supremacism in this generation’s lifetime. We know that a supremacist offer of “separate but equal” means no equality at all. We know that a supremacist offer to reign in violent activities is a false promise that they cannot and will not keep. We know that the power of supremacism is only blunted when we confront and defy its ideology. We hold the truths as self-evident that all men and women are created equal and have the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. Supremacists don’t.
Most of all, President Obama should know this lesson as well, if not more so, than others. He is the greatest beneficiary thus far in America of such defiance, such unwillingness to compromise with supremacism. Because others said “no” to supremacism, Barack Obama not only has his rightful human rights in America, but also he could fully realize the dream that “all men are created equal.”
But all of this history, knowledge, and wisdom is lost in the American government leadership’s position on extremism, an ideology that it refuses to acknowledge. Our leaders have forgotten that being accountable to human rights means saying “no” to supremacist extremisim.
Instead of “no” we hear a deafening silence from our government leaders to the greatest threat to the human rights of equality and liberty in the world. Instead of the American government expressing outrage at calls by the Pakistani government for America to negotiate with so-called “reconcilable” extremists, we have Mr. Holbrooke stating that “I am here to listen and learn.” Instead of Pakistan’s Foreign Minister’s outrageous recommendation defied, FM Qureshi praised his talks with Mr. Holbrooke as a “new beginning” in ties with the U.S., stating “this administration has a different approach and starts on a different footing, that was a very pleasant change.”
It gets worse. The Daily Telegraph reports that “Mr. Holbrooke is expected to support a new approach which will involve…. secret talks with ‘persuadable’ Taliban leaders and allies in Afghanistan.”
Supremacists know that cowards will always find an excuse as to why it is inconvenient to say “no” to supremacist ideologies. In fact, that is precisely what supremacists count on – those who are unwilling to hold them accountable for their violent ideology of hatred and lies, based on a cowardly fear to say “no” to their ideology. Every time you don’t say “no” to supremacism, its adherents interpret this as a cowardly way of saying “yes” that you will tolerate supremacism’s influence on human rights.
America’s actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan has increasingly become a swirling vortex of tactics without a strategy, without a consistently defined enemy, and without a moral stance on the extremist ideology that continues to fight us there. Our young men and women continue to be sent into battle without American military and governmental leadership’s accountability in honestly and seriously defining the enemy. The fundamental lesson that fighting supremacism requires a moral accountability in defying its ideology is lost on policy and tactical wonks who keep making the same mistakes over and over. Our soldiers can risk and sacrifice their lives, but our government and military leaders cannot gather the moral courage to say “no” to the ideology of extremism. In fact, such leaders fear to even use the very words, preferring to talk about “extremists” or resorting to the sophomoric term “bad guys.”
So when our leaders can’t say “no” to the ideology of Islamic supremacism, what should we expect from those who don’t view Islamic supremacism as an ideology that needs to be challenged?
Accountability to the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty demands that free men and women say “no” to all supremacist ideologies, including extremism. But instead, we continue to see our taxpayer dollars being used in discussions with those who seek our surrender.
2. The Diplomatic Initiative to Surrender to Extremism Abroad
What Pakistan Foreign Minister Qureshi’s comments demonstrate is precisely how little moral courage the advocates of extremism think Americans have. “Diplomats” such as Pakistani Foreign Minister Qureshi seek to help America retreat and surrender from a war that they believe America cannot even fight, let alone win. There is no surprise that Islamic Republic of Pakistan government officials would seek the U.S. to negotiate with such “reconcilable elements” of the extremist Taliban. As early as August 2007, former Pakistan President Musharraf called for the “mainstreaming” of the extremist Taliban.
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has continued to allow the Taliban to develop a Sharia mini-state comprising portions of the Pakistan North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Pakistan Prime Minister Adviser Rehman Malik has justified this, by stating that Pakistan decided to enforce Sharia in Swat upon its accession to Pakistan in 1962. Pakistan’s government leaders continue to appease extremism by offering full implementation of Sharia in these parts of Pakistan. Regardless, there has continued to be a litany of daily atrocities against humanity and human rights by the Taliban against the helpless and the hopeless.
But Pakistan leaders’ primary difference with the Islamic supremacist Taliban is in the Taliban’s tactics, not the Taliban’s goal to implement Sharia. In fact, approximately 75 percent of the Pakistan public consistently support such goals of implementing “strict Sharia” throughout all of Pakistan. Members of the Pakistan Army call the Taliban “patriots” and major Pakistan press organizations have run editorials calling the Taliban “sons of the soil” and “the upholders of the integrity of Pakistan.” This is why Pakistan’s “father of the Islamic nuclear bomb” A.Q. Khan was released and is viewed by many Pakistanis as a hero, not despite his black market efforts to spread nuclear weapons to our enemies, but because of it. Moreover, Pakistan’s own government oppresses equality and liberty with its own Sharia laws and anti-freedom laws that oppress individuals for Islamic “apostasy” and “blasphemy” — something that Pakistani legislators seeks to export around the world. So clearly, it is no surprise that Pakistani government leaders would make excuses for the extremist Taliban, even as U.S. Senator John Kerry and Senator Richard Lugar seek to have American taxpayers pay $1.5 billion dollars to Pakistan a year, which Pakistan demands without conditions. This is precisely how a bully would treat one considered to be a coward.
In the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, President Karzai’s repeated pleas for the Taliban to “reconcile” with its Islamic government have fallen on deaf ears, for the same reason. Since September 2007, Afghanistan President Karzai has been offering the Taliban a role in the Afghan government, and continues to seek such “reconciliation” with the Taliban today. The Taliban views that it is winning the war to recapture Afghanistan, why should it stop fighting? ABC, BBC, and ARD recently released poll results that shows that the Afghan public blame the US more than Taliban for violence; this poll also shows that only 8 percent of those polled view the Taliban as Afghanistan’s biggest problem. Without a defined ideological enemy of extremism and with American leaders accepting a policy of “reconciliation” towards the Taliban, it is no surprise that Afghanistan President Karzai asked in November 2008 when we could end the war in Afghanistan. What greater signals could our leaders send that we are determined to surrender? On November 25, 2008, the AP reported that President Karzai stated that “the international community should set a timeline to end the war in Afghanistan.” Karzai was quoted as stating “If there is no deadline, we have the right to find another solution for peace and security, which is negotiations.”
We can hardly be surprised by this. Who is the enemy in Afghanistan – the Taliban – unless we are seeking to negotiate with them? In October 2008, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was reported to have endorsed such a policy of “reconciliation” with the Taliban, as part of his “war on extremism” tactics. This appears to be a tactical direction that the Obama administration will also continue. U.S. government analysts have tried to make the fine distinction between the “Taliban” and “Al-Qaeda,” to allow a “political solution” with the Taliban that allows it to be viewed as separate from Al-Qaeda. The argument is that the Taliban represents a “regional” threat, whereas Al-Qaeda is a transnational threat, and therefore appeasing the Taliban is somehow an acceptable form of surrender. They deliberately ignore the fact that Taliban is a transnational threat (which continues to threaten Europe, U.S., Israel, and other nations) which does not recognize boundaries, seeks to create a global extremist caliphate, seeks jihad against the non-Muslim world, and shares the Islamic supremacist goal of implementing Sharia. Such appeasers ignore all of this so that they can lay the ground work for “peace in our time” with the Taliban. The moral failure remains the same, however. Such appeasement towards extremists and failure to confront the ideology will only expand the threat of Islamic supremacism. This appeasement will teach extremists that their tactics are working to continue to gain power and influence for Islamic supremacism.
Such a mentality of surrender is hardly limited only to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and American government officials. Leaders from other NATO countries have already sought to position themselves for surrender as well. On February 9, 2009, the United Kingdom also announced a new envoy to both Pakistan and Afghanistan, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, an Arabic speaker who has previously been Britain’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia. On October 2, 2008, the London Times reported about a memo that Sherard Cowper-Coles allegedly sent to a French diplomat “reportedly saying that the campaign against the Taleban insurgents would fail.” According to the Sherard Cowper-Coles memo reported by London Times: “the only realistic outlook for Afghanistan would be the installation of ‘an acceptable dictator.'” The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (predictably) replied by stating that the reports of the Cowper-Coles memo were a “distortion” of his views. But this was immediately followed by a London Times commentary supporting such a view as reported regarding the alleged Cowper-Coles memo as “straight-talking.” Days later UK Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith echoed such sentiments stating “we’re not going to win this war,” followed by a chorus of agreement by other foreign policy leaders among European NATO nations. This is the same UK, whose former Defense Secretary Browne called for the Taliban to be “involved in the peace process,” whose MI6 engaged in negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan. In the United Kingdom today, the James Bond of the 21st century seeks to negotiate with, not confront, the enemies of freedom.
Can we be surprised that extremists are confident in America’s near-term surrender and withdrawal from challenging Violent Extemismists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, when American government leaders can’t even name the enemy and its Islamic supremacist ideology? When we fail to be accountable for human rights, supremacists expect the surrender of those who could defend equality and liberty, not only in foreign nations, but also in their own nations.
While some would look at individual nations or groups as the source of terrorist threats, the reality is much more troubling. The reality is that stopping extremist terrorism tactics from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, etc., is not enough. The challenge is greater than such a tactical-based, “whack-a-mole,” reactive approach. The true challenge is to defy the ideology of extremism itself as a global threat to equality and liberty. extremism terrorism is simply a tactic of extremism adherents, and the failure to challenge the ideology itself demonstrates that that tactic is working.
Failure to recognize and defy extremism as part of our responsibility to be accountable for equality and liberty is the single worst mistake that a free nation can make. Such a failure not only will lead to a greater risk of terrorism, but also will lead to a deterioration of equality and liberty in a free nation itself.
3. The Ghost of a Extremist-Appeased Future
We can see the consequences of failing to be accountable for our responsibility in defending equality and liberty, by simply looking at the failures of another nation. What are the consequences of failing to defy extremism?
Imagine a nation notorious for being one of the major “exporters” of violent extremism in the world. Imagine a nation where extremists publicly support terrorist attacks on America, where violent extremists repeatedly plot mass-casualty terrorist attacks on the United States (not once, not twice, not just three times), where funding to groups fronting for terrorists is promoted by government officials, where foreign individuals representing terrorist organizations are allowed to enter the nation to speak on tours, and where known supporters of terrorist organizations freely make television and public conference appearances. Imagine a nation with a long history of providing a “covenant of security” for extremists, so notoriously well-known as an appeaser that Osama Bin Laden sought to live there. Imagine a nation whose protestors publicly seek to “Slay Those Who Insult Islam,” “Kill Those Who Insult Islam,” “Behead Those Who Insult Islam,” and “Butcher Those Who Mock Islam.” Imagine a nation where armed police run from Islamic protestors who call the police “cowards,” “kuffar (infidels),” and chant “Allahu Akbar” as they chase the police down the street.
Imagine a nation where America’s CIA is currently monitoring the efforts of 4,000 Violent Extemismists from that nation who are viewed to be a threat to American national security. Imagine a nation where 40 percent of the CIA efforts are concentrated on preventing attacks on the United States from that nation’s residents and citizens. Imagine a nation where America’s homeland security department has repeatedly warned about that nation’s citizens as a threat to American national security and has sought (unsuccessfully) visa restrictions to protect America from the threat of its citizens. Imagine a nation whose citizens are a concentration of extremist terrorism for their region, and are viewed as a “mainstay of global ‘jihad'” efforts around the world. Imagine a nation where its non-profit organizations publicly call for “jihad” and support Muslim violence.
Imagine a nation whose “security minister” calls for talks with Al-Qaeda and whose “security forces” negotiate with the Taliban. Imagine a nation whose “security” efforts involve promotion of an individual who supports Violent Extemism in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel, who seeks the creation of Islamic states, and who seeks “the triumph of the Taliban.” Imagine a nation where individuals listed as leading “counterterror” organizations come from the extremist Muslim Brotherhood and view Israeli children to be legitimate targets of Violent Extemismists. Imagine a nation where an Interpol-wanted, convicted terrorist advises on that nation’s “counterterrorism.” Imagine a nation where senior government employees are activists in extremist groups that seek to create a global caliphate and call for killing of American soldiers.
Imagine a nation where its primary “counter-extremist” organization publicly praises an individual that supports an international terrorist organization, is against freedom of religion, defends wife-beating, calls for the death penalty for adultery, and seeks the promotion of extremist Sharia. Imagine a nation whose primary “counter-extremist” organization leader defends the “right” of Violent Extemismists in Afghanistan and Iraq to wage war. Imagine a nation where its natives infiltrate American news organizations, universities, and counterterrorist organizations to offer a sympathetic view of extremists as a political force that should be engaged with and influence American security strategies and education. Imagine a nation where local law enforcement officers are expected to be trained on the importance of extremist Sharia law.
Imagine a nation whose leaders call on foreign nations to develop their constitution based on “Islamic law,” whose leaders seek the acceptance of Sharia law and Sharia courts in their own nation, and where Sharia courts operate today. Imagine a nation whose $18 billion extremist Sharia finance sector is one of the largest in the world and whose government aggressively promotes Islamic Sharia finance. Imagine a nation whose foreign minister calls for extremists to “channel” their efforts into gaining political power. Imagine a nation whose senior foreign policy analyst publicly rants about “f***ing Jews,” and calls for Israeli soldiers to be “wiped off the face of the Earth.”
Imagine a nation where 60 percent of its Muslim schools have Islamic supremacist links, where a third of its Muslim students freely admit their beliefs that killing in the name of Allah is justified, and where a significant percentage seek the incorporation of Sharia law into that nation’s law. Imagine a nation where school children are punished if they don’t take place in prayers to worship Allah, where Muslim children are asked if they hate Jews, and where school teachers are punished if they dare to seek to have joint assemblies of children – committing the “offense” of not providing segregated assemblies for Muslim children. Imagine a nation with schools where children are taught that Christians are “pigs” and Jews are “monkeys.” Imagine a nation where a significant number of Muslim youth openly admit to supporting organizations such as Al-Qaeda, and where a third believe that those who covert from Islam to another religion should be put to death.
Imagine a nation whose institutional and government leaders seek to silence those challenging extremism, not only of their own citizens, but also those from foreign nations, exerting pressure to silence people from and in other nations, including America. Imagine a nation where “extremists” are those who dare to challenge extremism.
Imagine that this list… is just barely touching the surface of the extremist infiltration and appeasement of such a nation.
Perhaps you think I am referencing Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Pakistan? No doubt you think I am referencing a nation that harbors those who seek the destruction of equality and liberty? Surely this is not a nation that you think America would have a “special relationship” with — except perhaps as an adversary?
In fact, the nation I am referencing is the United Kingdom.
This brief portrait of the endless failures by the United Kingdom to defy extremism and be accountable for defending equality and liberty – is to provide context towards the UK Home Office’s recent actions to deny Netherlands legislator Geert Wilders freedom to speak in the UK Parliament regarding Islam. Given the state of the UK, such actions by its government can hardly be a surprise.
The UK Home Office’s rank hypocrisy regarding Geert Wilders is pathetically embarrassing as the weakness of a government that has clearly surrendered to extremism. The UK Home Office claimed that its objectives in silencing Wilders was to “stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages,” while its security minister calls for talks with Al-Qaeda, while it allows Hezbollah supporters to enter the UK to tour the nation, while its promotes an individual calling for Violent Extemism and supporting the Taliban, while it funds an organization that praises Egypt’s Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa (a known Hezbollah supporter and extremist). This is the same UK Home Office that allows its employees to be members of the extremist Hizb ut-Tahrir, which seeks the creation of a extremist caliphate, supports jihad, and whose leaflets have been reported by BBC to include “threats against Jews to “kill them wherever you find them'” — the same Hizb ut-Tahrir organization that reportedly radicalized British suicide bomber Omar Shariff — the same Hizb ut-Tahrir organization whose speakers state “democracy is un-Islamic.”
So this makes it clear that the UK Home Office’s use of the meaningless term “extremism” is merely a political ploy to silence only those who would challenge their efforts to maintain a “covenant of security” between the UK and extremists. There will be no silencing of former Al-Muhajiroun leader Anjem Choudary and the “Islam for the UK” group, who provided a forum on November 10, 2008 in the UK for Omar Bakri Muhammad , who told the audience “Do not obey the British law… We must fight and die for Islam.” “Islam for the UK” has another meeting scheduled for March 3, 2009 where it will seek to encourage Muslims to develop a global extremist caliphate. But this isn’t “extremism” for the UK Home Office. Nor did UK Home Office concerns about extremism halt a Muslim Brotherhood festival for the terrorist group Hamas in London on February 15, 2009. The fund raising Hamas festival in London included Wagdi Ghuniem, who has been thrown out or run out of most countries, except of course, the UK — the same Wagdi Ghuniem, who promotes Violent Extemism and calls Jews “apes.” Not surprisingly, this Muslim Brotherhood festival for the Hamas terrorist group also included so-called British “counterterror leader” Kamal Al-Helbawy, the “former” Muslim Brotherhood spokesman in UK, who supports attacks on Israeli children, and is viewed as “really respected” by British journalists in “counterterrorism” such as CNN’s Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank.
When one understands that the UK Home Office’s real agenda is to silence those who would point out their abject surrender to extremism, it is clearly no surprise that they would not want Geert Wilders to speak. It is also not surprising that other UK institutions have sought to silence Briton Douglas Murray and others; Mr. Murray, a challenger of extremism in the UK, was silenced by the London School of Economics in “the interests of public safety.”
But what you may not realize is the UK Home Office has also aggressively sought to influence debate in the United States as well. On June 24, 2008 in Washington, DC, the UK Home Office sent a representative to a George Washington University panel discussion that I was part of, regarding the definition of “jihad” to dissuade Americans from using the term “jihad” or “Islamist” when discussing extremist terrorism. In our nation’s capital, this foreign government sought to sway American debate to ignore the Islamic supremacist nature of Violent Extemism.
Two months later, I was told by a well-known American blog on counterterrorism subjects that the UK Home Office had written them in complaint of my articles regarding extremism in the UK and sought to have me silenced (an American). I was told that the representative of the UK Home Office was specifically angry about an article where I questioned why the Quilliam Foundation was publicly praising on their web site Egyptian Mufti Ali Gomaa – a known supporter of Hezbollah and extremism — while Quilliam claims to oppose “Islamism.” A few weeks before that Senators Kyl and Coburn had written then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asking why U.S. government funds were supporting ISNA’s meeting with this same Ali Gomaa. Like ISNA, the UK Home Office does not need such scrutiny of the facts, and this particular American blog chose to discontinue my articles on Violent Extemism and extremism. (Four months later, the Quilliam Foundation was given 1 million pounds sterling of British taxpayer funds — and their support for Ali Gomaa remains on their public web site.)
The UK Home Office’s agenda in protecting its “covenant of security” with extremism is not going to be limited to silence Americans in this country as well, and it will doubtless continue to use its resources and influence within this country to do so. This shows the stakes in failing to defy extremism — surrender will not only undermine support for equality and liberty, surrender will also alter your relations with free nations committed to being responsible for equality and liberty. While we must continue to support the resistance movement by individuals in the UK who are still committed to equality and liberty, we must recognize that the current British Home and Foreign Offices and their supporters have abandoned all pretense of commitment to equality and liberty, preferring appeasement and infiltration by the enemy. It has gone well down the road to becoming an enemy-occupied, collaborationist, “Vichy Britain.”
Moreover, some publicly promote their collaborationist credentials to impress extremists, as shown by the February 15, 2009 report of the Archbishop on Canterbury’s claims that he has persuaded “a number of fairly senior people” to support the growing incorporation of extremist Sharia law in the United Kingdom. Some wear their surrender proudly.
This is the treacherous, sinister, perverted future that would await free people who fail to be accountable in defying extremism; those who fail to defy it will eventually become a tool of the enemy to protect your “peace” through submission. Failure to defy extremism will not only cost us our freedoms… it will also cost us our identity.
In Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol,” there is the well-known story of Scrooge facing the “ghost of Christmas yet to come,” a grim reaper that points to Scrooge’s dishonor, disgrace, and grave. Scrooge asks “Are these the shadows of the things that Will be, or are they shadows of things that May be, only?”
This is the question to America regarding what we must learn from the grim and sad tale of the United Kingdom’s appeasement of Islamic supremacism. The deteriorating United Kingdom serves as a cautionary example of the future that awaits us, should we fail to be responsible for equality and liberty today.
Americans can choose another path. Our destiny remains in our hands. Our ability to forge a new path of defiance against extremism and in defense of equality and liberty remains the responsibility of our generation.
4. Consensus Building and Accountability
What does such responsibility for equality and liberty mean in terms of defying extremism? Does it mean building a consensus among the American public and our leaders on the threat of Islamic supremacism? Or does it mean being accountable for actively defying extremism in public? Certainly, it means both.
But our efforts at consensus building should not overlook that America already has a fundamental consensus on equality and liberty. We have declared such a consensus that “all men are created equality” and that all human beings have the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty – as our declaration of our very identity as a nation, and as a people. This is is who and what we are. We don’t need to build this consensus; we simply need to effectively use it. This American consensus is shared by nations around the world that adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. We, not just as Americans, but as humanity, hold these truths to be self-evident. Such declarations of our human rights form the international basis for our defiance of extremism.
Where this consensus in human rights still is not effective is in understanding the supremacist nature of our challenge today. In America, we have defied those who would teach white supremacism to our children in schools, exercise white supremacism in business and public activities, seek racial segregation, or seek to promote white supremacism in our laws and government. As a nation, we have proven that our government and the mass majority of our people understand and reject such supremacism. But this commitment and consensus has not yet been effectively applied to extremism.
It is our obligation as a free people, responsible for equality and liberty, is to demand – why not?
In America, a nation dedicated to equality and liberty, the individual freedom of thought of white supremacists does not translate into a national tolerance of white supremacism and racial segregation in our schools, our places of worship, our businesses, our non-profit organizations, our public events, our laws, and our government. Our freedoms do not permit hate and supremacism to overtake our inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. We do not and will not tolerate this.
Therefore, we must also demand that our religious freedoms are not warped to translate into a national tolerance of extremism and segregation in our schools, our public places, our businesses, our non-profit organizations, our public events, our laws, and our government. We must similarly demand that extremism must not overtake our inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. We must demand an end to the tolerance of this.
Our obligation in being accountable for defying extremism demands that, as a people responsible for equality and liberty, we publicly speak out against such extremism and call for an end to its sinister influences in America and around the world. The key in consensus building against the threat of extremism lies in utilizing the consensus of freedom that we already share today to defy and condemn those who would have a different standard that allows tolerance of extremism to undermine our unity in equality and liberty.
Our accountability in defying extremism requires that we demand the same standards for extremist practices, ideology, businesses, organizations, and messages – that we would have for any other supremacist organization that seeks to undermine equality and liberty. Our accountability must also reject the conscious “ignorance” by our leaders on extremism as a convenient excuse to avoid their responsibility to defy it. Ignorance is not an excuse. Such leaders understand that we are a nation committed to equality and liberty. They simply need to act consistently on the principles set down and the profiles of courage by our founding fathers, human rights leaders, and past presidents. It is time once again for the American public and our leaders to truly show the courage of our convictions as a nation responsible for equality and liberty.
5. The Wisdom to be Responsible for Equality And Liberty
If anyone in America should understand the need to be responsible for equality and liberty, it should be President Obama. If America had failed to maintain its steadfastness in defying white supremacism then, like it is caving on extremism now, Barack Obama not only would not be President today, we would still be fighting for his basic inalienable human rights of equality and liberty.
We fought that war because we believed then, as we must continue to believe now, that “all men are created equal” and because we view the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty as self-evident truths. Such a responsibility for equality and liberty was not just the responsibility of our founding fathers or of generations past. It is the responsibility that declares our identity as Americans and what America is. We must not forget the wisdom learned by the sacrifices of so many before us. We must not let the pain and frustration of our current times blind us to the wisdom of what we have learned in the past, and how such lessons can rescue equality and liberty today.
After Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed, Bobbie Kennedy told an audience: “My favorite poet was Aeschylus. He once wrote: ‘Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.'”
Such wisdom, that all men are created equal, remains hammered in stone in our nation’s capital and imbedded in our national soul yet today.
We have learned that wisdom from America’s own long, painful, bloody history in facing down supremacism that there is no “going along” with supremacists until someday they decide to “reform” on their own. That day will never come by wishful thinking. That day will never come if we don’t take a moral stand on the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. It took America over 100 years of pain and suffering to learn that lesson. Going along, looking the other way, and wishing things were different will never make a difference.
We have the wisdom and the history to know that silence will never change supremacism.
But this knowledge is not enough. It is not enough to merely be outraged. It is not enough to merely be disgusted. It is not enough to merely be frustrated. It is not enough to merely write and speak to those who share our concern about supremacism.
Wisdom and our history demands that we act to defy supremacism, as we did in the past, and as we will in the future. There are many ways to act, to inform, to educate, to lobby our legislators, to contact our federal government on issues, and share information among ourselves. Such slow and steady working in education and consensus-building is admirable hard work of devoted defenders of liberty.
But what will it take to awaken our national shame to those who would appease extremism?
As others face prosecution for their willingness to defy extremism, isn’t it about time that we truly show some defiance of our own? Some inaccurately believe that the human rights movement against extremism “doesn’t have the numbers” to show public defiance. They believe that we don’t have enough people willing to take a public stand in support of equality and liberty, defying extremism. But as we have seen by others’ brave stands, all it takes to show defiance is merely one.
When will the sons and daughters of “the home of brave” rally in public against extremism? As women are abused and children are killed in America and around the world by extremists, where are the public protests demanding their protection? Why can sponsors of extremist Sharia finance continue to enjoy unfettered business as usual – without our protests throughout our nation? Why are our government representatives allowed to seek U.S. tax dollars to fund nations that support extremism – without our protest? Why are our government representatives allowed to talk to those who would appease the very Taliban who abetted attacks on our nation – without our protest?
The wisdom to be responsible for equality and liberty also demands our public defiance to those would appease and support extremism. We must stand and we must march.
We will never march alone. Even if one of us were to be the sole protestor of our defiance to extremism, we will be joined by the spirit of our founding fathers and of all those who have bravely stood defiantly against supremacism and in defense of equality and liberty. We stand together, yesterday, now, and tomorrow, united against extremism, and united in our responsibility for equality and liberty.
The dawn of our movement in public defiance of Islamic supremacism is on the horizon. It is time for us to stand together to own that responsibility and destiny.
We will Fear No Evil. We will Defy It.
[Postscript – see also Sources documents for references, additional reading, and background information.]
