On June 21, 2017, Canadian Amor M. Ftouhi attacked uniformed airport police officer, Lt. Jeff Neville, with a 12 inch knife and stabbed him in the neck at the Flint Bishop International Airport. Amor M. Ftouhi, a Canadian citizen from Montreal, Quebec, has been in the U.S. legally since June 16, 2017. The terrorist weapon was “green handle and a black serrated blade and was marked Amazon Jungle Survival Knife.” The airport was evacuated shortly after the terrorist attack. The terrorist was subdued and Lt. Neville taken to the hospital for emergency treatment. The injured officer is in “satisfactory” condition, authorities said on the afternoon of June 21. The Detroit Free Press has been reporting that the “FBI says the stabbing of a police officer at a Flint airport Wednesday is being investigated as an ‘act of terror’.”
Terrorist Amor M. Ftouhi from Canada (L) stabbed Michigan Flint Bishop Airport Police Officer Lt. Jeff Neville (R) with this 12 inch knife in the neck
According to Lt. Jeff Neville’s LinkedIn page, he has worked at the airport since 2001 and is a former Genesee County Sheriff’s lieutenant. “I am responsible for overseeing the operations of law enforcement on the day to day”, he wrote.
Michigan: Flint Bishop International Airport – Scene of June 21, 2017 Terrorist Attack
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a federal criminal complaint against a Amor M. Ftouhi today for the attack. The complaint states in part: “on the morning of June 21, 2017, an individual who was later identified as Amor M. Ftouhi used a large knife to stab a police officer at the airport. Specifically, the officer told me that Ftouhi walked up to a fully-uniformed police officer at a publicly accessible area of the airport, yelled ‘Allahu Akbar,’ pulled out a knife and stabbed the officer in the neck. After stabbing the police officer, Ftouhi continued to yell ‘Allah’ several times. He further exclaimed something similar to, ‘you have killed people in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and we are all going to die.’ The law enforcement officer was able to subdue Ftouhi, who asked the officer why he did not kill him. The officer also took all of Ftouhi’s possessions, which included identification documents for Amor M. Ftouhi.” “I have also spoken with another FBI agent who reviewed surveillance video of the airport premises, including the location of the stabbing. The agent informed me that at approximately 8:52 a.m., Ftouhi entered the first level of Bishop International Airport carrying a red duffle and a dark satchel bag. At approximately 9:10, Ftouhi went up an escalator to the second level of the airport. At the top of the escalator, Ftouhi turned left to go to a restaurant. At approximately 9:37:56, Ftouhi left the restaurant carrying both bags. Ftouhi entered a second-floor restroom at 9: 3 8: 15 and left at approximately 9:38:43 without either bag. At 9:38:48, Ftouhi attacked the officer and was subdued by other law enforcement shortly after.”
Montreal edition of La Presse published a photograph of Canadian Amor M. Ftouhi with online reports about the terrorist attack.
It appears likely that terrorist Amor Ftouhi intended the attack as former of terrorist martyrdom, and was surprised that he was not killed by police.
The Canadian RCMP and the SPVM police officers also agreed to assist in the investigation to terrorist Amor Ftouhi, and investigated two women associated with him. La Press reported on June 21 that the RCMP and SPVM “entered an apartment building in the East of the city in connection with the suspect. A security perimeter is in place.” La Press also reported that “[a]ccording to our sources, the Quebec suspect was not known to Canadian law enforcement authorities.” La Press states that NBC reported Amor Ftouhi “tried to get a gun to fire, but in vain. Then, he would have bought the knife used in the attack.”
According to the La Press report, the FBI initial investigation indicates belief that Amor Ftouhi acted alone. La Press quoted FBI special agent David Gelios: “We do not believe that other individuals were involved. We have no information that suggests a broader terrorist conspiracy, but it is very early in the investigation. We request search warrants for electronic equipment, for his vehicle. Only time can tell us if other people were aware of the plan, but for now we see it as a lone wolf. […] Obviously, he has a hatred for the United States.”
Amor Ftouhi’s social media background stated that he was originally from Tunisia, and that he followed Tunisian organizations. It also stated that he was previously a student at the Faculty at Humanities in Tunis. His social media account stated that his last job was with Industrielle Alliance, an auto and home insurance company with offices in Montreal and throughout Quebec. Amor Ftouhi’s Facebook social media friends posted a variety of online videos, including one recently of the extremist cleric Zair Naik.
=============
Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) rejects all terrorists attacks as an assault on the human safety and security, the human rights, of all of our fellow human beings. We urge all people to reject the tactics of terrorism, and to reject ideologies of extremism that de-humanize our fellow human beings, and allow extremists to believe that acts of terror are justifiable. They are never justifiable, and we call for all people to support our shared universal human rights, without qualification.
We need to call the June 14, 2017 attack on U.S. Congressional representatives and the public in Alexandria, Virginia what it is: “Terrorism.”
There is a difference between a random lunatic shooting someone and a political terrorist targeting a group. The terrorist attack in Alexandria, Virginia was not only a “shooting,” it was also a deliberate, terrorist attack, intended for targeted mass-murder and a political statement. It was as close to definition of terrorism as we get: violence intended to intimidate and in pursuit of political aims.
While all sane people respecting human life and dignity condemned the terrorist attack in Alexandria, we must also recognize that there were many who publicly defended, praised, and applauded the act of terrorism today. There were many political extremists defending such acts of terrorism in actually shooting at representatives of the U.S. Congress, and many publicly expressing regrets that there were not deaths in this terrorist act. Such political extremists do not care about the 10 year old son of Congressional Representative Joe Barton, who had to hide under a car in Alexandria to keep from being shot by a crazed terrorist. Political extremists don’t care about the police woman shot, the non-government individual shot, and the other victims. Political extremists don’t care about the YMCA being shot at with bullets flying through windows and even landing inside the building and the pool.
Like any other deranged extremist ideologies promoting terrorism, such political extremists have de-humanized these victims, the public, the children, the families nearby as expendable to justify their “cause.” What type of cause thinks that terrorizing children, shooting to kill our government officials, shooting to kill our police, shooting to kill anyone in the way… is any type of political cause for “justice” or “freedom”?
The threat of political extremist ideologies are no different than adherents of any other extremist ideologies, when they encourage, defend, incite, and promote violence on the behalf of such extremist views.
Such political extremism, and in this case, political anti-government extremism, is not simply disagreement, even passionate disagreement on political views. Such political extremism defends, excuses, and promotes openly inciting violence; it is just as dangerous to public safety, as any other extremist ideology.
While our law enforcement agencies will no doubt investigate this specific attack, so that they can find the appropriate legal terms they consider appropriate to apply, the American public must recognize this as an act of Political Extremist Terrorism. As of the date of publishing this, the FBI is still investigating this. They have not “declared” this as a “terrorist act.”
But we know that the Alexandria terrorist attack was done by a political extremist who targeted and sought to mass-murder individuals of another political viewpoint. The social media postings of the political extremist terrorist James T. Hodgkinson have been publicly available all day for anyone to see. It is clear that this terrorist targeted and shot the known victims because of their political beliefs: Congressman Steve Scalise, aide Zach Barth, security detail David Bailey and Crystal Griner, and Matt Mika. It also clear that political extremist terrorist James Hodgkinson planned to murder them all, using his automatic rifle. It was only the quick response of those in Congressman Scalise’s security details that prevented a total massacre by this terrorist.
A political extremist terrorist attack on Congressional representatives is simply that – a terrorist attack. It does not matter if the terrorist attack is by a religious extremist, a racial extremist, or a political extremist. Of course, it does not matter if a terrorist attack is on Republicans, Democrats, or any other group. Terrorism is terrorism. Wrong is wrong.
We don’t want to be judgmental. But there is a difference between being judgmental and being willfully blind. A terrorist is not just a “shooter” like a bank robber or any other criminal. Terrorists with a gun or any other weapon don’t look to injure, maim, and kill simply for some monetary gain or personal vengeance, but to terrorize and intimidate people of a particular group.
Yet what this terrorist attack in Alexandria reveals today goes much further than the murderous plans of terrorist James Hodgkinson. It represents a milestone in time, where the American public can no longer be in denial about this political extremist terrorist threat as a major public safety threat in America. It is time to stop the denial, the excuses, and the evasion about the political extremist terrorist threat in the U.S. Such terrorists have now clearly shed blood in an intended mass-murder terrorist attack.
Many who are non-partisan, and many who want to do everything we can to be fair and balanced, don’t want to acknowledge political extremism as an ideology which can incite violence. But denial of the burgeoning and out of control political extremist movement problem that the U.S. has will not simply “go away.” We have political extremist terrorists who use fire bombs, stab, assault, and beat those who they don’t agree with. The “tolerance” of such political extremist acts of terrorism have only made the public less safe and the extremist problem more severe, because political extremists increasingly believe there will not be real consequences for their acts.
The world shook its head at the recent revelation that the United Kingdom reportedly has 23,000 “known” Islamist extremists as a potential terrorist threat.
How many political extremists defending, promoting, praising, and calling for acts of terrorism does the United States believe that it has right now? Surely not “just” 23,000. The United States wishes its political extremist number was so small. And how many are “known”?
The United States might have 23,000 political extremists publicly calling for acts of terrorism or threats against the U.S. Government and the President of the United States – EVERY DAY – on social media and in public demonstrations. How many actual arrests have been made by U.S. law enforcement authorities of such political extremists calling for acts of violence and terrorism?
The United States is a nation in denial that does not even want to admit it has a political extremist problem. The U.S. has simply gotten too “used” to it. People regularly make political death threats, with little to no consequences. These are not some anonymous figures, hiding in “dark Web” areas with secret names. Hardly. These are political extremists using their full names and in public. Celebrities join in, and there are no consequences. Celebrities can hold up a bloody “head” of a beheaded figure of the U.S. President, and there are no consequences. Celebrities can defend and praise calls for acts of violence and terrorism as somehow “patriotic” and “just.” Without consequences, political extremists are simply emboldened to have increasingly more extreme and dangerous threats, leading us to the terrorist attack today.
The United States has a vigorous history of freedom of speech, which all free people must surely defend.
But the concept that the U.S. freedom of speech grants its citizens the “right” to threaten to murder, threaten to kill, threaten to bomb, and threaten to injure one another is so absurd and outrageous that it is beyond all logical reason. The suicidal argument that death threats by extremists are tolerable because they “didn’t mean it” is nothing less than a total abandonment of public safety standards. What part of the U.S. Constitution grants American citizens the right to threaten to kill and injure one another? How are threats of murder and bombing somehow “protected rights”?
Not just in the United States of America, but in any non-totalitarian nation, who has such “rights”? The “right” to threaten to murder, threaten to bomb, threaten to injure your fellow human beings certainly is not part of our Universal Human Rights.
In any sane, rational, nation with laws, we have a name for such actions: “a crime.”
But for the past year and half, we have seen too many essentially look the other way at what any rational person would consider “a crime.” Not surprisingly, when a society and its legal system normalizes such unabashed calls for open violence, people no longer believe there is anything “wrong” with such actions. For rational people who respect human rights, however, such threats are recognized to be nothing less than criminal acts.
The American government officials and leaders have been holding meetings and expressing “deep concern” about the use of social media to promote extremist views of the ISIS terrorist movement. The many thousands using social media to incite ISIS extremist violence must be brought to an end, as our legitimately concerned and troubled leaders state.
But when it comes to the many thousands and thousands of Americans using social media to incite political extremist violence, well, that’s a different story to our concerned leaders. After all, we wouldn’t want to offend the public’s “free speech rights,” would we, as political extremists call for murder, beheading, bombings, you name it. If a foreign Muslim woman got on an American stage and called for bombing the White House, she would expect to be led away in handcuffs. But when an American celebrity woman does the same thing, she is widely applauded, put on the mainstream media, and called an activist champion. This public threat of bombing a U.S. Government building to kill the U.S. President was applauded in public, not by merely a handful of political extremists, but by THOUSANDS in broad daylight. Such extreme, blatant hypocrisy and double-standards on law, acceptable speech, and public safety standards MUST end.
In politics, we don’t have to agree, we have a right to criticism and passionate debate. But there has to be a line between “passionate debate” and political extremism. Support for violence and death threats, calls for beheadings, support and praise for acts of terrorism has to be a boundary between debate and extremism. We need to recognize that this boundary exists between political disagreement and political extremism. We need to condemn those on any side that cross that boundary to openly praise, defend, and incite political extremist violence. In terms of the public’s rejection of such political extremist views, does it matter if such political extremism comes from the left, the right, or any other political spectrum?
The American public, its representative government, and its representative law enforcement can no longer allow political extremists to normalize calls for and incitement of violence. Calls for terrorism are not protected free speech, and terrorist acts are not a human right.
The only surprise about the June 14 terrorist attack in Alexandria, Virginia is how limited the casualties were thanks to quick-acting security.
The American public will likely not be as lucky in the next political extremist terrorist attack. What we do know, given the massive public praise, support, and defense of this terrorist attack in Alexandria by too many Americans on social media, is that without consequences, without challenging political extremists (like we would any other extremist threat), there is likely to be a NEXT time. With blood on the ground, the political extremists in America still don’t think that there is anything wrong in such acts of terrorism.
In our war against terror, we must also challenge the terrorists among us, and we must deny that terrorism is no different than patriotism.
Gunshots – Political Extremist Terrorist Attack, Alexandria, VA – 6/14/2017 (1 of 3)
Gunshots – Political Extremist Terrorist Attack, Alexandria, VA – 6/14/2017 (2 of 3)
Gunshots – Political Extremist Terrorist Attack, Alexandria, VA – 6/14/2017 (3 of 3)
Political Extremist Terrorist James T. Hodgkinson (Facebook)
Anti-Government Political Extremist Group Supported by Terrorist James T. Hodgkinson (Facebook)
Article 32. “Everyone has a right to an identity as a human being. We reject all threats and efforts to de-humanize our fellow human beings as the gravest violation of our shared human rights.”
We are facing a global plague of violence and violent incitement – every hour, every day, with horrific violence every single day around the world. This path of uncontrolled hate and blood lust is leading America and the world towards a war unlike one we have never seen in modern times. People of conscience must stand up and say STOP IT.
The idea behind “beheading” is to deny another person’s identity as a human being. This belief that we can deny the very humanity of people who are different is one of the most fundamental attacks on human rights possible.
The violent horror of beheading is to de-humanize another human being, to remove their human identity, and to leave them as nothing more than a “label.” It is the ultimate violation of human integrity. To suggest that this provides a “comedic” message, “art,” or a “truth,” demonstrates how deep the cancer of hate has reached into the soul of our society. Once we have reduced “the other” to just a label, then human rights, dignity, even human decency, is too expendable. By beheading another being from their human identity, hate allows those in society to embrace a sociopathic vision that denies the right to individuality, differences, distinction, disagreement, among others. It is symbolic of the cancer of hate infecting too much of the human race today.
If there are no consequences for such hate threats and incitement to violence, what human rights will our law enforcement defend? These are not just threats to kill, but to actually de-humanize others. If it is acceptable to threaten to behead another human being, and remove their very humanity, what is to keep the legal dam of uncontrolled violent threats from ripping the nation and the world apart?
When faced with grave threats to human rights and human dignity, there must be a moment for decisiveness. There must be a moment where people of conscience say: this has gone far enough. Yet as too much of society skips recklessly along the brink of disaster, we see many of our societal leaders dithering. We our Justice Community incapable of offering confidence in protecting our public. We see a global media, which ignores the disastrous consequences of rationalizing and normalizing open incitement to violence.
In the United States of America and countries around the world, we increasingly creep towards a tribalist view of justice and human rights. Too many continue to walk towards a tribalist precipice where basic law, basic respect for human safety, even the most fundamental human rights, will only be defended for and the law enforced for those who represent “our” tribe versus “their” tribe, whoever that race, religion, political, or identity group may be. We see calls for laws to be enforced only against those people that tribal mobs don’t like or agree with. Abandoning justice and integrity, politicizing law and law enforcement, only leads our societies to greater division, and attacks on basic social cohesion. We are witnessing a devolving public society into groups of tribal mobs, where might makes right, without mercy, without pause, without conscience. It is a dark path that too many are pursuing, fueled by hatred and contempt.
The match of hate can burn bright and fast. But the advocates of hate will find that they cannot control the ravenous hunger of the flames of social destruction. The tribes of destruction will ultimately find themselves among the destroyed as well.
We do not just support our Universal Human Rights to be compassionate and merciful. We also support Universal Human Rights because we MUST; our societal cohesion and survival depends on such shared Human Rights and dignity – for ALL of us – not just as individual tribes, cities, and nations, but as a human race.
It’s not just a good idea. It’s not just a worthy cause or ideal. The reality is, for our shared survival, we MUST be responsible for equality and liberty.
U.S. law enforcement’s accomplishments are dependent on a shared law, shared mission of public safety and equal enforcement of the law, and dependent on the public trusting law enforcement organizations and agents. While in this case, the subject is about U.S. law enforcement, such basic standards apply in any free and democratic nation. A mission for public safety is dependent on public trust. Those that undermine public trust, don’t simply undermine trust in themselves or their agency, they undermine trust in all members of the law enforcement and justice community.
U.S. law enforcement communications with the news media must have the following primary objectives: (a) provide public and accountable reports on information essential to public safety, (b) provide public and accountable reports on progress on ongoing investigations and law enforcement activity without compromising sensitive and legal matters, (c) provide public awareness information on other general organizational information activities, such as meetings, events, facilities, etc. In a representative democratic nation, the law is enforced equally for all individuals, regardless of the political affiliation, identity group, or station in life.
We must expect our law enforcement, at every level, to be apolitical, just as we expect our military, our hospitals, and any other essential public safety organization.
Equality under the law is an essential art of public trust in law enforcement. Furthermore, that trust is dependent on public communications that confirm equality, fairness, and lack of bias in the values and standards shown by the law enforcement organization’s actions.
In a representative democratic nation, it is noticeable that none of the law enforcement communications objectives are: (1) spying, (2) planting rumors, (3) political targets, (4) seeking to undermine other government organizations or individuals. This is not the role of law enforcement in a representative democratic nation. The concept behind governance in a representative democratic nation is that our public officials and servants represent “the people,” not themselves, not their interests in shaping the nation to fit their views, not in political activism.
Those concerned about human rights regularly see such abuses of law enforcement authority with the news media in Communist totalitarian and other dictatorial nations, which have contempt and hate for representative democracy and public representation processes. In an anti-freedom, totalitarian nation the term “law enforcement” means “power enforcement” for the privileged and powerful. There is no intention of representing “the people,” but simply preserving power for the powerful, at any cost, and manipulating “the law” to read whatever the powerful want it to read. Those who care about human rights regularly protest such abusive forms of human persecution, and the persecutors use of “law enforcement” stage-actors abuse of law and justice to simply maintain, control, and manipulate power.
In the former Communist totalitarian East Germany, the East German secret police (Ministerium für Staatssicherheit aka “Stasi”) organization used a series of harassment tactics, or “Zersetzung” to infiltrate, spy, sabotage, and spread rumors about those they sought to prevent from gaining power. The Stasi tactics were part of late 20th century efforts to manipulate the public, up to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. The massive 91,000 Stasi bureaucracy was three times the size of Adolf Hitler’s Gestapo. But given the post World War II environment, the Stasi needed to use subtler methods that concentration death camps for those that became “enemies of society.”
The Stasi police organization sought to psychologically isolate and trample its “enemies” using rumor, innuendo, and manipulating the minds of others. As researcher Max Hertzberg has written on Stasi Zersetzung tactics, its efforts at “intelligence from surveillance and the use of informants was rarely used to actually gain evidence for a prosecution.”
The Stasi “law enforcement” was not interested in actually prosecuting, but in spreading rumors through public and state-controlled media to undermine the credibility of individuals they opposed, and to create a sense of insecurity and paranoia in individuals they opposed. The Stasi tactics of “Zersetzung” method of spreading rumors would often use plausible untruths based on some real facts that would be difficult to refute.
In our world history, there is a good reason why in representative democracies, our law enforcement communications with news media focuses on verifiable facts that are specific to the law enforcement mission.
In my personal career, I worked many years ago with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This knowledge of respect and sensitivity by those using law enforcement authority was well-known among all employees, no matter what your role was. Responsible individuals in law enforcement, including the FBI, are well aware of the essential need for focus on public and media communications consistent with respect for the law enforcement mission. They really don’t need to be told right from wrong, and what is appropriate in terms of media communications. They KNOW.
So, this week as the United Kingdom announced that it was going to stop sharing information with the FBI after a leak on an ongoing counterterrorism investigation that had taken so many lives in the UK, all of us connected in any form with a history in law enforcement must have been stunned. A reminder to all – one of the victims in the Manchester terrorist attack was an off-duty police officer. The importance of protecting counterterrorism information during an investigation of a terrorist mass-murder, including a fellow member of law enforcement, should not have to be explained to anyone. This breach of trust must be investigated.
There is no excuse for this, and unfortunately there has been no public statement by the Interim Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe on this subject. R.E.A.L. urges the Interim Director to make a clear statement how the FBI values and respects the law enforcement trust and the partner trust that it has with the citizens of the United States and our global partners. What is really missing is a lack of outrage, anger, and frustration heard from leadership in the FBI and law enforcement regarding leaks abusing law enforcement authority. I can tell you that, of the 30,000+ working for the FBI, they are chosen largely because of their commitment to integrity. I want to provide a voice for those others who we must hope share such outrage on this abuse of authority by leakers.
Three years ago, the U.S. Directive on National Intelligence (DNI) signed Intelligence Community Directive 119, under which intelligence information was to be protected from unauthorized disclosure, excluding whistleblower information on fraud. Part of the idea behind ICD 119 was to protect intelligence service “leakers” from being used to spread information to news media for political manipulation and persecution of individuals.
There are reports that the FBI is now modifying its media contact policies to limit media contacts to field office managers and public relations employees. Unfortunately, over the past several years, we have continued to see thisproblemwithleaks. But even after the recently reported changes on media contact management, we are seeing increasing alleged reports from anonymous FBI individuals to the news media, including those making actual threats against other member of the U.S. government. In any representative democracy, a law enforcement agency whose members use the news media to make anonymous threats against anyone else – has to be completely unacceptable. The idea that law enforcement in any representative democracy can use such political tactics completely undermines the public trust and commitment to public safety, which is the mission of our law enforcement.
Let us also remind all members of law enforcement, yes, it is OUR law enforcement, not YOUR law enforcement. That is how a representative democracy works.
We are keenly aware of the dangers of politicizing law enforcement in a way that will undermine a consistent commitment to public safety and trust. But after this embarrassing disgrace involving the Manchester terrorist investigation and the very public statements by the U.K. that it would stop sharing counterterrorism information with the FBI, there needs to be a stronger position mandated and real action by the U.S. Attorney General on this issue.
We measure the value of our law enforcement in their commitment to equality and integrity to the law, not by cunning and political acumen. That is the hallmark of a democratic society.
A representative democracy, in the U.S., or any other country depends on not only the fidelity and bravery of our law enforcement to equal treatment of all cases under the law, it also depends on the integrity of our law enforcement to put the interest of public safety and public trust as their priority, and leave their personal and political aspirations out of the performance of the authority we have given them to represent us all.
In challenging the destruction of terrorist threats on society, we not only need accountability for defying extremist ideologies that inspire terrorists and those who commit and assist in terrorist acts, but we also need accountability on those who have information on terrorist threats to public safety, but choose to withhold that information or fail to act on it to defend the public. In the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and other nations of the world, we need a clear, unambiguous law which defines such public safety accountability, with concrete, criminal, consequences for those that withhold information or those with such information that fail to act to protect the public.
As we witness continuing terrorist acts around the world, the most horrible truth is that too many know about terrorist threats to the public, but maliciously choose to do nothing to protect the public. The silence prior to such terrorist attacks on an unsuspecting society needs to stop. We need more than friendly slogans, “see something, say something,” to inspire confidence in public to play in active role in providing information on terrorist threats. We need to migrate from the casual volunteerism of “see something, say something” to a more severe “see something, say something, because it’s the law.”
Our legal systems must accommodate a new law that mandates accountability for those who know, but maliciously conceal such information, and those who know, but consciously fail to act on such information. Certainly, failure to provide information and failing to act on terrorist threats to the public is one of the most gross violations of “obstruction of justice” that we could imagine. Yet such “obstruction of justice” when it comes to information and action on terrorist threats happens on a regular basis, every single day, and even worse, it has too often been defended as part of public government policy.
People of conscience, and those committed to our universal human rights (which includes human security), must find the continuing malicious silence and inaction on terrorist threats as completely unacceptable. We must have a public safety accountability act to set expectations of a legal responsibility to provide information on terrorist threats, and to also expect accountability of our government to act on such threats. The public is threatened by sociopath terrorists which have no respect for law, and no concern about death, even their own. The idea that we can continue to allow such anti-life figures to kill and injure with impunity, while we have no accountability for those who could have stopped such acts, is the absolute height of social lack of responsibility and contempt for human rights.
The public safety of our citizens, our children, our families, our neighbors, our communities also should not be an afterthought to government authorities more concerned about intelligence spy-games than the real and present danger that such terrorist actors pose to public safety and lives. They have no right to play chess with the lives of our families, our children, and our communities. A cohesive, competent, and just society must demand accountability and consequences for malicious, Machiavellian, manipulations by those who have lost sight that our society is composed of other living, breathing human beings with dreams and purpose of their own.
In the United Kingdom today, we see children and families who have suffered yet another terrorist loss from a terrorist bombing atrocity this week. Civilized societies must not just ask, but must demand that the public provide information known to it regarding terrorist threats. It is also yet another discouraging case, where we learn that “intelligence” agencies knew about this terrorist mass-murderer of children, who apparently traveled to Libya to gain training, but he was never arrested for his involvement with Libyan extremists. Less than a year ago, Washington D.C. had a similar case of a Libya-trained ISIS terrorist supporter walking the street, but working as a police officer with the Washington subway system that hundreds of thousands regularly use, while this was known to the FBI. Our society must expect more from our fellow citizens, and those who work on our behalf in our governments.
As described in January 2017, R.E.A.L. has also proposed protective acts for human rights safety from those who have been engaged in terrorist planning, with a specific recommendation for a “Terrorism Prevention and Public Protection Act.” But our legal system must recognize that terrorist plots and terrorist training constitute criminal behavior. Our law enforcement should not have to wait until our children and public are murdered in the street by such sociopath terrorist actors, any more than we would wait for an arsonist plotting to burn down a building, must actually burn our public to death, before he is arrested. In view of the continuing global terrorist threats, our legal system must adopt some common sense respect for the public’s human rights, security, and dignity, to allow our society to continue to have cohesion and respect for the law, our authorities, and one another.
The inhuman cruelty and total disregard for life and public safety by 21st century terrorist actors cannot be fought only by a legal system designed for a 19th and 20th century world and criminal activity. We must recognize that modern, rapid terrorist threats demand that our legal system must move beyond passive non-consequentialism, which has been accepted by too many who shield those who enable harm by their malicious non-actions. The massive threat to public safety by the 21st century global terrorist movement networks is unlike previous criminal organizations and campaigns. We cannot continue to ignore wrongful conduct in our 21st century by malicious failure to act in providing information or failing to act, regarding terrorist threats to our public society.
This must require a new public act which imposes a pre-existing legal duty to act to the public to provide information, and to the government to act, on issues of public safety due to modern terrorist threats. Continuing to allow such duties to be “optional” ignores the very real and present, not hypothetical, instances of how such non-action enables harm. Those who choose to conceal information regarding terrorist threats and those in authority who choose not to act on information regarding terrorist threats must face more than social condemnation; they must face legal responsibility for their choices, as malicious and public endangerment.
The “rationale” for such malicious public endangerment by those empowering terrorists to act with impunity, by choosing to conceal such information regarding threats because to reveal this would make someone uncomfortable, inconvenient, or in the case of government agents, that such public endangerment was to help achieve additional “intelligence” or further investigations, must face real and concrete legal consequences, for such public endangerment to society.
The behavior of those who maliciously refuse to provide information on terrorist threats and those in authority who refuse to act to protect the public from terrorist threats, must be seen as engaging in malicious behavior against society, regardless of their rationale or justification. This is not to suggest that every person’s information about but genuine failure to understand information regarding a terrorist threat is malicious. Certainly, everyone learns small pieces of information that they do not recognize or maliciously conceal. A public accountability act would NOT call for criminal prosecution for random knowledge unknown by the public to impact a terrorist threat to society.
But let us be clear, unintentional concealment of information on terrorist threats is not the real problem that is facing our society regarding modern terrorism today. The terrorist actors who commit atrocities on our children, our families, our public, are regularly not criminal masterminds and agents. Most modern terrorists leave a trail, a definable trail, with very clear information seen by too many in the public, and incredibly, by unscrupulous individuals in our government agencies responsible for our protection. Too often, we see terrorist actors who are “known” to “intelligence” agencies. If they are that obvious, the public rightfully should ask why isn’t anyone who knew about such terrorists’ actions held accountable? In our modern society, they must be held accountable, which has become all too rare. In the United States, unless some other crime is committed, most of those who concealed or failed to act on knowledge of a terrorist threat, face no consequences for their malicious behavior against society.
In the 2011 “The Moral Status of Enabling Harm,” regarding the assessment of enabling harm, University of California Professor Samuel C. Rickless states that “the agent whose actions enable the victim’s death is described as the victim’s enemy. Persons who are described as enemies of those whose death they bring about intentionally are generally understood to be acting with malicious intent.” Professor Rickless further states that “[o]ur intuitions therefore count as evidence for the claim that malicious harmful enabling is morally equivalent to harmful doing, but they do not suggest that non-malicious harmful enabling is morally equivalent to harmful doing.” When facing the modern global threat of rapid terrorist violence to our public, we cannot ignore the necessity to codify and provide concrete consequences for those whose malicious behavior against public safety includes concealing information on terrorist threats or failing to act on terrorist threats.
Reckless disregard for public safety regarding terrorist threats to our public must be condemned by those that maliciously conceal information and by those that deliberately fail to act on such information. This recklessness costs lives, over and over again.
As we demand more from the public in making it their responsibility not to conceal information on terrorist acts, so we must also make it our government agencies’ responsibility to act on information regarding terrorist threats to protect the public. We must not allow protected, comfortable offices and conference rooms, to shield senior representatives of government from public outrage and the consequences of deliberately failing to act to protect the public. They must set an example for every one of our citizens. If they refuse that responsibility, they must be as accountable as any other citizen.
In the United States alone, the last three terrorist attacks were all by individuals “known” to U.S. law enforcement and intelligence. In each of these cases, members of the public came, despite endangerment to themselves, and warned the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about these terrorists. The excuses on the failure to act to protect the public sound hollow, when the innocent public lie dead and injured in the street. If there was this much “known” that the FBI was actually informed about these individuals, what else was known that was concealed by others? And why do we have no consequences for the failure to protect the public from terrorists?
Orlando ISIS terrorist Omar Mateen was “known” to the FBI and U.S. authorities. Omar Mateen committed the June 12, 2016 terrorist attack in Orlando, Florida, killing 49 Americans.
New York terrorist Ahmad Khan Rahami was “known” to the FBI and U.S. authorities, even his own father contacted the FBI about the threat he represented. Ahmad Khan Rahami committed terrorist attacks in September 19 and 20, 2016 in New York and New Jersey, injuring 29 Americans.
Fort Lauderdale terrorist Esteban Santiago-Ruiz actually went and told the FBI office in November 2016, that he had been watching ISIS terrorist videos and was being driven to attack and kill the public for ISIS. He was let go. On January 6, 2017, Esteban Santiago-Ruiz killed 5 and injured 6 in a terrorist mass shooting at the Fort Lauderdale airport, and an additional 36 were injured.
How can our authorities retain the confidence of our public to face the rapid, global terrorist network, if it fails to act to protect our public society from such known threats?
The most astounding story in 2016 in terms of terrorist threats was about the terrorist attack that did not happen, is about a known ISIS terrorist threat in Washington D.C., whose actions could have endangered the lives of many, many thousands of innocents. On August 2, 2016, the Washington D.C. news media announced the arrest of Nicholas Young, a Metro Police Department (MPD) police officer with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) subway system for providing material support to the ISIS terrorist movement. But there was no concern about the public’s safety to remove him from the MPD.
In the criminal complaint on ISIS support Nicholas Young, filed in court before federal Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan, with sworn testimony by an FBI Special Agent David Martinez, it is documented that ISIS terrorist movement supporter and MPD police officer Nicholas Young had been under investigation since 2010. It is documented that Young had an AK-47 out of his window looking to shoot law enforcement in 2011. It is documented in 2011 that Young threatened to behead anyone who “betrayed” him and was looking to blow up automobiles. It is documented in 2011 that Young sought to attack the FBI and smuggle guns into a courtroom. It is documented in 2011 that Young sought to kidnap and torture an FBI special agent. It is documented in 2011 that Young traveled with terrorists (aka “rebels”) to Libya with arms, body armor, to overthrow the government there. (Of note, it is also documented that our DHS Customs and Borders Protection waved Nicholas Young with his military items right on through to Libya on the outbound trip.) In 2011, it is documented that Young had been meeting with a terrorist Amine El Khalifi, and warned him how to avoid the police; Amine El Khalifi planned a January 2012 suicide bomb attack on the U.S. Capitol building, and was arrested. In 2012, it is documented that Young sought to get revenge on those who warned the authorities about the U.S. Capitol suicide bomb plot. Throughout 2014, it is documented that Young repeatedly made plans to seek to join the ISIS terrorist movement, not just as a supporter, but to join their terror activities overseas. In 2015, it is documented how Young praised terrorist attacks in France by ISIS. Not long after his messages of support for ISIS terror attacks, it is documented that Young took his AK-47 to join other MPD police officers to “train” in shooting. In November 2015, it is documented how Young praised the Paris terrorist attacks by ISIS and how the West deserved such death and violence. It was not until 2016, when Young purchased gift cards to send to ISIS to help provide financial support, that eventually by August of 2016 that Young was arrested.
During all of this time, as the FBI knew about this, and Young remained as MPD police officer, endangering the safety of untold thousands on the WMATA Metro subway. Young told his fellow ISIS terrorist supporters by 2016 that “I have enough flags on my name that I can’t even buy a plane ticket without little alert ending up in someone’s hands,” but Young could remain on the WMATA MPD as a police officer, in a system with an average daily ridership with hundreds of thousands of riders. At the time of Young’s arrest, an anonymous “source” told ABC News, there was “no pending threat to the D.C. transportation system,” but how do we know this? How could someone in authority consider it anything less than a wildly irresponsible, malicious abrogation of public safety responsibility to allow an ISIS terrorist supporter (with terror training in Libya) to continue as a police officer for a major subway mass transit system?
After reading this, you might ask yourself, what exactly does it take to get arrested? Judge Buchanan never asked, why did it take you six years to arrest this terrorist figure. After a few local stories, the Washington D.C. media shrugged, and it was back to “business as usual.”
But a legal system that allows the malicious endangerment of the public from global terrorist actors must not be considered acceptable.
The public deserves protection from such sociopath terrorist figures, who not only have no respect for law, but have no fear of death itself. For full disclosure, R.E.A.L. respects our legal system, our law enforcement, and certainly our FBI, which it has directly aided for many years. But we need consistency and credibility in dealing with information regarding terrorist threats to the public.
We need to hold our public accountable for coming forward about terrorist threats to society, and we need to hold our government accountable to making arrests to protect the public from such terrorist atrocities. Anything less makes a true mockery of our legal system and our shared commitment to universal human rights.
Key Strategies for Challenging Extremist Hate
1. Never Legitimize Hate Movements
2. Never Normalize Hate Images, Language
3. Set Expectations of Shared Respect based on EQUAL Rights and Responsibilities
4. Require Commitment to Shared Human Rights and Shared Dignity for Dialogue
R.E.A.L. urges the Druze community to consider flexibility in its relationships, and to use the dangerous times the world faces as an opportunity to open their community who come to them in love and compassion. We have been approached by such a person, Anna, whose love relationship has been lost due to her loved one not accepting her within the Druze community. You might wonder what this has to do with human rights.
Mercy.
No activists for human rights have a center to their ethical compass without mercy, and it is center of our organized faiths, as well.
Sometimes the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.
Whatever our faith, culture, nationality, or identity group, at some point life will teach us that lesson… of conscience.
Life will teach us that integrity is more than just defending our group, our interests, our needs, but also having the courage to open our arms to others and the needs of others in the family of humanity. We have no outsiders in our shared human race. We cannot be supporters of our shared human rights without that basic moral concept. Every religion of peace must honor love and mercy in its teachings.
R.E.A.L. respects the complex need to try to preserve the integrity of Druze religion and culture, especially considering the history of persecution that the Druze community has faced. R.E.A.L. respects the struggle of centuries and the history of the Druze closing of its faith during the Fatimid Caliphate. But certainly, if humanity has learned one thing over the past 10 years, with the global violence of ISIS and terrorism, including violence in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, we do not survive the enemies of our shared human rights, those who reject freedom of conscience, those who have abandoned compassion and mercy, by choosing to stand alone and in isolation.
The world has become more violent and dangerous, not less. Our identity groups deserve protection, but that protection starts with cohesion with our larger world and allowing new hearts to share the love that a community has for one another. What we have been taught, certainly, is what NOT TO DO. We have seen the price of isolation. We have seen the consequences of those who feel compassion and mercy is no longer necessary.
R.E.A.L. writes this in this message to the Druze community, but of course, this applies to the world community. There is no island that will protect our identity groups, our cultures, and our civilizations from harm. Certainly, the Druze community has seen this as much as any, with the suffering it has faced at the hands of ISIS, as have the Yazidis, Christians, and others. We understand the fear of disruption from allowing outsiders to join and intermarry into the Druze community, but certainly those that publicly seek their destruction remains the graver and more serious threat.
In the past five years, we have seen some of the greatest public threats to Druze community in modern history – from the ISIS terrorist movement. This moment in history provides an opportunity to consider welcoming others into your community and among those who love your people. That includes a woman named Ana, who has lost the love of her life. She matters, just as much as the millions of others in our world.
Sometimes the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.
Take it to heart, and no matter what comes your way, you will sleep with a clear conscience.
In the dangerous times we live in, R.E.A.L. urges the Druze community to consider a statement that is posted after The Holocaust in the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.. We remember it this week at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, as we read the names of the victims, but even after facing Adolf Hitler and The Holocaust, their religion, their culture is still alive. Decades of intermarriage have not damaged it, but such openness has simply allowed more hearts to gain more compassion for their religion and their culture, to protect and defend them.
In the museum, not far from earth from Hitler’s concentration camps, on the wall there is a verse from the Bible, Deuteronomy 30:19: “I call Heaven and Earth to witness this day; I have put before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose Life – that you and your offspring shall live.”
It is not just our physical life, but also our moral life, our compassionate life, and our life together as people of God. We must not close the doors to love and compassion, in the belief it will keep us safe and our culture intact. We must open the door to love and compassion, allow those who seek to love our beliefs and values to join with us in common cause and faith.
R.E.A.L. urges, with great respect and understanding of the history of Druze suffering — “Choose Life – that you and your offspring shall live.”
As the nature of blogging and the volume and complexity of world Human Rights issues have increased, the overwhelming majority of R.E.A.L.’s postings are on social media, working to educate, to inform, to inspire, and mostly to CHANGE. R.E.A.L. continues to also use this blog occasionally for long, unusual, and complex stories that we cannot address on social media, but on a daily basis the majority of what we are writing about is on Twitter. You can find R.E.A.L. on Twitter at: @realhumanrights
Justice begins with compassionate leadership. Compassion is more than our self-focused passion for what we want and need, but empathy, mercy, and respect for what others need. Compassion allows us to suffer together, and it is a fundamental keystone of a representative democracy and the concept of universal human rights. Compassion allows us to listen to one another, even when we are different, and feel the pain of another’s needs. Compassion respects diversity and differences among us, but it never loses sight of the fundamental bond that we share as fellow human beings.
This bond of our human brothers and sisters is essential in our causes for human rights, and our efforts to work for justice of every kind in our representative democracies.
Our fellow human beings don’t care how much you know, until they know how much you care.
If we believe in compassion as an essential element in our societal cohesion, we must recognize that we cannot only have compassion for those like us or those we like. We cannot just believe that compassion is worthy for a select few, who we believe “deserve it,” while we turn our back on the rest of our brothers and sisters in humanity. We can and we must be more compassionate human beings than that.
The long, long struggle for racial justice in America has been based on the victory of compassion over hate. It is, has been, and will be the way forward for any real social progress. Compassion and Love Wins.
This is what we must remember. We must find leaders who understand this and who are willing to defend compassion with the same vigor that challenge racial injustice.
For years, I have worked to share compassion in the struggle for racial justice and human rights in America and the world. The learning that one achieves from experience versus history books is stark. In life experience, we have moments of crystal clarity in our conscience and our mind, when we experience things that we know are wrong and must be changed.
On racial justice, my first moment of crystal clarity was in July 1966 in Virginia, while walking on the sidewalk, when I came across a public sign in front of a hotel that read “White Clientele Only.” For the first few moments, I genuinely couldn’t understand it. But as I stood there in shock, I came to realize the entrenched tenacity and determination of White Supremacy to divide and destroy the moral fabric of America.
America was once like that. And worse. In the same Virginia, and in too much of America, African-Americans were once enslaved. There has been a dark history of wrong that leaders of human rights and dignity have struggled for over 150 years to make right. It will always be a legacy of disgrace to overcome and to continue to work for change. Let us wear this national badge of shame publicly, not with pride of what was, but in determination of how far we have come, and how committed we are to a more just future.
The path to change has been a continuing victory of compassion over hate. In the United States, that unequivocal struggle for compassion has required an organized, ideologically consistent and responsible force to struggle against hate and injustice. Our history shows that these partners in compassion for racial justice have come from every group, race, nationality, background, religion, profession, and walk of life. It has and must continue to be a national struggle for racial justice.
The growing violence in America over racial justice issues brings another moment of crystal clarity to our nation, as something unshakably wrong that must change. We cannot simply ignore it, avoid it, and wish it away. The dead bodies of our fellow Americans, of every race, are there, and their blood has been in the street. Yet we have those praising killers and calling for more violence. We have those who seek to harden lines of hatred towards other Americans. We have those in denial of justice issues. We have those who openly praise those who would terrorize, injure, and murder the public representatives of our law enforcement. Those consumed by rage and anger no longer remember, and no longer care, that these victims are their fellow Americans and fellow human beings.
America has faced similar moments before.
In August 1964, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. went to the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles after riots resulted in the death of 34 Americans and the destruction of $40 million in property damage. As Dr. King recounts, one of those supporting the riots told him “We Won!” Dr. King asked him “what do you mean, ‘we won’? Thirty-some people dead, all but two are Negroes. You’ve destroyed your own. What do you mean ‘we won’? And he said, ‘We made them pay attention to us.'” Dr. King pointed out: “When people are voiceless, they will have temper tantrums like a little child who has not been paid attention to. And riots are massive temper tantrums from a neglected and voiceless people.”
This responsible leader of compassion did not simply ignore those who supported violent riots as a method of social change, but instead provided the leadership and guidance to promote nonviolence as a solution. As Dr. King wrote when he visited Watts, “[t]he people of Watts were hostile to nonviolence, but when we actually went to them and emphasized the dangers of hatred and violence, the same people cheered. Only minutes before the air had been thick with tension, but when they were reminded of the Rev. James Reeb and Viola Liuzzo, the martyrs of the Selma campaign, they cheered the thought that white people can and do cooperate with us in our search for jobs and dignity.” [White Americans Reverend James Reeb and Viola Liuzzo were murdered by white supremacist terrorists in March 1965, while working to assist Dr. King in Alabama on the Selma march.]
America needs such leaders of compassion and nonviolence today, in our important national issues of racial justice. Every movement needs a leader. The idea of “leaderless” movements are fine for short, brief events, but every long-term committed cause requires someone who can define an agenda, identify both problems and solutions, and guide the movement to work together responsibly for social change.
I was blessed to live through the years of seeing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and then other Civil Rights leaders. I saw the level of leadership that they provided to the nation. The leadership that Dr. King provided was not just activism, but also a responsible leadership as a conscience for the nation, so that those working for Racial Justice could work together and responsibly. Such community and national commitment to nonviolent progress in racial justice has been a foundation of America’s human rights for the past 50 years.
His leadership addressed grievances and issues, but also provided an ideology of compassion and nonviolence, with an organized structure and consistent ethical commitment by his supporters. America is a secular nation, and we achieve many areas of progress from our secular leaders, including progress in areas of morality, justice, human rights, and dignity. America’s history shows, however, that to effectively organize responsible, nonviolent demonstrations and social justice work for racial equality, we need the structure and value consistency of a faith-based organization within the leadership of such movements.
So as America continues to struggle with injustice, violence, and division, we must call upon leaders of faith-based groups in America for leadership in compassion and racial justice. We must urge faith leaders in every house of worship to share with their worshipers the message of our shared responsibility to support nonviolence and compassion for all of our fellow human beings, including those who face violence, persecution, and fear.
As Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated: “In spite of the darkness of this hour, we must not despair. We must not become bitter; nor must we harbor the desire to retaliate with violence.” “Nonviolence is power, but it is the right and good use of power.” “Hate is just as injurious to the hater as it is to the hated.” “I cannot make myself believe that God wanted me to hate.” America needs such an organized commitment to compassion and nonviolence, as part of our racial justice campaigns.
Our responsible commitment to nonviolence is not in ignorance of injustice and violence, but rather it is because of our knowledge of the damage that injustice and violence creates. If we have the courage to promote nonviolence to challenge injustice, then we must also have the courage to challenge the violence against people of color, as well as the social violence of poverty, humiliation, despair, and attacks on human dignity and equality.
Dr. King wrote: “a mere condemnation of violence is empty without understanding the daily violence that our society inflicts upon many of its members. The violence of poverty and humiliation hurts as intensely as the violence of the club. This is a situation that calls for statesmanship and creative leadership.” Calls for nonviolence must not only be to dissuade those who praise, support, or act in riots and terrorism, but also to call for accountability and change by those with the authority and responsibility to provide governmental and political leadership.
Most of all, national campaigns for nonviolence and compassion in racial justice must be built on a structure and organization, which is committed to nonviolence and compassion as basic aspects of its mission.
We cannot expect such long-term, nationwide movements for racial justice, compassion, and nonviolence to be guided without the commitment of an existing structure founded on such principles. We cannot be led to progress without responsible leadership that has an ideological basis in compassion and nonviolence.
While we all play a role, expecting just social media, protest activists, law enforcement, and the press to solve or even effectively address these issues is unrealistic. We must have reasonable expectations of those who seek to make changes in our society. Expecting such small groups to become something they are not and judging them based on standards they cannot meet is counterproductive.
Over the past three years, the current Black Lives Matter leaders have provided a social media-based awareness campaign of injustices and racial justice issues, which need the attention of a structured group of compassion and nonviolence leaders. The handful of activist leaders within the structure of that organization are dwarfed by the vast volume of the public that recognizes and is concerned about the need for social change; it is unreasonable to expect them to have the structure, organization, and ideological nonviolence leadership that a sustained racial justice movement requires.
Dallas Police Chief David Brown rightly points out “we’re asking cops to do too much in this country.” Our police are there to enforce the law. There are areas where they are continuing to look to make changes. But they are not our national campaigners for social welfare justice, nor are they the enemies of our nation. Like the rest of us, they are trying to do the best that they can, often under difficult circumstance, including regular threats to their lives.
Our press and media will cover events from the perspective and bias of individual reporters. Such media are human rights campaigners, nor do they necessarily come from a position of balance and fairness. They are there to provide news information which covers some segments of our community and national events. They will move on, when the next story comes around.
Social actors in our communities will focus on what they know and understand. We cannot expect those with a limited mission to do everything.
So it is with our faith-based organizations as well. Many of them too will also express that their primary mission is to organize worship services, to hold religious schooling, and to preach their religious views. However, in America, we must expect the most from such faith-based organization, especially when it comes to their vital leadership role in racial justice, using compassion and nonviolence. Our history has shown that such faith-based organizations and their value systems for compassion and nonviolence are essential to achieving social justice.
America today needs faith-based leaders with a commitment to nonviolence that can provide responsible leadership on work towards solving America’s problems, racial injustice, violence, and the need for shared respect for our shared law in a democracy.
America needs faith-based leaders with a commitment to nonviolence to show the courage to speak to all members of the community, and de-escalate the growing violence and hatred we see in our street. We need faith-based leaders as leaders of demonstrations that can show America and the world – we care about justice and violence issues, while not resorting to injustice and violence ourselves.
Dr. King stated “I cannot make myself believe that God wanted me to hate.” This is the type of leadership of compassion and nonviolence that we need today. If we want better tactics from those protesting injustice, then we need leaders who understand and are committed to nonviolence and compassion, not just for a single social justice campaign, but as an integral aspect of their identity and their mission.
We must call upon faith leaders to stand up and be counted in their community and nation at this hour of America’s need. It is not enough to expect activists, police, and others to provide the moral leadership of nonviolence and compassion in working for racial justice.
What type of religious values are we teaching to the faithful and our children if we stand by and watch while those without responsible guidance are being led to believe that violence is the answer?
Will our faith leaders be silent when those in their community are facing racial injustice and abuse?
Will they remain silent over too many instances of official abuse of authority and unnecessary deaths?
Will our faith leaders simply shake their head, as our police are now shot, attacked, and crippled?
Will they stay silent when extremists like the Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan calls for violence and hate? Louis Farrakhan is telling our public: “there is no freedom without the shedding of blood,” “don’t let this White man tell you that violence is wrong,” and “God hates…I don’t why man thinks he is better than God.” Will our faith leaders just ignore such teachings, or will they offer a real alternative to our public?
Will our faith leaders remain silent as those without responsible guidance praise terrorists and vicious individuals as heroes and martyrs?
Defiance to injustice is not an invitation to violence and terrorism, nor can it be praise and support of criminal behavior. We cannot work to counter injustice by becoming and supporting violent criminals. We must do better. Our nation must do better. We need leaders who are unyielding in their commitment to compassion and nonviolence.
Our faith leaders must see that their organized leadership in compassion and nonviolence is necessary in America today. It is not enough to expect other groups to sort these issues out, without the responsible leadership, guidance, and commitment by faith-based organizations. If we seek to change the law or change aspects of our society, we must also be willing to respect the law and show consistent compassion for our society.
Prayer for Peace – Washington, D.C. – Lincoln Memorial
America desperately needs our faith leaders today to provide leadership in compassion and nonviolence for racial justice. America should welcome such responsible leadership from every faith.
The struggle for racial justice and peace in America is the unique responsibility of the American Christian community. Let there be no doubt to my American Christian brothers and sisters, this is first and foremost — OUR fight. The forces of racism, white supremacy, and violence have attacked our nation, and the soul of our nation since our inception. When we have sung the Battle Hymn of the Republic for our nation over the past 150 years, it is with a recognition of the unique and specific American Christian responsibility in seeking change for racial justice in America.
Over 100,000 American Christians have died for this cause. Our Christian churches were bombed by white supremacists and they murdered Christian children in houses of worship. Even as late as a year ago, we saw a wave of burning of African-American Christian churches, after the white supremacist terrorist Dylann Roof went in and murdered a Christian congregation in Charleston, South Carolina during a Bible study. The white supremacist forces of evil have even defamed the symbol of the cross in city after city across this great nation, lighting it on fire, and spreading their anti-Christian white supremacist hate. Our great Christian pastor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his life and was killed for this cause. First and foremost, American Christians – this leadership for nonviolent compassion in working for racial justice is OUR responsibility. Of course, black lives matter, just as all lives matter in this nation. But it is not enough to know what is right – we must continue to work to build an America that is just and compassionate. The American Christian community has had, and continues to have a unique and unshakable responsibility to work to right the wrongs of a legacy of injustice in America.
Do not forget – Christian pastor Dr. King was not only concerned about the lives of those touched by such racial injustice; he was also deeply concerned about their souls. As much as Dr. King was concerned about freedom for black Americans, he was just as “concerned about our moral uprightness and the health of our souls. Therefore, I must oppose any attempt to gain our freedom by the methods of malice, hate, and violence that have characterized our oppressors. Hate is just as injurious to the hater as it is to the hated. Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity.” Our faith leaders cannot protect the souls of their fellow Americans, and look the other way when there are those promoting violence and hate. If such soul salvation is not seen as the mission of some our faith leaders, then truly what do they view as their role in society? This is priority number one.
There are faith leaders, including many Christians speaking out today and involved in the struggle for racial justice. But clearly, there are not often. Furthermore, there are certainly not enough leaders to provide the responsible guidance that any activist movement needs, as a guard rail, to help us from going off the road of nonviolence and compassion, into the ditch of rage and violence. There are not enough to tell activists to put down bricks, concrete, bottles, and even guns and rifles. There are not enough to tell those who praise actions of violence and even murder that the answer must be found in nonviolence and compassion towards our fellow Americans, who are brothers and sisters in humanity, no matter how much we agree or disagree with them. We need more faith leaders to actively stand up and lead change for racial justice, nonviolence, and compassion in America today.
Some may be fearful to take an inflexible stand on compassion and nonviolence, because they may fear of being a minority among an angry crowd. The history of Dr. King in Watts may not be much comfort, because they may say, after all he was Martin Luther King, Jr. But pastor King has told us: “Take a stand for that which is right, and the world may misunderstand you, and criticize you. But you never go alone, for somewhere I read that one with God is a majority. And God has a way of transforming a minority into a majority.”
There is a majority that believes not only in racial justice, but also in the power of compassion and nonviolence. There is a majority that believes in seeking change through our democratic processes and the law. We must not fail our nation in its hour of need to reach that majority. If you find a group that rejects the values of this majority, remember that power is within YOU as a faith-based leader to change this group. As Dr. King stated, “a genuine leader is not searcher for consensus, but a molder of consensus.”
We have seen such responsible leaders of compassion and nonviolence change America again and again. Our history shows that this does make a difference.
Dr. King provided a recognizable leader, as a man not only of compassion and nonviolence, but also as a man of faith, to help bridge the gap between different Americans – both black and white. Dr. King not only stood up to racial injustice, but also he stood up and challenged those who sought violence as the answer. When Dr. King led a protest march, he made it clear to those who stood with him that, no matter what, the principles of nonviolence and compassion would be defended by those who witnessed their campaign.
Dr. King stated in Alabama: “I say to you this afternoon that I would rather die on the highways of Alabama than make a butchery of my conscience. I say to you, when we march, don’t panic and remember that we must remain true to nonviolence. I’m asking everybody in the line, if you can’t be nonviolent, don’t get in here. If you can’t accept blows without retaliating, don’t get in the line. If you can accept it out of your commitment to nonviolence, you will somehow do something for this nation that may well save it. If you can accept it, you will leave those state troopers bloodied with their own barbarities. If you can accept it, you do something to transform conditions here in Alabama.”
As he led nonviolent campaigns for compassion and justice, so our leaders today can do again today. Dr. King stated:”Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge, to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation.”
We have gone from Slave states to Free states.
We have gone from segregation to integration.
We have gone from widespread unjust persecution of black Americans to black Americans serving in the highest courts of our land and leading in our law enforcement.
We have gone from black Americans struggling to get the vote to serving as the president of the United States.
Most of this, I have seen in my own lifetime and with my own eyes. Can we continue to make change for racial justice? There is no doubt that America can and America will. America needs the leaders of compassion and nonviolence to guide them in the difficult days of this nation.
We must continue to choose to face the future with a courageous commitment to compassion and nonviolence, because it is the right thing to do. For the future of justice in our nation, it must also continue to be the American thing to do. That is the nation that we have always sought to be.
