Nevertheless, her apology for a private comment made about her personal opinion on the Israeli occupation was not enough. Pro-occupation talking heads, such as Ari Fleisher, the Bush Administration’s former spokesman, demanded that Thomas be fired. Not long after the video surfaced, Thomas announced her retirement, thus casting a shadow over her otherwise exemplary career as one of the first and most respected female journalists the world has ever known.

But there is a moral abyss when it comes to discussing Israel’s brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and this week, that double-standard reared its ugly head yet again.

The Israeli government’s press office last week sent out an offensive spoof entitled “We Con the World,” a parody of the Michael Jackson classic “We are the World” video. The spoof has since gone viral. Featured in the video was Caroline Glick, one of the video’s producers. Glick is an American-Israeli and the deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post. She is also a friend of some of the looniest conservative characters around today. When the company she keeps is the likes of right-wing nuts Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, it’s no surprise that Glick makes an appearance in the video sporting a Palestinian hata (a black and white checkered scarf) and wielding a knife while she awkwardly jams to the bigoted song. It is also no surprise that Glick has not apologized for her part in the spoof, given the racist mind-frame that has consumed her and her cohorts.

Never mind the fact that Glick and her crew look idiotic in their painful attempt at comedy, the message of the video adds insult to injury just two weeks after Israeli Defense Forces boarded a civilian ship and killed at least nine people on board, injuring several others. Six civilians who were thrown overboard by IDF soldiers are still missing. Now the question that begs answering is, if an 89-year-old icon of journalism can be forced into retirement for privately making a comment opposed to the Israeli occupation, what’s to come of the editor of a major international newspaper who publicly participates in an overtly racist video that condones the death of innocent civilians? Maybe we should ask Ari Fleisher.

The masterfully-composed lyrics (yes, I’m being sarcastic here) state that there are “no people dying,” but that somehow the world was being conned to believe that they are. One wonders whether this is a reference to “no people dying” in Gaza or on the Flotilla itself. However, whether we’re discussing the over 1,000 Palestinians that were killed in Israel’s barbaric attack on Gaza in January of 2009, or the nine international human rights activists that were killed on the Freedom Flotilla just last week, it is rather insulting that the government would then sponsor a claim that there are “no people dying.” Perhaps, if as Glick and the Israeli government do, you don’t count Palestinians and human rights activists as real people, that statement would not offend. However, for those of us in the world that value human life regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion, the statement that there are “no people dying” is morally repugnant.

The fact that the deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post single-handedly manages to make a mockery of her profession (and her professionalism), and by extension that of her newspaper, through her dreadful contribution to this video calls for swift response from the Jerusalem Post. Caroline Glick should be fired. But don’t hold your breath waiting to hear that message from the people who called for Helen’s head. The double standard could not be any more apparent.

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/75559

Souhair Khatib sued the County of Orange after she had been held in the county court’s holding facility from 9am to 4:30pm and was forced to remove her religious headscarf (hijab) while in the presence of men – a violation of her sincerely held religious beliefs. RLUIPA prohibits the government from imposing a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution. In Khatib, the case centered on whether the holding facility at the Orange County Superior Court falls within the meaning of “institution” under RLUIPA. The majority on the Ninth Circuit panel held that it did not. In so doing, it ignored the statute’s clear language and intent.

RLUIPA defines “institution” as “any facility or institution…(B) which is…(ii) a jail, prison, or other correctional facility” or “(ii) a pretrial detention facility.” The majority on the Ninth Circuit panel ultimately held that the court holding facility didn’t constitute a pretrial detention facility because detainees could not “reside” there. However, the clear language of RLUIPA states in its opening provision that the statute is intended to protect any person “residing in or confined to an institution.” As Chief Judge Kozinki put it in his dissenting opinion, “If Congress had meant to include only institutions with beds, there would have been no point in adding ‘or confined to’ following residing.” In fact, nowhere in RLUIPA does Congress indicate a residency requirement for the statute to apply. What Congress did do, however, was expressly instruct adjudicators to interpret the statute “in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution.” That clearly did not happen here.

Chief Judge Kozinski said it best in his dissent when he stated, “Can we honestly say that a mammoth facility in the bowels of the Santa Ana courthouse, whose main purpose is to hold inmates while awaiting trial, cannot possibly be a pretrial detention facility?” The answer is no, we cannot honestly say that. The decision rendered in the Ninth Circuit was not honest at all. It was, at best, a shallow legal interpretation that needlessly permitted a government-run institution to impair the religious exercise of an individual entitled to that right. Unless successfully appealed, this decision will set a crack in what is otherwise a solid body of jurisprudence designed to uphold one of this nation’s most dearly-held rights.

http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/05/in-a-feat-of-apologetic.php

The property was purchased, the building was already in place and all that remained was a permit from the DuPage County Board to use the facility as a religious institution. Unfortunately, after a slew of anti-Muslim rhetoric by some residents of Naperville, the County Board voted to deny the permit. The lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of the ILC by the Chicago Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations states that as a result of the denial, the County Board violated the organization’s federally protected rights.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations is no stranger to this sort fear-mongering. CAIR and more than 300 other Muslim organizations and individuals were listed as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the Department of Justice’s case against the Holy Land Foundation years ago — a point that a Naperville Sun freelance reporter went out of his way to include in the article about the ILC lawsuit, despite the fact that neither the ILC nor CAIR-Chicago have ever been labeled unindicted co-conspirators of anything.

The question that remains is: “What does it mean to be an unindicted co-conspirator?” The answer is “nothing.”

The term “unindicted co-conspirator” may at first seem damning. After all, one would think “co-conspirator” says it all. But the word that comes before it is the most ignored, and ironically the most telling portion of the phrase: “unindicted.”

There is no legal implication to being labeled an unindicted co-conspirator. This nation’s Constitution requires that if the government is going to deprive someone of life, liberty or property, it can do so only if it has provided that person with due process. Due process requires that to charge someone with a crime, the government must have probable cause. To convict someone of a crime, the government must prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. It must give the accused an opportunity to face his accusers and challenge the credibility of the evidence put forth against him. Simply claiming that someone is guilty without due process defies the principles of our justice system. Simply put, being “unindicted” means that none of this has taken place: no official charge of a crime, no trial, no guilt.

Even more interesting is that the United States attorney’s manual recommends against labeling individuals as unindicted co-conspirators and looks unfavorably upon publicizing such lists. For whatever reason, the Department of Justice chose to compile the list and make it public. It has had a real impact on the individuals and entities named in it by encouraging the “guilt by association” rhetoric that has been used to treat anything Muslim as a threat.

It is this same rhetoric that made discrimination against the ILC possible and threatens to undermine the most cherished values of our nation.

Christina Abraham is civil rights director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations-Chicago.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/2183752,6_NA21_Labels-are-inflammatory-and-wrong.article

Zubair Khan, representing plaintiffs in two cases against the college, described the anti-Muslim harassment faced by his clients.

“No person should have to face harassment and unfair treatment at work, not on the basis of their race of religion,” said Christina Abraham, CAIR-Chicago’s Civil Rights Director.
Category: Nonprofits & Activism

Watch the Video: http://www.cairchicago.org/2010/03/30/abc-7-muslims-call-on-city-colleges-to-address-complaints-of-discrimination/

Recently, the University of Chicago invited former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to speak at the Harris School of Public Policy for its annual leadership lecture. In light of the UN Human Rights Council’s Goldstone report implicating Olmert in war crimes, many in the Chicago community were appalled and formed a coalition demanding the school cancel the event and withdraw the invitation. Unfortunately, the university displayed a complete disregard for the different view points surrounding this controversial figure, acting insensitively toward its students and denigrating its own integrity in the process.

Following the precedent established by Columbia University, prestigious universities make a point of fostering open discussion by proactively putting forth controversial issues surrounding invited speakers. At Columbia, the president of the university delivered an introduction of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that both distanced the university from the individual and raised critical issues that were important to some students at Columbia. After a conversation with the Harris School, the coalition was assured that Dean Colm O’Muircheartaigh would deliver an introduction that would do the same, thereby fostering rigorous debate and dialogue.

Unfortunately, nothing close to criticism or diassociation was uttered during the dean’s introduction. There was no mention of Olmert’s attack on Lebanon in 2006, in which he used chemical weapons and cluster bombs, killed about 1,000 civilians and caused the displacement of nearly half a million Lebanese, all in contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law. No mention was made of his recent attack on Gaza just this past year, in which nearly 7,000 Palestinians were either killed or wounded, over half of whom were women and children. Not a word was uttered of Israel’s use of illegal weapons, human shields and targeting of UN aid workers, in addition to its violations of Geneva Conventions, all of which took place under Olmert’s tenure. Moreover, Dean O’Muircheartaigh failed to mention the corruption charges Olmert is currently facing in Israel.

In fact, for an institution that prides itself on critical thinking, the University displayed an embarrassing level of commitment to one largely unpopular and unsubstantiated point of view that makes Olmert seem like a hero and a man of peace. Not to mention the administration outright misled those concerned by not keeping its word and raising critical issues in the introduction. Just as importantly, students and alumni of the university who hold different view points on Olmert were stifled and marginalized. In doing so, the university inhibited the academic freedom of its students. For many, Olmert is responsible for death and destruction that has directly affected their lives. Yet the university had no regard for those experiences when it failed to even take them into account in their presentation of Olmert. The University of Chicago displays the utmost discipline and sensitivity towards its diverse student body, yet when it came to this issue it displayed an utter disregard for the views of its Arab and Muslim students and other students of conscience. Which begs the question: how many Arab children must be killed before the University of Chicago considers it a war crime? How many accusations must be laid at the feet of a head of state, and by whom, before the University of Chicago deems somebody controversial?

It is not the fact that the University of Chicago decided to invite a pro-Israel speaker that has offended so many. Rather, it is Olmert’s criminality that offends. It is the disparity with which the university treated its affected students that offends. It is the way in which they assured us that all views would be given a platform, and yet blatantly repressed the point of view of one group of people, that offends. And for this they must, at the very least, apologize.

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/67821

We live in an upside-down world, and the blood has rushed to our brain so fast it’s making our heads reel. Where truth is overpowered by lies and spin. Where the value of a life is no match for the value of a dollar.

Al Quds is a day to stand up against the injustices that the mighty of this world inflict on the meek. It’s a day to remind the world that the demolishing of homes in Palestine will not stop because we ignore it. The building of settlements will not cease because we choose to look the other way. The raids, the bombings, the checkpoints, the siege that has killed so many – they do not go away just because the news hasn’t reported it. They are always there, just like that wall – they are always there – constant, towering reminders of apartheid and barbarity.

Just earlier this year, we saw an example of Israel’s brutality. We saw Israeli forces indiscriminately kill over 1,000 civilians, over 350 of which were children according to UN reports. We saw them target UN workers, ambulances, schools and shelters. Meanwhile, Israel has yet to implement key elements of the Security Council’s resolution 1860, and the violence and siege continues despite pleadings from the UN for Israeli compliance. In fact, the UN Secretary General submitted a proposal to Israel back in June for UN-led civilian reconstruction projects for housing, medical clinics and schools, but Israel has not even responded to the proposal. Meanwhile, Israel’s contempt has been unconditionally supported by the United States government. The United States has been the only reason the UN Security Council has been unable to take more effective measures to address Israel’s non-compliance. In addition, the U.S. gives 1/3 of its foreign aid to Israel, and when Israel brutally attacked Lebanon in 2006, while the rest of the world watched in horror, the United States gave it 210 million dollars worth of jet fuel so that it could continue its operations. And throughout it all, Israel has justified its actions by citing its right to exist, but meanwhile they deprive an entire group of people their right to existence by taking from them life, liberty and equality.

And let’s also remind the world of the atrocities in Iraq that resulted from the US-led invasion and occupation. What occurred in Iraq was nothing short of rape. The occupiers sowed strife among the people while they split up the spoils. It is a fact that people of different ethnicities and religions have lived side by side in Iraq for centuries. It is a fact that the US-imposed sanctions and the US-led invasion and occupation have destroyed more lives than Saddam’s rule ever did or ever could. It is a fact that the new US-backed government of Iraq has done nothing to promote civil or human rights in Iraq, and indeed has committed much of its own torture, censorship and corruption. The refugee crisis caused by the war has created a generation of children forced out onto the streets and of women forced into prostitution because they have no other means of survival.

Since the war began, hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed in Iraq – and this is the conservative estimate. This year alone, thousands of Iraqis have been killed so far. 5.8 million people have been uprooted from their homes, and of that figure, less than 1% have been able to return. And of these refugees, the United States has given in a whopping 835 asylum to live here.

And then there is Baghram prison in Afghanistan. The new Guantanamo Bay. We were promised by our new president that he would shut down Guantanamo Bay, and truthfully, he is doing this. What many don’t know, however, is that he is moving many of those detainees to Baghram prison in Afghanistan – the site of torture and abuse of prisoners that compares only to Abu Ghraib. And recently, the Obama Administration filed a memorandum mimicking the arguments of the Bush Administration for why they should not be required to inform the detainees of the reason for their confinement – a fundamental right universally recognized among civilized nations.

So then what do we do? Yes, we live in an upside-down world, but if we all stand up we can make things right again. And we can start here by supporting others in their struggle for fundamental human rights. We can help the Palestinians by seeing to it that our government no longer supports Israel’s atrocities. We can help the Iraqis by supporting their right to self-government through an immediate and real end to the occupation, not the bloody limbo we have placed the Iraqi people in now. We must constantly reject torture and illegal detention and any attempt by any administration to justify it. These things cannot be up for debate. It is our duty to the brave people of this world struggling for survival and equality. We cannot be complacent because through complacency, we become guilty.

In the name of God, the most gracious and most merciful.

Here I am, free. But my country is still a prisoner of war.

Firstly, I give my thanks and my regards to everyone who stood beside me, whether inside my country, in the Islamic world, in the free world. There has been a lot of talk about the action and about the person who took it, and about the hero and the heroic act, and the symbol and the symbolic act.

But, simply, I answer: What compelled me to confront is the injustice that befell my people, and how the occupation wanted to humiliate my homeland by putting it under its boot.

And how it wanted to crush the skulls of (the homeland’s) sons under its boots, whether sheikhs, women, children or men. And during the past few years, more than a million martyrs fell by the bullets of the occupation and the country is now filled with more than 5 million orphans, a million widows and hundreds of thousands of maimed. And many millions of homeless because of displacement inside and outside the country.

We used to be a nation in which the Arab would share with the Turkman and the Kurd and the Assyrian and the Sabean and the Yazid his daily bread. And the Shiite would pray with the Sunni in one line. And the Muslim would celebrate with the Christian the birthday of Christ, may peace be upon him. And despite the fact that we shared hunger under sanctions for more than 10 years, for more than a decade.

Our patience and our solidarity did not make us forget the oppression. Until we were invaded by the illusion of liberation that some had. (The occupation) divided one brother from another, one neighbor from another, and the son from his uncle. It turned our homes into never-ending funeral tents. And our graveyards spread into parks and roadsides. It is a plague. It is the occupation that is killing us, that is violating the houses of worship and the sanctity of our homes and that is throwing thousands daily into makeshift prisons.

I am not a hero, and I admit that. But I have a point of view and I have a stance. It humiliated me to see my country humiliated. And to see my Baghdad burned. And my people being killed. Thousands of tragic pictures remained in my head, and this weighs on me every day and pushes me toward the righteous path, the path of confrontation, the path of rejecting injustice, deceit and duplicity. It deprived me of a good night’s sleep.

Dozens, no, hundreds, of images of massacres that would turn the hair of a newborn white used to bring tears to my eyes and wound me. The scandal of Abu Ghraib. The massacre of Fallujah, Najaf, Haditha, Sadr City, Basra, Diyala, Mosul, Tal Afar, and every inch of our wounded land. In the past years, I traveled through my burning land and saw with my own eyes the pain of the victims, and hear with my own ears the screams of the bereaved and the orphans. And a feeling of shame haunted me like an ugly name because I was powerless.

And as soon as I finished my professional duties in reporting the daily tragedies of the Iraqis, and while I washed away the remains of the debris of the ruined Iraqi houses, or the traces of the blood of victims that stained my clothes, I would clench my teeth and make a pledge to our victims, a pledge of vengeance.

The opportunity came, and I took it.

I took it out of loyalty to every drop of innocent blood that has been shed through the occupation or because of it, every scream of a bereaved mother, every moan of an orphan, the sorrow of a rape victim, the teardrop of an orphan.

I say to those who reproach me: Do you know how many broken homes that shoe that I threw had entered because of the occupation? How many times it had trodden over the blood of innocent victims? And how many times it had entered homes in which free Iraqi women and their sanctity had been violated? Maybe that shoe was the appropriate response when all values were violated.

When I threw the shoe in the face of the criminal, Bush, I wanted to express my rejection of his lies, his occupation of my country, my rejection of his killing my people. My rejection of his plundering the wealth of my country, and destroying its infrastructure. And casting out its sons into a diaspora.

After six years of humiliation, of indignity, of killing and violations of sanctity, and desecration of houses of worship, the killer comes, boasting, bragging about victory and democracy. He came to say goodbye to his victims and wanted flowers in response.

Put simply, that was my flower to the occupier, and to all who are in league with him, whether by spreading lies or taking action, before the occupation or after.

I wanted to defend the honor of my profession and suppressed patriotism on the day the country was violated and its high honor lost. Some say: Why didn’t he ask Bush an embarrassing question at the press conference, to shame him? And now I will answer you, journalists. How can I ask Bush when we were ordered to ask no questions before the press conference began, but only to cover the event. It was prohibited for any person to question Bush.

And in regard to professionalism: The professionalism mourned by some under the auspices of the occupation should not have a voice louder than the voice of patriotism. And if patriotism were to speak out, then professionalism should be allied with it.

I take this opportunity: If I have wronged journalism without intention, because of the professional embarrassment I caused the establishment, I wish to apologize to you for any embarrassment I may have caused those establishments. All that I meant to do was express with a living conscience the feelings of a citizen who sees his homeland desecrated every day.

History mentions many stories where professionalism was also compromised at the hands of American policymakers, whether in the assassination attempt against Fidel Castro by booby-trapping a TV camera that CIA agents posing as journalists from Cuban TV were carrying, or what they did in the Iraqi war by deceiving the general public about what was happening. And there are many other examples that I won’t get into here.

But what I would like to call your attention to is that these suspicious agencies — the American intelligence and its other agencies and those that follow them — will not spare any effort to track me down (because I am) a rebel opposed to their occupation. They will try to kill me or neutralize me, and I call the attention of those who are close to me to the traps that these agencies will set up to capture or kill me in various ways, physically, socially or professionally.

And at the time that the Iraqi prime minister came out on satellite channels to say that he didn’t sleep until he had checked in on my safety, and that I had found a bed and a blanket, even as he spoke I was being tortured with the most horrific methods: electric shocks, getting hit with cables, getting hit with metal rods, and all this in the backyard of the place where the press conference was held. And the conference was still going on and I could hear the voices of the people in it. And maybe they, too, could hear my screams and moans.

In the morning, I was left in the cold of winter, tied up after they soaked me in water at dawn. And I apologize for Mr. Maliki for keeping the truth from the people. I will speak later, giving names of the people who were involved in torturing me, and some of them were high-ranking officials in the government and in the army.

I didn’t do this so my name would enter history or for material gains. All I wanted was to defend my country, and that is a legitimate cause confirmed by international laws and divine rights. I wanted to defend a country, an ancient civilization that has been desecrated, and I am sure that history — especially in America — will state how the American occupation was able to subjugate Iraq and Iraqis, until its submission.

They will boast about the deceit and the means they used in order to gain their objective. It is not strange, not much different from what happened to the Native Americans at the hands of colonialists. Here I say to them (the occupiers) and to all who follow their steps, and all those who support them and spoke up for their cause: Never.

Because we are a people who would rather die than face humiliation.

And, lastly, I say that I am independent. I am not a member of any politicalparty, something that was said during torture — one time that I’m far-right, another that I’m a leftist. I am independent of any political party, and my future efforts will be in civil service to my people and to any who need it, without waging any political wars, as some said that I would.
My efforts will be toward providing care for widows and orphans, and all those whose lives were damaged by the occupation. I pray for mercy upon the souls of the martyrs who fell in wounded Iraq, and for shame upon those who occupied Iraq and everyone who assisted them in their abominable acts. And I pray for peace upon those who are in their graves, and those who are oppressed with the chains of imprisonment. And peace be upon you who are patient and looking to God for release.

And to my beloved country I say: If the night of injustice is prolonged, it will not stop the rising of a sun and it will be the sun of freedom.

One last word. I say to the government: It is a trust that I carry from my fellow detainees. They said, ‘Muntadhar, if you get out, tell of our plight to the omnipotent powers’ — I know that only God is omnipotent and I pray to Him — ‘remind them that there are dozens, hundreds, of victims rotting in prisons because of an informant’s word.’

They have been there for years, they have not been charged or tried.

They’ve only been snatched up from the streets and put into these prisons. And now, in front of you, and in the presence of God, I hope they can hear me or see me. I have now made good on my promise of reminding the government and the officials and the politicians to look into what’s happening inside the prisons. The injustice that’s caused by the delay in the judicial system.

Thank you. And may God’s peace be upon you

The translation is by McClatchy’s special correspondent, Sahar Issa.

The court shall exercise reasonable control over the appearance of parties and witnesses so as to (1) ensure that the demeanor of such persons may be observed and assessed by the fact-finder, and (2) to ensure the accurate identification of such persons.

The controversy began after a Michigan judge dismissed a woman’s case when she refused to remove her face-veil (niqab), which she said she wore pursuant to her religious beliefs. In response to the dismissal, the woman filed a federal complaint against the judge seeking a declaratory judgment. The federal court refused to exercise jurisdiction over the woman’s case, finding that deciding the case would undoubtedly “increase friction in the relationship between our state and federal courts.” See Mohammad v. Paruk, 553 F. Supp. 2d 893, 900 (E.D. Mich. 2008). The amendment to MRE 611 was proposed shortly thereafter, and as a direct response to the incident.

The rule raises questions of constitutional validity because, although neutrally worded, its intent was to allow the court to control the religious dress of Muslim women, and is therefore discriminatory. Moreover, the rule is not the least-restrictive means of ensuring that the trier of fact can make credibility determinations or accurately identify witnesses. Further, the rule will likely result in the marginalization of Muslim women, as they will be denied meaningful and fair access to the courts unless they choose to compromise their sincerely-held religious beliefs – a decision no one should have to make.

It is well established that religious freedom is not an absolute right, but nonetheless one of the most important rights enshrined in the Constitution. If the government seeks to curtail such a right in any way, the courts typically subject it to a strict scrutiny standard. This means that the government has the burden of proving that its measures are the least restrictive means to attain a compelling government interest. Under the Michigan Constitution, the government cannot substantially burden a person’s religious practice unless the provision can pass the strict scrutiny test. See McCready v. Hoffius, 459 Mich. 131, 143-44 (1998). The Supreme Court has also upheld this standard, although holding in one case that this does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with valid and neutral laws of general applicability. Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 878-79 (1990). It is important to note, however, that the Michigan courts have not chosen to apply this Supreme Court nuance in interpreting the rule.

In any case, it is highly arguable that the new amendment to MRE 611 is neutral. The Michigan Supreme Court itself acknowledged that the proposal came about in response to a case in which a state judge was sued for dismissing a woman’s case after she had refused to remove her “hijab” (it was, in fact, a niqab that the woman refused to remove) for religious purposes. See Proposed Amendment of Rule 611 of the Michigan Rules of Evidence, ADM File No. 2007-13 (proposed December 9, 2008). Thus, it is clear that the impetus of the proposal was a desire to permit state judges to require the removal of religious clothing, and particularly those of Muslim women.

The question then remains, is this amendment necessary to achieve a compelling government interest? There is no question that the government has a compelling interest in being able to assess the credibility of witnesses. This is one of the most important functions of the trier of fact. However, there is an abundance of evidence that supports the argument that this particular amendment is not necessary because there are other, less restrictive, means to maintaining the trier’s ability to assess witness credibility. In fact, empirical studies have shown that being able to see the face of the testifying witness does not help credibility determinations, and may even hurt them at times. These studies indicate that triers are better able to tell if a witness is lying by focusing on language and voice inflection, rather than on facial expressions.

The other issue raised by the proposal is the court’s ability to identify the witness. The niqab covers a woman’s face, making it difficult to identify her unless she removes it. Muslim women who practice wearing the niqab are able to remove the veil in the presence of other women. Allowing a woman to be identified in private by a female officer of the court would be a sufficient accommodation. Thus, the proposal is not the least-restrictive means to achieving this interest. In fact, in many cases witness identification has been modified to accommodate national security interests (often for foreign countries such as Israel), protection of witnesses, and other various reasons. Accordingly, providing for accommodation for religious purposes as well is not such an unbearable burden for the court.

The real issue at hand is not whether accommodation is possible – it is possible – the issue is whether the Michigan Supreme Court wants to grant an accommodation for Muslim women wearing niqab. But not accommodating Muslim women will likely result in their disenfranchisement, as they will be more hesitant to bring their legal issues to court. Controversy over Muslim women’s dress is a global issue affecting not just the United States, but nations across Europe and the Middle East. Many, including some Muslims, find the practice of wearing niqab unnecessary, unreasonable or even offensive. But this is all beside the point. The point, as the founding fathers made abundantly clear, is that it is not the job of the government to dictate to individuals what and how to believe. My reservations about the niqab do not give me the right to impose my beliefs upon another, at least not through government.

Moreover, marginalizing Muslim women on the basis of their dress will not result in their adoption of mainstream practices. Rather, it will prevent them from having access to fundamental components of society – components they have a right to, and that they pay taxes to fund and support – such as the justice system. This has already been the ironic result of nations that have banned the hijab and niqab in public forums. In their misguided attempt to “liberate” Muslim women by forbidding them to dress according to their religious beliefs, they have further marginalized Muslim women by forcing them to choose between their religious beliefs and their desire to contribute as functioning members of society. In the United States, the courts have long recognized that the two are not mutually exclusive, and that nobody should have to make such a decision unless there really is no other alternative available. For Michigan courts, it appears there are other alternatives; they merely chose to overlook them by adopting this amendment.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/#437010009453417750

This time the source of his wrath is Christina Abraham, CAIR-Chicago’s Civil Rights Director.

In a hit piece entitled, “Is This Who We Want Representing U.S. Interests Abroad?” published on his fluff website, “The Investigative Project on Terrorism,” Emerson shows once again why his website had better be called, “The Investigative Project on Mainstream American Muslim Organizations.”

The simple fact is that while Emerson desperately tries to run himself off as a “terrorism expert,” a cursory view of his website quickly reveals that, all too-often, the targets of his so-called investigations and reports are not terrorist groups but mainstream American Muslim organizations like CAIR, MPAC, ISNA, MAS, etc.

In considering his own question posed in the title of his piece, “Is This Who We Want Representing U.S. Interests Abroad?” Emerson offers the following answer, “The State Department and a U.S. university seem to think so.”

Right, so now we are left with a choice.

Option A: the State Department and the U.S. University – as well as the countless other institutions, churches, conferences, and universities who have hosted Christina Abraham – are clueless.

Or

Option B: Emerson, the odd one out, is a lying propagandist.

For the self-delusional Emerson, the dilemma is easy to resolve: when Emerson disagrees with the world, the world is wrong and Emerson is right.

Of course, this sort of self-aggrandizement has come to typify the life and works of career Islamophobes like Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes. In attempting to fool others, either they are either really clueless or they put their faith on the chance that the rest of us are really clueless.

Why is a “terrorism expert” so enraged by someone like Christina Abraham working to build bridges between civilizations via a State Department sponsored conference on human and civil rights in the Philippines? Could it be that Emerson is not really looking out for our national security concerns, that instead he is preoccupied with a whole different set of concerns on his mind? Looking over Emerson’s track record, it becomes apparent that he feels threatened by positive social engagement that challenges the stereotypes and misconceptions that he needs kept alive in order to succeed and prosper.

Emerson’s attack on Christina is laughable in many ways.

First, he runs his article off as an “investigative” report.

What, ask you, are the “investigative” techniques that our investigative expert employed to trigger his “exposé” of Christina Abraham and CAIR-Chicago? Answer: he googled “Christina Abraham.”

Question: and where did that lead him? Answer: CAIR-Chicago’s website.

In fact, many, if not all, of the attacks leveled against CAIR-Chicago have been as a result of attacking something CAIR-Chicago itself puts out there on our website or e-newsletter. Clearly, CAIR-Chicago has nothing to hide and is consistently transparent in reporting on its work.

Yet Emerson wrote – as if to flag something unusual – “CAIR was so proud that it issued a press release on February 11, 2009 entitled ‘Civil Rights Director Participates in State Dept. Delegation to Philippines.’”

OK, so let’s break it down for Emerson. CAIR did not issue the press release because it is “so proud,” but because that is what we do, we report on our work to our constituents and the public. (In fact it was not a press release but an “our news” report on our website and e-newsletter)

Only in the warped reasoning of Emerson, who himself operates under shadowy arrangements, are transparency and regular reporting a questionable practice that merits criticism and suspicion.

If anything, the question should be asked, why aren’t Steven Emerson and his ilk similarly transparent in their own work, and instead do all that they can to mask the shady machinations of what they do?

Second, Emerson asks “What was Abraham’s special expertise in ‘civil rights discrimination’ and ‘constructive civic engagement’ that merited her to be selected as an emissary of the United States to underdeveloped nations?”

OK. Again, let’s break down the obvious for Emerson:

Christina Abraham holds two degrees, soon to be three. She has a Bachelor’s in Political Science from DePaul University, a Masters in Social Sciences with an emphasis on Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Chicago, and is set to obtain her Juris Doctorate in Law next month.

Christina has been a founding staff member of CAIR-Chicago’s civil rights department, helping build it into one of the most active and effective civil rights defense and advocacy offices in the country. Since the inception of the department 5 years ago, Christina has overseen the processing of 1600 cases reported to the Chicago office. She has helped resolve hundreds of instances of civil rights abuses, has led countless training workshops for civil rights activists from various other communities, and has led dozens of network and newspaper interviews advocating for our constitutional rights. She is on the board of international think tanks and is the recipient of prestigious social services awards.

Christina – who speaks three languages, is well travelled, and has a healthy bicultural background – earned her way to social relevance in her community and country via a notable academic and professional record of achievements.

Then comes along a pretentious self-promoter like Emerson who has never met Christina, knows virtually nothing about her, yet has the audacity to think he is uniquely privileged to pass judgment on Christina’s credentials and relevance in her own community and to her country. Worse yet, he musters the audacity to attack the judgment of “a U.S. University and the State Department” when they take a pass on his dribble.

Emerson also falsely claims that Christina is spreading allegations of “a US war against Islam.” He offers no evidence to back up his lies because no evidence exists. This view which he attributes to CAIR and Christina is not the view of CAIR or Christina. In fact both CAIR and Christina have spoken out against simplistic theories such as this.

For Emerson – who does not like to waste time thinking too deeply about the facts – criticizing aspects of US foreign or domestic policies, especially as they relate to American Muslims, is akin to declaring “the U.S is at war with Islam.”

Of course, the simplistic Emerson once again stands alone on that view. Many intelligent Americans – Muslim and not – have written voluminously on the Bush administration abuses of domestic civil rights and practices considered unconstitutional, some of which seemed to target Muslims and Arabs. Add to that the Iraq war, Guantanamo, torture, and you get a list of the issues that do not only concern Christina and CAIR but tens of millions of conscientious American citizens of all walks of life.

But in singling Christina and CAIR in this manner and appropriating to them an extreme view that he himself wordsmiths and puts into their mouths, Emerson lends us an up-close look at the sort of hypocritical and disingenuous analysis techniques he employs in trying to demonize and marginalize mainstream voices working within American Muslim organizations.

The rest of Emerson’s hit piece goes on about Hamas. Emerson’s forte has been to link anything and anyone who is publicly critical of the excesses of the Israeli government as “Hamas.” For evidence, he does not point to any court ruling or jury verdict, but to weak circumstantial quotes and the untried opinion of one FBI agent. For Emerson, due process is to be thrown out of the window when it comes to American Muslim organizations against whom allegations are dubbed as convictions.

Yet for every single person harboring the fallacious view that CAIR has links to Hamas, there are a dozen others who speak the truth. Even within the FBI, while Emerson references one agent, he ignores others such as Michael Rolince, a retired F.B.I. official who directed counterterrorism in the Washington field office from 2002 to 2005 and who stated, “Of all the groups, there is probably more suspicion about CAIR, but when you ask people for cold hard facts, you get blank stares.” (Source: New York Times, 3/14/2007)

So, the question before us now is:

Can Steven Emerson and his ilk be trusted as credible sources of information on Islam, Muslims or their representative organizations?

Who is Steven Emerson?

A self-anointed “terrorism expert” whose rhetoric is characterized by charged terminology and a dislike for open debate, Emerson harbors a longstanding track record of anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bigotry.

In March of 1995, Emerson told The Jewish Monthly, “nearly all (emphasis added) of the Islamic organizations in the United States that define themselves as religiously or culturally Muslim in character have, today, been totally captured or dominated by radical fundamentalist elements…” Ironically, it took Emerson no more than a few days to demonstrate to the world why his credibility and integrity as an “observer of trends” should never be taken for granted especially when they relate to Muslims.

In April of 1995, Emerson confidently asserted on a live broadcast of CBS News that the Oklahoma City bombing, then breaking news, showed “a Middle Eastern trait” because it was carried out “with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible.”

“Oklahoma City, I can tell you, is probably considered one of the largest centers of Islamic radical activity outside the Middle East,” Emerson explained with an enthusiasm bordering on elation.

While Emerson preoccupied himself with indulging his knack for conjecture, real detectives worked calmly and professionally to reveal that, contrary to Emerson’s “expert perceptions”, Timothy McVeigh and company were behind the bombings. Emerson’s incompetence was duly exposed; CBS decided not to renew his contract and blacklisted him for five years.

Then again, Emerson’s aversion to facts and affinity for bias are not breaking news. A New York Times review of Emerson’s 1991 book Terrorist said the book was “marred by factual errors . . . and by a pervasive anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias.”

His 1994 controversial film Jihad in America caused veteran reporter Robert Friedman to accuse Emerson of “creating mass hysteria against American Arabs” (The Nation, 5/15/95).

John F. Sugg, then of the Tampa Bay Weekly Planet, revealed in a 1999 article that Emerson’s priority is “not so much news as it is an unrelenting attack against Arabs and Muslims.”

“He’s made his life’s work discrediting Arab American and Muslim groups,” James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, told The Washington Post in 2001.

Smear campaigns are not unusual for Steven Emerson; they seem to be his way of expressing disgruntlement with an opposing view.

“He has been run out of many respectable newsrooms. His response was the smear job. When The Washington Post shunned him, he branded the paper pro-Hamas.’ When the Miami Herald strafed Emerson’s shoddy claims, he wrote the city’s Jewish leaders claiming the paper’s reporter was nothing short of racist,’ Sugg wrote (Alternet, 06/12/2003).

So what explains Emerson’s anti-Muslim and anti-Arab spin? The Wall Street Journal provided us with one answer 16 years ago: “Mr. Emerson’s prime role is to whitewash Israeli governments and revile their critics,” wrote Alexander Cockburn.

For whom does Emerson work? Does he represent the interests of Americans, or the interests of a foreign state at the expense of our nation’s own interests and healthy community relations? 

Emerson, who has close ties to the Israeli Mossad according to The Jerusalem Post (9/17/1994), has yet to disclose key facts regarding his activities, including his source of funding. While he criticizes Muslim-American organizations that openly disclose their operating and financial details, Emerson shrouds his own in guarded secrecy.

Vince Cannistraro, a former Chief of Operations and Analysis at the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center said of Emerson’s closest associates Steve Pomerantz, Oliver Revell and Yigal Carmon: “They’re Israeli-funded. How do I know that? Because they tried to recruit me.”

Of Emerson himself, Cannistraro says, “word has got around on what he (Emerson) is, that he’s a paid polemicist, not a journalist” (Weekly Planet, May 1998); he characterizes him as “dishonest” and “Joseph McCarthy-like” (The Forward, 1/26/96).

Journalist Jane Hunter calls Emerson’s brand of journalism “nimble in its treatment of facts, often credulous of intelligence sources, and almost invariably supportive of the Israeli government” (EXTRA! , October/November 1992).

In short Emerson does not advocate for the interests of the United States and never has. He is far more occupied with the interests of the extreme elements of a foreign government. He picks his battles with that litmus test in mind and draws enemies and friends with those criteria in mind. He continues to masquerade as a “terrorism expert” who cares about the interest of the United States for cover, but a deeper look into the disingenuous nature of his “investigations” and “reporting” and the targets of his work quickly gives him away for what he truly is.

Christina Abraham is the Civil Rights Director at CAIR-Chicago. Christina has spoken and written on issues related to Arab and Muslim civil rights, and actively works to pursue successful resolutions to incidents of discrimination through legal and non-legal channels. Christina is also a member of the Advisory Board for the Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights and a member of the Advisory Board of the BRussels International Tribunal. Christina holds a Masters in the Arts of Social Sciences (M.A.) at the University of Chicago where her focus was on Politics in the Middle East, and is currently completing a Juris Doctorate at DePaul University.