|
Chronology of Islam in America (2012)
By Abdus Sattar Ghazali
December 2012 - Page Three
MPAC convention makes history with a multi-faith audience at All Saints Church
Dec 15: The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) held its 12th annual convention today and in doing so set an historical precedent by its choice of venue: All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, Ca. The theme of the convention was “Our future in the Making”. MPAC Executive Director, Salaam Al Marayati, said that by this move MPAC “will be taking the next step in its mission by crossing the interfaith line.” Once the venue of the convention was announced, Islamophobia came out in full force to attack All Saints Church for partnering with MPAC. MPAC held an interfaith press conference at the church to demonstrate solidarity. Clergy from many faiths attended and stood shoulder to shoulder – quite literally – with MPAC and All Saints Church. Reverend Susan Russell of All Saints Church called the event “an interfaith Advent” and termed those who wrote in opposition ignorant and labelled the convention a “teachable moment”. Salaam Al Marayati read excerpts from some of the hate mail the church received. The Los Angeles Times’ Editorial Board praised the decision in an editorial titled: “All Saints Rolls Out the Welcome Mat”. The editorial went on to state that religions do not have to be in complete agreement to hold interfaith events, otherwise there would be no interfaith events. The board also noted that MPAC and All Saints Church had worked together for well over a decade and found that what they had in common was far greater than what separated them. The attacks took many forms including articles on Islamophobic web sites such as Front Page Mag, Jihad Watch and Walid Shoebat’s page. Other than consultation with law enforcement vis a vis security measures and considerable heightened security, the MPAC convention went on as planned and was successful and informative. Islamophobia challenged the truth, and the truth won. [The Muslim Observer]
New York State Court verdict illustrates a separate justice system invented for Muslims in the US after 9/11
Dec 18: A fascinating new ruling unwittingly illustrates the separate system of 'justice' invented for Muslims in the US after 9/11, reports Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian (UK) newspaper. The New York Court of Appeals, in the criminal case of People v. Edgar Morales, (decided on December 11, 2012) ruled on December 11, 2012 that a New York state anti-terrorism law enacted in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks cannot be used to prosecute a street gang member convicted of shooting a 10-year-old girl and paralyzing a rival gang member. The court ordered a new trial for Edgar Morales, a member of the Bronx-based St. James Boys gang, who was sentenced to life for his involvement in the 2002 shootings. Morales, 30, is the only gang member to have been prosecuted under New York's anti-terror law, according to his lawyer. Prosecutors had accused Morales and his gang of terrorizing the Mexican-American community in their Bronx neighborhood. They relied on a provision of a 2001 anti-terrorism law passed six days after the Sept. 11 attacks. Under Section 490.25 of the Penal Law, a person is guilty of terrorism when he commits a specified class A or violent felony with the "intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population" or influence government policy. Morales was charged with terrorism, on the theory that he had sought to intimidate the community and rival gangs.
The Court of Appeals found that state lawmakers never intended to extend the definition of terrorism to traditional gang activities. "The concept of terrorism has a unique meaning and its implications risk being trivialized if the terminology is applied loosely in situations that do not match our collective understanding of what constitutes a terrorist act," Judge Victoria Graffeo wrote for the court. The Court of Appeals went further, finding that the terrorism charges had a "spillover effect" on the entire trial because they allowed the prosecution to admit evidence of a number of uncharged crimes allegedly committed by Morales and his gang. "Without the aura of terrorism looming over the case, the activities of (Morales's) associates in other contexts would have been largely, if not entirely, inadmissible," Graffeo wrote. Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and Judges Carmen Ciparick, Eugene Pigott, Susan Read and Robert Smith concurred. The verdict said:
“The concept of terrorism has a unique meaning and its implications risk being trivialized if the terminology is applied loosely in situations that do not match our collective understanding of what constitutes a terrorist act. History and experience have shown that it is impossible for us to anticipate every conceivable manner in which evil schemes can threaten our society. Because the Legislature was aware of the difficulty in defining or categorizing specific acts of terrorism, it incorporated a general definition of the crime and referenced seven notorious acts of terrorism that serve as guideposts for determining whether a future incident qualifies for this nefarious designation…..Considered in that context, and subject to possible exceptions that could arise if a criminal organization engages in terrorist activities, we conclude that the Legislature did not intend for the crime of terrorism to cover the illegal acts of a gang member committed for the purpose of coercing or intimidating adversaries. Therefore, the evidence in this case was insufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under Penal Law §490.25. Defendant's violent, criminal acts as a member of the SJB gang unquestionably resulted in tragic consequences — the needless death of a little girl and the paralysis of a young man — but they were not acts of terrorism within the meaning of Penal Law article 490.”
But if these special rules for terrorism cases are prejudicial and unfair when applied to murder defenders, then they are unfair for everyone, Glenn Greenwald argues. It means these rules are inherently unfair. But that's what has happened in the post-9/11 era: a whole new system of "justice", with all new rules designed to ensure convictions and long prison terms, have been invented exclusively for those facing "terrorism" charges. And since the term "terrorism" has no discernible meaning other than "acts of violence committed by Arabs and/or Muslims against westerners", this illustrates why New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal was exactly right when, under the headline "Liberty and Justice for non-Muslims", he wrote on March 30, 2012: “Since the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, genuine concerns about national security as well as politicking and fear have led to a shift in the balance between civil liberties and law enforcement. That much is indisputable, and widely discussed. Yet it’s rarely acknowledged that the attacks have also led to what’s essentially a separate justice system for Muslims. In this system, the principle of due process is twisted and selectively applied, if it is applied at all.”
Glenn Greenwald concludes: It is hard to overstate the centrality of the term "terrorism" when it comes to state power, policy and law. It is the term that launches wars and sustains the US posture of endless war, justifies unprecedented state secrecy, serves as the pretext for due-process-free imprisonment and assassinations, and sends countless of our fellow (Muslim) citizens to prison for decades for the most trivial, and often constitutionally protected, acts. Those Muslims convicted under separate rules of justice don't just get sent to normal prisons, but to their own special prison units now as oppressive as Guantanamo. And, as this case and so many others illustrate, these tactics are rapidly expanding beyond their original application - the persecution of Muslims - into a wide variety of expansions of government power. [AMP Report]
Former Marine: I burned Ohio mosque to avenge US troops
Dec. 19: A former Marine from Indiana admitted today that he broke into a mosque in Ohio and set fire to a prayer rug because he wanted revenge for the killings of American troops overseas. Randy Linn pleaded guilty to hate crime charges, saying he'd become enraged after seeing images of wounded soldiers in the news. "Every day you turn on the TV, you see Muslims trying to kill Americans," said Linn, a truck driver from St. Joe. When asked by a federal judge whether he thought all Muslims are terrorists, he answered: "I'd say most of them are." A deal between prosecutors and Linn, 52, calls for him to be sentenced to 20 years next April. He pleaded guilty to intentionally damaging and destroying religious property and two gun-related charges. U.S. District Judge Jack Zouhary told Linn that his acts were an attack on all places of religion and that the mosque was a symbol of peace. "You are no better than the terrorists or extremists you sought to punish," Zouhary said. Prosecutors said Linn drove about two hours from his home to suburban Toledo on Sept. 30 and broke into the mosque where he poured gasoline on the rug and lit it on fire. The Islamic Center of Greater Toledo, which also houses an elementary school, suffered extensive damage from the arson. [Associated Press]
The Most Racist Restaurant in America?
Dec 20: The Maker’s Mark Bourbon House and Lounge in downtown Louisville, Kentucky, used to be a decently classy place, the type of glass- and wood-paneled establishment striving for a level of authenticity beyond the reach of a chain restaurant named after a bourbon label. Late this past August, however, the Bourbon House and Lounge officially became one of the most despicable restaurants in the country when it denied African Americans access to a public event held at the site. Here’s what happened: Andre Mulligan and his brother went to the Marker’s Mark Bourbon House and Lounge on August 17 to speak with officials from Maker's Mark bourbon company about a public event to be held at their restaurant the next day. At the meeting, Maker's Mark wanted to know “the ratio of ‘black people’ to ‘white people’ attending the event” explains Mulligan in his lawsuit against the establishment. Mulligan and his brother explained that the party-goers would be ‘100 percent African American,’ to which information the officials from Maker's Mark said essentially, nope, you can’t hold an event at our lounge—a clear violation of not only the states’ laws, but also all human decency and basic 21st century codes of ethics and respect. Given the clear illegality of the managers’ claims, Mulligan, his brother and some of their friends showed up the next night anyway for the event. What happened next, according to the lawsuit, is that the restaurant’s bouncers yelled at Mulligan and his friends to “shut up,” told them they couldn’t enter the bar, and then threatened to call the police and have them “locked up” if they didn’t leave the area around the bar—also known as the public sidewalk. As this is all occurring, the bouncers are politely welcoming white diners to enter the bar. Okay, so the complaint actually doesn’t say anything about how the bouncers greeted the white patrons, but you can reasonably infer that they were polite, given that their job is to welcome (all) customers into the bar. Mulligan is suing the restaurant and its operating company, Cordish Operating Ventures, for violating the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. [Alternet]
Return to page one
|
