Im-Politic: Fake Hate Group Facts from the Washington Post

Tags

Abha Bhattarai, ACT for America, Center for Immigration Studies, CIS, hate groups, Im-Politic, Islamic terrorism, Mainstream Media, Mark Krikorian, Muslims, Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC, terrorism, The Los Angeles Times, Washington Post

What on earth gives with journalists at the Washington Post? Both editors and reporters alike? I ask this because of the outrageous headline in today’s edition, accompanying an equally outrageous article, sliming an organization that’s concerned about the spread of Muslim extremism and terrorism into the United States as a “hate group.”

Not that there’s anything new about mainstream news media and their staffs being dismissive about these dangers. And not that there’s anything new about these newspapers, magazines, broadcast networks, and websites using as their guide to hate groups the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) – even though this organization’s definition of an anti-Muslim extremist can be wildly offbase.

What’s new, and upsetting, about this incident is that the Post itself recently published an article – by the head of the restrictivist immigration organization, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) – that its appearance alone (let alone the evidence it marshaled) revealed that the paper itself took most seriously the case that SPLC hate group ratings are simply biased garbage.

As noted by its Executive Director Mark Krikorian in a Post article just last March, SPLC has labeled CIS a hate group since February.  But as Krikorian also pointed out:

“CIS has testified before Congress more than 100 times over the past 20 years. We’ve also testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and our work has been cited by the Supreme Court and the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General. We’ve done contract work for the Census Bureau and the Justice Department. Our director of research was selected by the National Academies of Sciences as an outside reviewer for last year’s magisterial study of the fiscal and economic impacts of immigration. Our authors include scholars at Harvard,Cornell University, Colorado State University, the University of Maryland and elsewhere. We are one of the most frequently cited sources on immigration in the media (including in The Post).”

And he sensibly concluded:

“Equating a group that has such a track record of engagement in the public policy debate with, for instance, the Holy Nation of Odin has nothing to do with warning the public of ‘hate.’ The SPLC’s true purpose can only be to deprive the American people of points of view they need to hear to make informed and intelligent collective decisions.”

Yet this morning, just six months later, a Post headline declared that “Marriott says it will not cancel conference hosted by anti-Muslim hate group.” In other words, this development was portrayed as a fact. But in the third paragraph, reporter Abha Bhattarai (and clearly her editors) show that the paramount basis for this description was that same Southern Policy Law Center.

Now the group so labeled – ACT for America – is completely separate from Krikorian’s CIS. Here’s how it describes it purpose:

“ACT for America educates citizens and elected officials to impact public policy and protect America from terrorism. As a result, ACT’s grassroots network has driven the education process toward the successful passage of 84 bills in 32 states. ACT for America is continuing to expand its nationwide volunteer network that trains citizens to recognize and help prevent criminal activity and terrorism in the United States while preserving civil liberties protected by the United States Constitution.”

Bhattarai attempted to buttress the SPLC’s finding by reporting that ACT was

“behind anti-Muslim demonstrations across the country this summer that attracted white supremacist groups.

“‘I don’t believe in having Muslims in the United States,’ Francisco Rivera, of the white supremacist group Vanguard America, said at one of the demonstrations.

“‘Their culture is incompatible with ours.’”

Sounds like guilt by association to me. Moreover, there are reasons to view Bhattarai’s verbal brush as excessively broad in a more fundamental sense. Here’s how another big national news organization, The Los Angeles Times, depicted these activities. ACT, it stated, “has supported President Trump’s restrictions on refugees and travel from Muslim-majority countries. It organized protests throughout the country this summer against sharia law, which the group says is incompatible with Western culture.”

That appears to be much more precise — and less damning — phrasing. And I’m inclined to trust in it because the Times handled the headline for its version of this story properly, too:

“Marriott won’t cancel convention of what critics call anti-Muslim hate group.”

So the Times, unlike the Post, seems to understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. But the Post‘s failure in this regard is even less excusable because it had recently run material casting major doubt on the SPLC’s bona fides. In other words, it seems that its own reporters and editors don’t read a lot of what the Post produces. Maybe the rest of us should take this as a hint?

Im-Politic: Charlottesville & Trump: A Never-Ending Story?

Tags

American South, anti-semitism, Charlottesville, Confederate monuments, free speech, hate groups, Im-Politic, neo-Nazis, racism, Trump, white supremacists

And so President Trump has stepped in it once again, and guaranteed that, unless something major changes, self-inflicted wounds will become the hallmarks of his presidency.

Of course, I’m talking about his impromptu remarks at yesterday’s press appearance, in which new, explicit denunciations of racist and anti-semitic hate groups were accompanied by descriptions of some of their individual members present in Charlottesville, Virginia as “very fine people” – along with comments that at least could reasonably be read as establishing a moral equivalence between the marchers and those who came to the region to protest their planned rally.

Among the least defensible:

>The contention that the torchlight marchers last Friday night included “people protesting very quietly the taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee”;

>The charge that supporters of removing Confederate memorials are “changing culture” – which closely resembles the specious claim that the memorials were erected to honor the American South’s distinctive “heritage.”

As per the views I expressed on Saturday, I still don’t believe that Mr. Trump is a racist or an anti-semite. I still believe that his behavior mainly reflects a “pathetically mistaken” belief that a big chunk of his largely white, working class base will take offense at overly harsh attacks on bigoted, fringe figures like David Duke and Richard Spencer.

But upon reflection, I’d add that he’s stunningly inarticulate, and terminally – and in many ways childishly – argumentative. And although I’m not concerned that his verbal indiscipline will needlessly spark a war or some other kind of domestic or global crisis, those are worrisome traits in a figure whose every syllable is (understandably) put under a microscope. Nor is much simple common sense visible on the President’s part, or at least not often enough.

After all, how difficult would it have been to draw up sometime over the weekend and deliver on TV a statement along the lines of:

“My fellow Americans [or whatever standard presidential speech introductory wording you like]. I loathe the Charlottesville protesters and everything they represent. The neo-Nazis, the white supremacists and their ilk have deliberately associated themselves with historical atrocities and injustices that are not only appalling. They are uniquely evil in nature. It is indeed infuriating to see them openly displaying their perverse and destructive views in our streets and parks and squares. In fact, I am personally infuriated that they keep invoking my name, and portraying my efforts to reinvigorate the ideal of a practical, healthy nationalism as an endorsement of racism and anti-semitism and xenophobia.

“But we also must remember something crucial about our democratic values – which of course are values that the hate groups’ evil historical idols have tried to destroy. They demand that even loathsome figures and voices enjoy the freedom to exercise their Constitutional speech rights. So in that respect, attempts to disrupt their activities, or the First Amendment freedoms of other unpopular speakers, must be condemned, too.

“Therefore, law-breakers will be prosecuted – whatever their political views and associations.

“But much more important, I hope that the vast majority of Americans angered by the disgraceful Charlottesville marchers and their supporters understand, and take to heart, that the best way to counter, and defeat, the hatred they spew is not by joining them in the gutter and resorting to violence – unless it’s a matter of self-defense. The best way is to expose their sick lies with the power of reason. The best way is to remember our love, compassion, and respect for each other, and take every opportunity to show it. The best way is to strengthen our nation’s unity of spirit. And the best way is to fulfill our sacred duty each and every day to keep our great national experiment in self-government a beacon for all of humanity.”

Now the President is reaping the whirlwind. I have no idea whether this latest uproar will simply blow over (as with the Access Hollywood video episode), or become superseded by another headline news development, or will doom Mr. Trump to a single term, or will erode his political support so drastically that his presidency becomes impossible to continue. What does seem certain is that the prospects of a successful Trump presidency, and especially of promises kept to economically struggling middle class and working class Americans, have taken a body blow, and that something on the order of a dramatic display of executive competence, an equally dramatic display of contrition and/or explanatory eloquence – plus a tidal wave of dumb luck – will be needed for even a partial recovery.

Im-Politic: No Denying There’s Too Much Radical Islam Denialism

Tags

hate groups, Im-Politic, Muslims, Obama, radical Islam, radical Islam denialism, terrorism, tolerance

There was a lively debate on my Twitter feed (@AlanTonelson) today on whether a significant strand of American and western opinion is in denial on the distinctive threat posed by radical Islam and the terror groups it has spawned. President Obama, who has clearly ordered his aides not even to utter the phrase “radical Islam,” is the most prominent case in point, but far from the only example. So for those of you not following me (hint, hint!), here’s a handy dandy guide to some of the main forms taken by radical Islam denialism – and to what seem to me to be screamingly obvious responses.

Before starting, though, I’ll state that the President seems to have a reasonable basis for his position. I consider it mistaken but it’s at least seriously debatable. In the administration’s view, condemning radical Islam as such, and specifying that the faith retains a major strain of brutal intolerance that needs to be eliminated, could unnecessarily alienate too many among the vast majority of peaceful Muslims around the world whose aid in this campaign is vital.

The problem with this belief is that it (logically, anyway) assumes that this Muslim majority’s moderation is so precarious that spotlighting a genuine problem with its religion will be enough to push a large number over the edge into radicalism. If so, that’s an admission that the non-Muslim world has a much bigger Muslim problem than the President acknowledges. But at least Mr. Obama is making a reasoned judgment.

The same can’t be said for others who absolve Islam of any responsibility for terrorism. Here in no particular order are a few of the main denial positions I’ve encountered recently, either on Twitter or in the media, and why they’re so ignorant or downright misleading:

The Vast Majority of Muslims are Peaceful and Oppose Terrorism. This claim unquestionably is true as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go nearly far enough because, alone among the world’s major and minor religions, Islam is officially in control of two powerful countries whose ruling circles have ideologically supported and funded intolerance and terrorist activity – Iran and Saudi Arabia. A third state sponsor of Islamic terrorism – the Taliban – had to be forcibly removed from power in Afghanistan by American and allied militaries, and may stage a comeback now that NATO forces are no longer playing a combat role in that country.

Nor is Saudi Arabia anything like “an exception that proves the rule.” It’s not only the birthplace of Muhammad, but the site of two of Islam’s holiest places. The influence of its state Wahabist religion, moreover, is hardly confined to the Arabian peninsula, as wealthy Saudis, including members of the (huge) royal family, have long sponsored schools throughout the Muslim world that have spread the sect’s often brutal values.

These points, moreover, effectively refute the widespread claim that Islam has been hijacked by many thugs who act in its name but have no valid claim to be Muslims. The resemblance between their atrocities and beliefs and those of Islam’s intolerant theocracies is no coincidence, and directly reflects the latters’ funding and proselytizing.

Much Terrorism is Carried Out by Non-Muslims. Another true claim – but at best misleading and at worst irrelevant. Political violence both nowadays and historically comes from many and varied sources. But Islamic-related terrorism is distinctive in at least four ways. First, as suggested above, much of it enjoys state sponsorship. Largely as a result, Islamic terrorism enjoys access to resources that are simply not available to other terrorist organizations or hate groups.

Second (and this is closely related to the first), much Islamic terrorism operates through and is supported by transnational networks, which greatly complicates all forms of response, including law enforcement and military. The only possible comparisons I can think of are (a) the provisional Irish Republican Army, and two smaller succeeding splinter groups, which received significant funding from some Irish Americans; and (b) the Red Brigades and Red Army Faction groups that operated in Italy and Germany from the late-1960s through the mid-1980s, both of which were aided modestly by the Soviet bloc; and (c), the violent Basque organization ETA, which agitated for independence from Spain, which was especially active from the 1970s through the mid-1990s, and which was aided by states such as Cuba and Algeria, as well as by networks of emigres.

Again, no violent hate groups that invoke Christianity or other religions or ideologies – whose activities are often cited by radical Islam deniers – have been internationalized (no doubt because so many such rightists tend to be xenophobic!).

Third, Islamic terrorism’s scope is in a class by itself. Non-Islamic terrorists, for example, have launched no attacks remotely comparable to the September 11 strikes. Fourth, Islamic terrorism seems unique in attacking those who allegedly blaspheme a religion – as opposed to (of course heinous) strikes on political opponents or on ethnic and racial minorities.

Moreover, does the existence of non-Islamic terrorism mean that governments shouldn’t go after Islamic terrorism? Why should the existence of one weaken the case for fighting the other? Clearly, terrorism of all kinds must be combated. At the same time, priorities need to be set, and because of the aforementioned scale issue, focusing on Islamic terrorism is amply justified.

Other Religions Have Promoted Intolerance and Violence. No quarrel here. But what’s the relevance for current policy? However horrendous the historic record of Christianity in particular, wars of religion ended on the European continent in the 17^th century, and in England in the 18^th.

Both Catholic and Protestant churches remained strongly intolerant long afterwards. Who can doubt that historic European antisemitism was fueled powerfully by the Christian doctrine that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus – a claim not officially dropped by Rome until 1965? And the rabid antisemitism of Protestantism’s founder Martin Luther surely contributed to the atmosphere in Germany and elsewhere in 19^th and early 20^th century Europe in which Nazi genocide developed. Meanwhile, the “blood libel” doctrine was coddled through the 19^th century by Russia’s czars, who long officially linked themselves to the Orthodox church. ‘

Thankfully, nowadays, such intolerance and persecution are both rejected by virtually all Christian leaders nowadays, by nearly all those who consider themselves Christians, and certainly by all the major denominations. (And I say this as one who is generally opposed by the efforts of some Christians to reintroduce prayer in public schools, and religious symbols into public spaces.) I can’t think of any other significant world religions responsible for any such abominations in recent centuries. Tragically, the same cannot be said for the Islam.

If I’ve forgotten any especially egregious examples of radical Islam denialism, let me know. Further, I have no doubt that new forms will keep appearing for the foreseeable future. And of course, this post hasn’t examined the important question of why radical Islam denialism is so widespread (a subject to which I’m sure I’ll turn). For now, though, it should be clear that this school of so-called thought has taken root. And although the great majority of the American people seem to reject it, its popularity among the political and especially media classes argues strongly against complacency.