LIVE news updates

Jun 24 Transforming Your Reality Jun 17 A History of Muslim Americans’ Political Engagement Jun 17 My Brother is Gay: Navigating the Intersection of Religion and Family An interview with Imam Wesley Lebron Jun 10 Islam and the Romans: Early Muslim-Byzantine Interaction May 20 Reclaiming the Sunnah of Adoption and Foster Care: An Interview with Basmah Salam Apr 29 National Poetry Month: An Ode to Faith, Visibility, and the Conversations We Don’t Forget Apr 15 Beyond Ramadan: Taking Its Lessons Farther Apr 15 The Power of Saying No: A Reflection on Boundaries

Tag: election2016

Anti-Muslim Rhetoric and Its Violent Consequences
It’s been a volatile summer for American Muslims.

In New York, an Imam and his assistant were brutally murdered outside a local mosque shortly following prayer services. In Oklahoma, a 37-year-old Arab American man was gunned down on his porch by his neighbor who presumed he was Muslim, less than an hour after contacting police to express fear that his soon-to-be murderer would harm him. The neighbor had previously run over the family’s matriarch with his vehicle, and then left the scene of the crime where the victim was seriously injured.

In Illinois, two American Muslim women were assaulted by another female in a parking lot. The perpetrator called them “ISIS” and bystanders encouraged her. In Texas, a caller threatened a local mosque, saying, “We will cut all of your heads off,” while describing Islam as a “violent religion” and calling for a “Christian crusade.” In South Carolina, a postcard threatened an attack against a mosque unless Dylan Roof, the white supremacist responsible for a mass shooting at a black church last year, was released.

And, that’s just a snapshot of the most egregious acts or threats of anti-Muslim violence reported in the news media during the first few weeks of August, 2016. The month commenced with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s disparaging statements about Khizr and Ghazala Khan, Gold Star parents of an American Muslim soldier who lost his life while serving his country in a controversial war in Iraq, a war premised on a claim of WMDs that never were.

As you may recall, Khizr Khan had publicly criticized Mr. Trump at the Democratic National Convention for consistently attacking the character of the American Muslim community. He questioned Mr. Trump’s sacrifices for our nation and his knowledge of the U.S. Constitution while, now famously, offering to lend his copy after pulling it out from his suit jacket pocket. Significantly, the harrowing acts and threats of anti-Muslim violence described above fit a larger pattern that has emerged during the current 2016 U.S. presidential election season.

Indeed, earlier this year, Georgetown University’s Bridge Initiative, where I research, write and speak about Islamophobia, released a study titled, When Islamophobia Turns Violent: The 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections. Our study examined the relationship between anti-Muslim political rhetoric by presidential candidates and acts and threats of violence targeting the minority faith community, from March 23, 2015 through March 2016.

We made the following key findings:
- The 2016 U.S. presidential season began against a backdrop of already rising Islamophobia in 2015, threatening American Muslim religious freedom.
- During the course of 2015, there were approximately 174 reported incidents of anti-Muslim violence and vandalism, including: 12 murders; 29 physical assaults; 50 threats against persons or institutions; 54 acts of vandalism or destruction of property; 8 arsons; and 9 shootings or bombings, among other incidents.
- Anti-Muslim violence remained significantly higher in 2015 than pre- 9/11 levels with American Muslims approximately 6 to 9 times more likely to suffer such attacks. The number of incidents in 2015 is also higher than the total number of anti-Muslim hate crimes reported in 2014: 154.
- In 2015, American Muslim men were twice as likely to be victims of physical assaults and 5 to 6 times more likely to be victims of murder than American Muslim women.
- Since the first candidate announced his bid for the White House in March 2015, there have been approximately 180 reported incidents of anti-Muslim violence, including: 12 murders; 34 physical assaults; 49 verbal assaults or threats against persons and institutions; 56 acts of vandalisms or destruction of property; 9 arsons; and 8 shootings or bombings, among other incidents.
- Since the start of the presidential election cycle, American Muslim men have been twice as likely to be victims of physical assaults and about 11 times more likely to be the victims of murder than their female counterparts.
- Also during each period, Muslim murder victims were most likely to be aged 18 to 24.
- Children and youth – as young as 12 years old – were among those responsible for acts and threats of anti-Muslim violence.
- Although Islamophobia made an appearance during the first GOP debate in August 2015, the first surge of anti-Muslim political rhetoric occurred in September 2015.
- It corresponded with an international development: the Syrian refugee crisis. The deepening crises dominated news media headlines in the U.S. and Europe potentially highlighting the media impact on political discourse.
- This surge in September 2015 was accompanied by approximately 10 reported incidents or threats of violence, including 3 murders. In comparison, there was one (1) such incident in August 2015 representing a significant increase in anti-Muslim violence over the course of one month.
- Donald Trump escalated anti-Muslim vitriol in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris, France in November 2015 rather than urge calm or international unity. The attacks signify an international event that triggered a second surge in Islamophobic rhetoric in addition to the uptick in bias attacks.
- Trump made many anti-Muslim statements during televised appearances on mainstream news media outlets, impacting millions of viewers across the U.S. and around the world.
- As Mr. Trump called for shutting down mosques in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks and the mass shootings in San Bernardino, California in December 2015, anti-Muslim attacks initially tripled with nearly half of those attacks directed against mosques.
- Anti-Muslim attacks surged once more in December 2015. There were 53 total attacks that month, 17 of which targeted mosques and Islamic schools and 5 of which targeted Muslim homes. By comparison, when the presidential election season began just 9 months earlier, there were only 2 anti-Muslim attacks. Attacks on Muslims during this month constitute approximately 1/3 of all attacks last year. In fact, in December 2015, anti-Muslim attacks occurred almost daily and often multiple times a day.
- At least three separate incidents of violence involved perpetrators who were public supporters of presidential candidate Donald Trump. There was otherwise a strong perception among American Muslim leaders that political rhetoric created fertile ground for threats and acts of anti-Muslim violence.
- While anti-Muslim political rhetoric gives cause for alarm, the ensuing violence has inspired expressions of solidarity with the American Muslim community, too.
Several additional observations are worth noting here. First, as highlighted above, our research demonstrated a spike in anti-Muslim violence post-Paris attack in November 2015 and again in December 2015, in the aftermath of the San Bernardino mass shooting. While the violence appeared to level off in the beginning of 2016, it still remained 3 to 5 times higher than pre-election levels. Significantly, the Paris and San Bernardino attacks by self-identifying Muslims were also accompanied by anti-Muslim political rhetoric and policy posturing by GOP presidential candidates, including now Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

In the immediate wake of the San Bernardino attack, Trump issued a public statement calling for his now notorious ban on Muslim immigration that he continues to revisit and expand upon during press interviews and campaign rallies. It is important to highlight that many of his discriminatory remarks and proposed policies have received massive coverage in the news media, thereby amplifying the reach and impact of Trump’s Islamophobic message. His rhetoric is not only impacting hundreds or thousands of attendees at political campaign events or rallies, but millions of Americans across the country and even more people around the world.

Second, the violence our report exposes is part of a larger trend of growing Islamophobia that pervades so many aspects of American life today. Indeed, research suggests that there has been a steady rise in Islamophobia in recent years. The FBI’s 2014 hate crime statistics, for example, show that bias crimes generally went down across the board except where American Muslims were concerned. Similarly, in 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal government agency responsible for handling employment discrimination cases, experienced an increase in religious discrimination claims involving Muslim employees. While Muslims constitute approximately 1% to 2% of the entire U.S. population, their claims account for 40% of cases.

In addition, anti-Muslim bullying in our schools seems to be getting worse, if not evolving. A recent report from the Southern Poverty Law Center examining the impact of the presidential elections on students found that at least a 1/3 of the teacher respondents saw an increase in anti-Muslim sentiment in their classrooms. Some reported suicidal ideation among some Muslim students related to bias-based bullying. But there is an alarming trend that goes beyond conventional bullying. Whereas we typically think of school bullying as peer-on-peer harassment, research suggests that adults – essentially the very people responsible for ensuring a healthy learning environment – are increasingly the perpetrators of Islamophobia. Indeed, all of these indicators evidence Islamophobia as a growing American problem.

Finally, as our report suggests, anti-Muslim political rhetoric during the course of the presidential election season has contributed to this very real religious-freedom challenge. It is important to acknowledge other factors, however, that may help contribute to this dangerous phenomenon. The rise of ISIS, as well as actual terrorist attacks on U.S. and European soil, has also played a role, for example. This, together with foreign military interventions in Muslim majority countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, has contributed to American fears concerning a potential enemy within our borders that constitutes a potential national security threat.

Additionally, news media coverage of terrorism as an exclusively Muslim phenomenon — even though study after study suggests that a greater domestic threat lies with far right extremists and white supremacists — helps perpetuate the stereotype of Muslims as the “terrorist other.” When an American knows a Muslim or Muslims personally, this helps counter the negative media depictions. Since Muslims only represent about 1% to 2% of the total population, however, the chances of an average American encountering Muslims at work, school or in their neighborhood is slim. Most Americans get their information about the minority faith community from whatever they consume on the computer, TV and smart phones. Research shows that last year alone, 9 out of 10 news media stories about Muslims and Islam in the U.S., U.K. and Germany were in the context of violence: war or terrorism.

So, is it truly surprising that there is a palpable fear of and hostility towards Muslims, or those perceived to be, particularly in absence of any alternative positive portrayals of the minority community? And, of course, there is the multi-million-dollar Islamophobia industry that has been exposed in the Center for American Progress’s report, Fear Inc., as well as in various CAIR publications. If there is a silver lining to growing Islamophobia in the U.S., it may be the responses of American Muslims — which have proven just as diverse as the community itself — to the stereotyping, bigotry, and threats of violence, which have proven just as diverse as the community itself. During the election season alone, we have witnessed heroic efforts to counter anti-Muslim prejudice and discrimination by the most ordinary citizens, from Rose Hamid to Khizr and Ghazala Khan. We have witnessed social media campaigns from American Muslim women, like #CanYouHearUsNow, to challenge stereotypes about, and attacks against, the minority faith community. We have also seen increased political engagement, from more voter registration drives to visible participation of Muslims at the Democratic National Convention and other political forums. We have also seen American Muslim youth showing extraordinary strength and resiliency in the face of bigotry, from Texan “clock boy” Ahmed Mohamed to Oklahoman Samantha Elauf who took her religious discrimination claim against the popular retailer Abercrombie & Fitch all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — where she won.

It’s rather extraordinary.
October 3, 2016
#Election2016: An Intense Struggle for the Soul of a Nation

Fear and anxiety among Muslim Americans of all ages and backgrounds is quite palpable. These emotions are not unusual during an election year, and given the rise of hate crimes against Muslims, they are also understandable. As this issue of the magazine goes to print, a beloved Imam in Queens and his assistant were executed in broad daylight. Imam Alauddin Akhonjee and Thara Uddin were walking home after mid-day prayer services when 35-year-old Oscar Morel walked up behind them and allegedly shot them. Within hours after the shooting, both Imam Alauddin and Thara Uddin passed away. Morel has been charged with first-degree murder. In another recent incident, Khaled Jabbara, a Christian American of Lebanese descent was shot and killed by his neighbor, Stanley Vernon Majors, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, after Stanley repeatedly called Khaled a “dirty Arab.”

Today, our very pluralism which once was a strength is now at risk with endless calls to “take back our nation.” From whom? Who took our nation?

The Republican nominee for president has reiterated his call for a ban on the entry of Muslims into the United States until his future administration designs a terror-proofing vetting system. With the repeated occurrence of terror attacks attributed directly to ISIS or ISIS-sympathizers, there are frequent public statements attributing the rise of terrorism to “radical Islam.” One may be tempted to think that with all this attention on Islam and Muslims, maybe election 2016 is about us – that somehow everyone in government and on Main Street is thinking day and night about Islam and Muslims.

While there is most certainly a systematic effort to demonize Muslims (see the Fear Inc. 2.0 report), and the number of attacks against Muslims or even those who “look like” Muslims is rising, election 2016 is not about America’s struggle with Islam. Election 2016 is actually an intense struggle for the soul of America. On the one hand, there are those who are convinced that the soul of the nation is White and the salvation of that soul is only through the Christian faith. The sentiments among this group are along these lines: a) America used to be great when it was mostly White and Christian; b) the population growth of racial and ethnic and non-Christian communities should strike fear in our hearts and is causing our nation’s decline; and therefore, c) by limiting the growth of those minorities, by keeping them under social, financial, and political control, we can make America great again.

On the other hand, there are those who are convinced that the soul of the nation is strong precisely because it is diverse, that we are already great as a nation and will only become better because of the collective contributions of this increasingly diverse population. And it just so happens that Muslim Americans are among the most diverse racial and ethnic communities at this time in American history. Still, we are just one aspect of the demographic shifts in the nation. Yet, we draw disproportionate national attention for two reasons. First, as a result of Islamophobic political campaigning and media sensationalizing; and second, the perpetual framing of Islam and Muslims in negative terms by the authorities and pundits in the national security and counterterrorism discourse.

Turn Back Time, Then Go Fast Forward

A look at history tells us that demographic shifts have consistently sent tremors and caused varying reactions from local level tensions to national level nativist movements since the founding of our nation. When the Irish Catholics entered the U.S. during the 1840s, the nation was comprised mostly of Protestant, White Americans of northern and western European descent. John Higham, in “Strangers in the Land,” documents the intense anti-Catholic bigotry of that time. The message was clear: the nation was going to remain White by race, Anglo Saxon by ancestry, and Protestant by faith – hence the commonly known acronym W.A.S.P. Anti-immigrant and anti-Roman Catholic sentiments spurred the rise and growth of the “Know Nothing Party,” referring to the answer – “I know nothing” – that members were instructed to give if asked about their nativist organization. Even though nearly 150 years have passed since that period of intense bigotry, examining the sociopolitical climate today one could conclude that indeed it is as if nothing actually changed from that time.

The narrow-mindedness and outright contempt for anyone not White or not Christian, whether in the 1840s or today, are phenomena existing on one continuum. They are not somehow distinct or disparate. The perpetrators of such bigotry behaved against minorities in the same way in the 1840s as they did during the dreaded Jim Crow era. They stirred up fear of minorities. They fueled hatred against the so-called “new arrivals.” They pitted the unemployed poor Whites against hard-working newly freed slaves and immigrants.

Towards the end of the Reagan administration in 1988, David H. Bennett published a book entitled “The Party of Fear: From Nativist Movements to the New Right in American History” (University of North Carolina Press). In tracing the history of nativist movements in America, he Identified the Know Nothing Party as the “party of fear” – whose leaders believed that “saving America was worth paying any price” (p. 3). Their hate-filled rhetoric warned of the threat from the “alien enemy,” referring to the Irish Catholics. He examines the behavior of elected officials of that time, affected very much by the climate of hatred and fear, and concludes that not unlike today, they even “refused to treat those whom they feared with tolerance or civility” (p. 3).

Fast forward to 2016 and it appears that the social environment is indeed characterized by intense bigotry and fear. The very soul of the nation is threatened by people who have consumed the rhetoric from far-right individuals affiliated with the Republican Party or, more aptly, the contemporary “party of fear.” The Republican nominee, Donald Trump, has ensured for himself a place in history, albeit an infamous one, due to the brazen intolerance and uncivility of his speeches and even his tweets. One thing, however, is clear: while Muslims may be among those targeted in his rhetoric, there is much more at stake. At the local neighborhood and community levels, at the state and regional levels, and ultimately at the national level, the outcome of #Election2016 could very much throw our nation into chaos. Who we are as a people, what we stand for and indeed against, and how we confront challenges and resolve them — all of these until only recently have set us apart from other nations of the world. Today, our very pluralism which once was a strength is now at risk with endless calls to “take back our nation.” From whom? Who took our nation?

Make No Mistake, We Are Already Great

The fact of the matter is, our nation is in need of improvement, of short and long-term fixes to a host of issues; but we are by and large a prosperous nation with a thriving democracy. We have made tremendous scientific, technological, and medical advancements. But we have also made horrendous foreign policy choices. Regarding Palestine, that goes back decades. Other examples include Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and the premature rescinding of most of the sanctions against Myanmar (Burma) in 2012, while the Rohingya Muslims continue to suffer discrimination and other human rights abuses. Our nation has enslaved a people, dehumanized them and declared through a series of local and national legislative pen strokes, essentially, that their lives do not matter. But our system of democracy also allows for the birth and rise of the #BlackLivesMatter movement. We have the 1 percent of our population who enjoy incomprehensible wealth and access to political power. We also have the 99 percent of our population whose lives range from barely surviving and one paycheck away from homelessness, to those holding on as members of a slowly vanishing middle class.

Yet, with all our problems and issues, our multicultural, multiracial, multi-faith society is enviable. Our neighbors are people who are descendants of various native American tribes, of slaves from West Africa, of the earliest settlers, and yes, of almost every known nation on earth. We have a rich ethnic, ideological, and religious diversity. The majority of Americans subscribe to, and strive to fulfill, the motto e pluribus unum — out of many one – indeed, out of many souls, one soul, the soul of a nation. Our nation, which despite all its flaws, is still the destination of choice for immigrants. “The New Colossus,” a poem, written by Emma Lazarus in 1883, was engraved on a bronze plaque and mounted in 1903 inside the Statue of Liberty monument. The famous line, familiar to most Americans, expresses the welcome this nation has extended to immigrants in its finer inclinations: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…”

The Way Forward

Whatever the result of #Election2016, one thing should be clear to Muslim Americans: while we are experiencing a very challenging time due to the intense bigotry and very real verbal and physical attacks on individuals in our community, this election is only a little bit about us. In reality, the social fabric of our nation has been stretched and pulled until it seems it could tear. The hatred, the climate of fear, and the animosity fueled between supporters of the presidential candidates must be acknowledged and addressed with utmost seriousness both as Election Day approaches and in the aftermath of the elections. What we know by now is that the struggle this election is not about Muslims alone, or any one minority group. #Election2016 is actually an intense struggle for the soul of our nation. Equally intense local planning, spearheaded by interfaith and social justice coalitions, will be critical to anticipate and help put out even the faintest sparks of anger and rage. We have no choice but to salvage the soul. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once wrote that we are “a family unduly separated in ideas, culture and interest, who, because we can never again live apart, must learn somehow to live with each other in peace.”

October 2, 2016
The 2016 Election: Voting for Diversity, Pluralism, and Justice

Since September 11, 2001, the American Muslim community has gone through a journey of social and political ups and downs. And in our current turbulent times, public opinion about Islam and Muslims is worsening once again. Hate crimes against Muslims and their masajid are increasing across the country while Islamophobia has become, unfortunately, mainstream during this presidential campaign of 2016. However, at the same time, a good number of individuals, both professionals and regular folk, have spoken forcefully and persuasively in support of the Muslim community, and occasionally American Muslims receive positive media coverage; this was the case during the funeral services of Muhammad Ali in early June, and after the speech of Khizr Khan on the last night of the Democratic Convention in July. The late Imam W. D. Muhammad used to say, “This is the worst time for Muslims in America and this is also the best time for Muslims in America.”

A window of opportunity has been opened as Muslims respond in a variety of effective ways to the challenge of combatting Islamophobia and presenting a positive and accurate narrative to the American public

Acts of discrimination, bigotry, and racism against non-White or non-Christian minority groups are not uncommon phenomena in America. The U.S. used to be considered a WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) nation. That dominant group always felt anxiety and reacted unfavorably towards the growth of other minority groups or the influx of new immigrants they didn’t identify with. However, religion as an election issue has not been very common in American political history. Religion did play a role in the presidential elections of 1928 and 1960, when Alfred Smith and John F. Kennedy, respectively, were the nominees of the Democratic Party. They both were Catholic and the Republican Party launched a nasty campaign suggesting their loyalty would be split between the Pope and the U.S. Constitution.

In the 2016 presidential election cycle, even though Muslims constitute less than 2 percent of the total American population, Muslims and their faith have been front and center. Trump and his campaign have been creating fear and hatred toward Muslims, but also toward Mexicans and women. Three disturbing notions or developments affecting Muslims have arisen, all fomented by Trump and his surrogates: 1) All Muslims are suspect of holding extremist views or sympathies; 2) Muslim Immigration should be banned until the development of a proper vetting process; and 3) Islamophobic rhetoric has gone mainstream.

The hope for those who are deeply concerned about a Trump presidency is that enough independents will be disgusted with Trump’s extremist views and positions — xenophobic, Islamophobic, and misogynistic — to block his ascendency to the “highest office in the land.” Independent voters tend to identify with one party or the other, but they also tend to be more moderate as compared to those who belong to either the Republican or Democratic parties. Interestingly, according to Gallup, in 2014, Americans self-identified in the following ways: 38% conservative; 24% liberal; and 34% moderate. The percentage of self-identified moderates has shrunken from 43% in 1992 to 34% today. That coincides with the political polarization that we are seeing during the current election cycle. During the same time frame, 1992 through 2014, the percentage of liberals has grown from 17% in 1992 to 24% today; conservatives have likewise increased, but at a much smaller percentage, from 36% in 1992 to 38% today. It remains to be seen if the majority of Americans will turn away from the hatemongering of the Republican candidate.

Donald Trump, who has no prior political or government experience, has become the Republican nominee, attracting a significant number of Republicans, especially less educated, White, working class and older Americans who feel threatened with changing demographics and a perceived loss of their political power and social dominance, especially after Obama was elected. Those who want to “take back the country” feel lost in a society that embraces diversity and pluralism. They are most comfortable with a White dominated culture that harkens back to earlier times when racism and discrimination were socially and politically unchallenged, for the most part. Precisely for these reasons, this election has also become more important than other critical elections.

Muslims should be ready for a long struggle. Islamophobia will not go away in the short term. A window of opportunity, however, has been opened as Muslims respond in a variety of effective ways to the challenge of combatting Islamophobia and presenting a positive and accurate narrative to the American public. The One America Campaign and Million Voters Registration Drive, for example, are national initiatives under the banner of the US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO). There is no doubt that Muslims are growing in resilience, showing political maturity in an atmosphere that is too often hostile, suspicious of their American identity and loyalty. We should continue to be involved in the political process, locally and at the state and federal levels. And we must join with other concerned Americans who stand for ethics in politics as in personal life, and who rally against bigotry and discrimination wherever it appears. We must do our part to ensure that this election of 2016, a contest for the soul of America, leads to celebration of diversity and pluralism and, more importantly, justice for all its citizens.

October 1, 2016
Scaremongering Around Online Speech Makes No One Safer

The world of social media is a frightening place for many parents of Muslim children. Domestically and internationally, prosecutions of teenagers for terrorism-related offenses often cite social media activity as evidence. Police have created fake profiles to “friend” people on Facebook in order to further investigations. And Black Lives activists have been surveilled online by the Department of Homeland Security. Against this backdrop, some Muslim parents seek to prevent their children from using social media at all, or urge them not to post political views online. Parents should of course care what their children do on social media, as they care what they do offline, for many reasons. Children may not yet fully contemplate the possible repercussions of expressing views or sharing photos or location information publicly. Ultimately, any social media activity presents some reputational risk for anyone, as does any public speech. Privacy settings can alleviate some risk, but certainly not all. Ultimately, parents and families have to make their own decisions about privacy, and weigh how best to encourage children to identify and express their political voices while being aware of the risks.

Yet we must not confuse our personal choices, even if those choices are to restrict our online presence, with acceptable limits to enforce on society as a whole. While parents are wise to model and encourage awareness of online privacy for youth, we should not abdicate our rights to free speech online, or elsewhere, out of a misguided belief that some rights are superfluous or just too risky in the current political atmosphere. Doing so would seriously undermine public access to information and, consequently, prospects for advancing peace and justice domestically and internationally.

Capitalizing on Fear to Police Dissent

Some current efforts to regulate and control dissent disingenuously play upon Muslim parents’ understandable worries about social media, influencing them to push for more surveillance and policing of speech. “Countering violent extremism” (“CVE”) campaigns, for example, are sometimes claimed to provide “off-ramps” from prosecution for Muslim youth who might otherwise be charged with terrorism-related offenses. In this storyline, federal law enforcement has no choice but to prosecute youth who have given indications of potential “extremist” views. Social media is presented as an exceedingly dangerous place for Muslim youth due to terrorist recruiters’ sophisticated use of online platforms. CVE, it is claimed, could provide a safe haven where law enforcement avoid sting operations and prosecutions targeting those who express “vulnerabilities to extremism” (which could perhaps include anger at Western governments, interest in traveling to a conflict zone, or sympathy with victims of the war on terror) and instead engage mental health professionals, imams, and others to implement “interventions” — effectively, political and/or religious deprogramming — upon such a youth.

What these claims about CVE “off-ramps” overlook or obscure is that law enforcement agencies already have prosecutorial discretion. This prosecutorial discretion empowers federal investigators and prosecutors to avoid engaging in entrapment or overly aggressive prosecutions of every Muslim youth who might subjectively be labelled a potential “extremist.” Yet, in spite of this authority, many prosecutions for terrorism-related offenses are pursued in circumstances constitutional lawyers and other advocates have noted are not only constitutionally unsound but appear to be predatory upon those with mental health or other challenges. It is highly doubtful, then, that CVE collaborations between law enforcement and trusted social service professionals would protect Muslim youth who could otherwise be targeted for terrorism-related prosecutions. It is entirely possible such collaborations could increase the number of youth on law enforcement’s radar who have mental health or other challenges, or who express political dissent on social media.

At the same time as CVE “interventions” are being promoted to our communities by the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies, Western governments have pressured social and other tech media companies to regulate speech deemed “extremist” — in ways which are unaccountable to the democratic process or formal channels for redress. In a joint statement criticizing a recent “code of conduct” in which adhering IT companies agree to police controversial online content, European Digital Rights, Access Now, and allied organizations noted the code “creates serious risks for freedom of expression as legal but controversial content may well be deleted as a result of this voluntary and unaccountable take down mechanism.” Allowing our fears about “extremist” speech and of law enforcement targeting of that speech to persuade us to relinquish speech and privacy protections would be deeply misguided. A campaign to counter vague and subjective concepts like “extremism” are not only likely to be used predominantly against dissidents in the most “suspect” of communities — including Muslim communities, Black communities, environmentalists and others — they are deeply harmful to society as a whole.

Online Speech is Speech

Limits on permissible speech online should and do exist, but they should remain consistent with limitations on free speech limits offline. For example, in the U.S., “true threats” of violence against someone, incitement to violence (speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and “likely to incite or produce such action”), and libel are all illegal. But the U.S. government may not constitutionally regulate speech based on political viewpoint. Similarly, social media, as with all communications, may provide evidence of a crime. However, in the U.S., constitutional Fourth Amendment protections must apply to protect against unreasonable search and seizure of private communications.

The First Amendment protects not only our ability to share information, but seek and receive it as well— with good reason. When governments are permitted to treat people as suspects for seeking information, the results are foreseeably discriminatory. States are unlikely to treat all people who seek information about a controversial topic as criminals and suspects. After all, governments employ many analysts who study terrorist movements and rely on the research of others. But in a landscape in which seeking knowledge makes you a potential “extremist,” identity-based distinctions, as to who is permitted and who is not, are likely to be drawn among those who seek knowledge. As the case of a Muslim terrorism researcher in the U.K. illustrates, being a member of a suspect community may consign you to be perpetually the subject of other people’s studies, never permitted to conduct your own.

Punishing Online Dissent

One of the primary ways social media differs from traditional media and spoken speech is in its democratizing impact. Social media theoretically provides anyone, regardless of funds or viewpoint, with an opportunity for a broad audience. Activist movements whose views do not align with the dominant print, television, and radio outlets can and do share information — including evidence of human rights abuses, and practical information to help keep activists safer — through social media.

Social Media therefore plays an essential role in spreading information about social justice struggles, including through drawing international attention more rapidly than otherwise results from traditional media channels. Yet as social media has become more popular, online speech has also been aggressively regulated in many countries in ways that criminalize viewpoints.

The prosecution of Azhar Ahmad, a young British Muslim, is one prominent example. In 2012, Ahmad was convicted of “sending a grossly offensive communication,” for having posted on Facebook his views following the killing of six British soldiers, citing his anger at the inattention to the violence against innocent Afghanis and stating he believed the soldiers deserved to die. Many readers of Ahmad’s post would find it deeply offensive. But whether something offends is an inappropriate and dangerous test for whether it is criminal. We cannot, and should not attempt to, criminalize disagreement into silence. Discussing Ahmad’s prosecution in the Guardian, Ralph Seymour observed, “it [was] disloyalty that [was] being punished, in a racialised way. The action of the police and courts is about constituting a new field of punishable conduct. And when disloyalty is punished, there really isn’t much that can’t be included under its canopy.”

It is entirely foreseeable that governments that prosecute political speech do not prosecute all speech that offends. Unsurprisingly, the viewpoints governments criminalize tend to be those that dissent from the official state narrative. Reflecting on Ahmad’s prosecution and on the 20,000 cases of social media postings investigated by UK police between 2012 and 2015, Glenn Greenwald noted, “It is … extremely difficult to imagine that Facebook users who sanction violence by the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan, or who spew anti-Muslim animus, or who call for and celebrate the deaths of Gazans, would be similarly prosecuted. In both the UK and Europe generally, cases are occasionally brought for right-wing ‘hate speech’ … [but t]he real punishment is meted out overwhelmingly against Muslim dissidents and critics of the West.”

When we recognize the reality that regulations on political speech are not, and perhaps cannot be, applied equitably, it is easy to predict that states that police political speech will target activists who challenge their own state violence. And indeed they have. Bahraini human rights activist Nabeel Rajab, who heads the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, was arrested in April, 2015 for tweets criticizing the war on Yemen by a Saudi-led coalition, of which both Bahrain and the U.S. are a part. Charges against him include spreading “false or malicious news, statements, or rumors,” “offending a foreign country” (Saudi Arabia), and “offending national institutions” (the last charge based on his speaking out about torture in the prison in which he was held).

While outspoken human rights activists are generally aware the regimes they criticize may seek to silence them, including through speech regulations where possible, the questions, issues, and fears that speech regulations present for the general population are also destabilizing and counterproductive. The ability of governments to impose fear and uncertainty on a citizenry about the permissible limits of their speech is a powerful tool for enforcing social conformity and political control. This consequence has been observed in Russia where, according to the Associated Press, in 2015, at least 54 people (out of 233 convicted) were sentenced to prison for social media “hate speech.” Russia’s extremism law criminalizes promotion of, among other things, the “exclusivity, superiority or inferiority of citizens” based on religion, and according to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the weight of this law has been borne primarily by Muslims. The Director of Sova, a Russian human rights group, described the impacts of arbitrary prosecutions for “extremist” social media speech: “No one knows where the red line is: It’s like roulette.”

The Right, and Responsibility, to Speak

In the U.S., guarding against efforts to restrict dissenting speech — many of which focus on “hate speech” or “extremism” — has been an ongoing necessity. Neither “hate speech” nor “extremism” are currently criminalized in the U.S. — nor should they be. Due to our robust First Amendment, speech may not constitutionally be restricted based on viewpoint. And there are multiple dangers in criminalizing “hate speech” or “extremist speech.” Not only are subjective terms like “hate speech” and “extremism” difficult to define, governments tend not to apply them equitably. Such regulations also drive radical dissent, including hateful dissent, underground where it is more difficult to challenge, undermining the ability of society to advocate in an informed way for just and peaceful solutions to societal problems.

But recognition that restricting adversarial political speech — whether by labeling it “hate speech,” “extremist” or otherwise — would be unwise, impractical and unethical does not counsel in favor of our own silence. A corollary to robust speech protections is a responsibility to challenge hateful ideas with which we disagree — and not only when they emanate from the fringes of the political spectrum. As the writer Kenan Malik observed in an interview for The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses, “[W]e should be clear that what often legitimizes bigotry are the arguments not of the bigots but of mainstream politicians and intellectuals who denounce bigotry and yet accept bigoted claims… Challenging bigotry requires us to challenge the mainstream ideas that give it sustenance, and to campaign against those discriminatory social practices and laws that help make the arguments of the racists, the sexists, and the homophobes more acceptable.”

This principle is particularly apt in our current political climate, where in the U.S., election year rhetoric has led many to condemn various politicians’ bigoted statements, but comparatively little corresponding attention has been paid to current policies and practices — such as racialized policing of Black, Latino and Muslim communities under “public safety” or “national security” pretexts — which are supported by identical, if unspoken, racism. In ostensibly democratic societies, governments rely on an informed and active populace to operate in ways that promote peace and justice. Informed members of the public can more effectively advocate than those who are terrified of accessing information or expressing “extreme” views. We must therefore reclaim and maintain strong protections for social media speech, as for traditional speech. This reclamation requires us to have the courage to reject attempts to paint “extremist” views as criminal, and instead to advocate vocally for the kind of government and policies with which we want to live.

October 1, 2016
Latinos Make America Great Again, and Again

The current presidential race has left many unbiased Americans stunned and not-so-broadminded others rejoicing, as we all witness a surge in derogatory attacks by candidates against entire minority groups, such as Muslims, African-Americans, and immigrants, particularly Latinos/Hispanics. The drama continues to unfold in what could potentially be the most controversial election in the history of the United States of America. While unity has often been declared the focal point in shaping American society, this election has polarized the American people and contributed to a rise in racially-driven violent hate crimes, xenophobia, and islamophobia.

Republican nominee Donald Trump and his GOP rivals who fell to the side during the primaries, like Ben Carson and Ted Cruz who are, ironically, descendants of immigrants or minorities themselves, have all contributed their share of attacks against members of the Islamic community and Latinos, through their campaigns, town hall meetings, news interviews, and even through social media. Their xenophobic and Islamophobic rhetoric questioning the allegiance and morality of Muslims and Latino immigrants, is reminiscent of the Second Red Scare during the McCarthy era, in which a hysterical fear of communists (Reds) caused panic throughout the U.S.

Of course, the most vocal of the GOP presidential hopefuls and the most controversial has been Trump, the business tycoon and former reality TV personality who starred in NBC’s The Apprentice from 2004 to 2014. Trump has since laid to rest his famous catch phrase, “You’re fired!” and replaced it with his campaign slogan, “Let’s Make America Great Again.” He began his primary race for the Republican nomination with harsh criticisms of Mexican immigrants. Speaking from the Trump Tower Atrium in Manhattan on June 16, 2015, he said, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists”; after smearing almost the entire Mexican population, he sympathetically added, “And some, I assume, are good people.” One of Trump’s diehard political plans to curb illegal immigration from Mexico is to build a wall separating the border between the U.S. and Mexico. He claims that the Mexican government will be paying for the construction of the wall, and Trump has even outlined exactly how they will be persuaded to do so on his promotional website.

History Provides a Deeper Perspective

In order to understand the level of absurdity in the statements about Mexico and the Mexican people, it becomes necessary to explore the history of the United States and its southern neighbor. What is today Mexico, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and California were once colonies belonging to Spain. In 1822, Mexican settlers, following the example of the American Revolution, rebelled against the Spanish government and won their own war of independence. Less than 25 years after Mexico became a free nation, by 1846, the U.S. had invaded and entered into war with Mexico in order to obtain their territories north of the Rio Grande River and westward all the way to California. In 1848 Mexico surrendered to the terms set by the U.S., transferring ownership of New Mexico, California, Texas, Utah, most of Arizona, Colorado, and Wyoming, for $15 million (An Historic Overview of Latino Immigration and the Demographic Transformation of the United States, David G. Gutiérrez, PhD., University of California).

These states were already populated by Mexicans; 75,000 to 100,000 former citizens of Mexico chose to remain north of the new border at the end of the war and were granted automatic citizenship by the U.S. government (The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: A Legacy of Conflict, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990). In reality, while Trump and his followers blame Mexicans for stealing jobs from Americans, bringing crime to the U.S., and causing other problems, the fact is that much of the Western part of the U.S. was built and inhabited by Mexicans. It was, in reality, Americans who first sent troops over the border in order to incite a war against Mexico and gain territorial dominance.

Immigration from Mexico into the U.S. thereafter became a complicated love-hate relationship, where the U.S. government would open its borders and welcome Mexicans to come and perform jobs that Americans were either unable or unwilling to do, and later would begin mass deportation when Mexicans were no longer needed or desired. Beginning in the late 1800s, U.S. companies began to fill a rising demand for labor in agriculture, mining, construction, and transportation with Mexican laborers. During the Great Depression, when average Americans were struggling to find jobs, local, state, and federal government agencies began forcing Mexicans out. A short time later, when the U.S. entered World War II and experienced a farm labor shortage, the Federal Government signed an agreement with Mexico to allow Mexican workers to again enter the U.S. and work. Much the same pattern has ensued ever since.

This is America, Speak Spanish!

In a childish move during the GOP primaries, Donald Trump insulted former opponent, John Ellis “Jeb” Bush, by tweeting, “Jeb Bush is crazy, who cares that he speaks Mexican, this is America, English !!” (Twitter account, @realdonaldtrump, Donald J. Trump, 7:14 PM – 24 Aug 2015). There are many things wrong with this ignorant statement. First of all, Trump confused the nationality, Mexican, with the language, Spanish, a simple fact that everyone hopes a candidate to the presidency of the U.S. would know. Secondly, the statement, “this is America, (speak) English!” implies that as Americans, everyone should give up their native tongues and trade them for English only. It is a matter of fact, however, that America consists of both North and South America, and the vast majority of the Americas is Spanish-speaking. Not to mention that hispanophones (those who speak Spanish) inhabited or explored territories of the present-day U.S. way before English settlers stepped foot on the land.

Spanish is the second most widely spoken language in the world and, more specifically, in the U.S. It is also the language most studied by Americans. The Spanish influence in the nation is everywhere from the names of states, counties, and cities, such as Florida, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Las Vegas, Santa Fe, El Paso, etc., to the names of bodies of water, valleys, forests, mountains, and forts. American English has borrowed common, everyday words from the Spanish language as well, such as rodeo, ranch, banana, alligator, armadillo, barbecue, and chocolate. The bottom line is this — not only the Spanish language, but Latino/Hispanic culture as well, are deeply woven into the fabric of U.S. history and heritage.

Understanding the Latino/Hispanic Identity

Some people not so well-versed in geography, often categorize all Latin-Americans as Mexican. However, there are a total of 21 countries in the world where Spanish is the official language. The majority of those are in Central and South America, as well as the Caribbean. Mexico is the only Spanish-speaking country that shares a border with the U.S. Thus, the majority of Hispanics in the U.S. are Mexican or of Mexican origin (64.6 percent in 2011 according to the Pew Research Center). However, all Spanish-speaking countries are represented throughout the U.S.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a Latino as “a person who was born or lives in South America, Central America, or Mexico or a person in the U.S. whose family is originally from South America, Central America, or Mexico”; whereas Hispanic means “coming originally from an area where Spanish is spoken.” Hispanic origin is based on ancestry, lineage, heritage, nationality and/or country of birth and, therefore, Hispanic people come from a variety of countries, backgrounds, and social strata. Whites, blacks, and Asians are all considered racial groups. Hispanics are an ethnic group, which means that although they share a common language and heritage, they do not share a common race. They can be black or white or Asian, or be descendants from indigenous peoples of a place colonized by Spain.

South American and Caribbean Hispanic immigration in the U.S. experienced the fastest growth beginning in the mid-1900s until the present day. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as of 2013 more than one-quarter (28 percent) of the foreign-born population in the U.S. came from Mexico, 9.6 percent from the Caribbean, 7.7 percent from Central America, and 6.7 percent from South America.

Latin-American Contributions to the US

Hispanic immigrants, as well as second and third generation immigrants from Latin America, have had a major impact on shaping the course of U.S. history. They strengthen the economy, serve in the military, defend the country during times of war, and hold offices in government. In addition to influencing the political sphere, they have also had significant imprint on American culture, arts, sciences, and education. Entrepreneurship in the Latino community helps the U.S. economy tremendously. According to the American Immigration Council, “One out of every five people in the country is Latino or Asian. Together, Latinos and Asians (both foreign-born and native-born) wield $2 trillion in consumer purchasing power, and the businesses they owned had sales of $857 billion and employed 4.7 million workers at last count. Immigrant, Latino, and Asian workers, taxpayers, and entrepreneurs are integral to the U.S. economy—and they are a potent electoral force” (Strength in Diversity: The Economic and Political Power of Immigrants, Latinos, and Asians, January 1, 2015).

Back in June of 2013, Donald Trump tweeted, “Sadly, the overwhelming amount of violent crime in our major cities is committed by blacks and hispanics-a tough subject-must be discussed” (Twitter account, @realdonaldtrump, Donald J. Trump, 4:05 AM – 5 Jun 2013). He reiterated this sentiment in 2015 when he accused Mexicans of being rapists and drug dealers. However, nothing can be further from the truth. In a special report, published on July 13, 2015 by the American Immigration Council, entitled The Criminalization of Immigration in the United States, researchers affirm that, “immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or be behind bars than the native-born, and high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime and property crime. This holds true for both legal immigrants and the unauthorized, regardless of their country of origin or level of education.” In addition, Census data from 2010 found that the incarceration rate of undocumented immigrant men from countries such as Mexico, Guatemala, and El Salvador is significantly lower than that of males born in the U.S. In other words, what the American people are witnessing during this presidential election are outright lies and sensationalist propaganda used to sway public opinion and stir controversy in order to garner attention, support, and votes from a xenophobic sector of the American constituency.

Just as all racial, ethnic, and religious groups are part of the diverse and vibrant fabric of the U.S., Hispanic Americans are revitalizing the nation’s diversity as contributors to society, doing their part to uplift and uphold the standards that make this country great. There are countless Latinos and descendants of Latinos serving the nation as government officials, lawyers and judges, advocates and activists for social justice, and military personnel. There are Latino athletes, with immigrant parents, who proudly competed for Team U.S.A. in the just-completed 2016 Olympics. There are Hispanics contributing to all sectors of society, from the laborers who work to build the residences and commercial spaces where businesses thrive to the entrepreneurs providing opportunities for countless Americans to work; from the Latino teachers who contribute to the education of our youth to the doctors who provide healthcare. All are working for the benefit of themselves, their families, and the collective American success story.

Immigrants in this country work hard to make a better life, and they do not take their new home for granted, but rather cherish the opportunities it provides. This is the United States of America, and they are an integral part of the whole, striving to fulfill the U.S. potential as a tolerant and inclusive land of great hope and opportunity for all its inhabitants, as well as a beneficial force for good throughout the world.

October 1, 2016