Lunatics protesting mosque aren't so different from bin Laden

An angry mob showed up in lower Manhattan to protest the opening of an "extremist Islamic center that aims to mock the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, and create an army of jihadists who'll wage a battle that will eventually, if successful, destroy the America."

Sound far-fetched? That's because it is.

The above statement is pure fabrication. Pure fabrication - with the exception of the angry mob. They actually did show up.

Egged on by right-wing talk radio and the rest of the tea party crowd, these people descended to protest a "mosque" they perceived to be too close to Ground Zero.

Every mosque, they argued, is a "breeding ground for terrorists, as Islam is based in cruelty and terror and its logical outcome is the fight against modernity, democracy and tolerance."

Further, given that the 9/11 hijackers were Islamic, the hate-talkers say, the "mosque" must certainly be a slap in the face to those who perished. (Whether or not this would be an insult to the several hundred Muslims who also died there was never explicitly said.)

What's being built two block away from Ground Zero isn't even a mosque at all, but a community center based on Islamic values. According to the website for Cordoba House, the center's name, the mission will "[promote] tolerance, reflecting the rich diversity of New York City."

While these are likely not values appreciated by the frothing demonstrators, they are a far cry from mocking 9/11 victims.

Then there's the concept that if people of one religion do something wicked to some particular group or in some certain place, it naturally follows that the presence of that religion near the people or area where the atrocities occurred is somehow an insult. But except in the case of Islam, no one in America believes that. If that were the case, there should be no Christian churches near any synagogue, given the horrible persecution that Jews have experienced for centuries at the hands of Christians. But there are synagogues and churches side-by-side all around this city.

And, of course, Catholic churches are allowed not only to be near, but also to run, elementary schools.

Most nakedly obvious is the blatant bigotry against Islam. Those protesting the "mosque" argue that it is a religion of hate based on violence. A fair reading of the Koran will reveal some truly ugly verses-but the same can be said of the Bible. There are acts of genocide, incest, hatred, collective punishment, and so on in both the Old (Torah) and New Testaments.

But millions upon millions of religious people, Jewish, Christian and Islamic, base their faith not on this or that terrible verse, but on a perception that their preferred holy book tells them to love their neighbor.

Sure, Osama bin Laden calls himself a Muslim, but Pat Robertson (who told America we deserved 9/11) calls himself a Christian. In Israel, the hateful settlers take the Torah as their basis, but so do the progressive and democratic sections of the Zionist movement.

Just as most Christians and Jews are not extremists, neither are most Muslims. In fact, the very center being protested has as its aim to "provide a place where individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, will find a center of learning, art and culture; and most importantly, a center guided by Islamic values in their truest form - compassion, generosity, and respect for all."

Compassion, generosity and respect for all: These are values common to billions of Muslims, Christians and Jews, as well as any nonbeliever, Communist or true progressive.

Perhaps, most chilling of all is what these demonstrators were demanding: the government to stop the construction of a community center specifically because of the religion of those building it. In short, they wanted the suspension of the Bill of Rights.

Is there anything more chilling than thousands of people demonstrating against fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution?

Osama bin Laden and his thugs wanted to destroy the west, particularly the United States. They failed miserably. Only seven years after 9/11, the American people elected the first ever African American president, a man who grew up in a Muslim country and whose middle name, Hussein, is the same as that of two current or recent Middle Eastern rulers.

There is a huge democratic movement in this country, with labor at its core, that is white, African American, Asian, Latino, Arab and that unites people of all faiths or lack thereof. Its aim is to continue the very American tradition of the fight for peace, equality, democracy, civil rights and freedom-including of religion.

In an ironic twist, though many of them sported American flags, those protesting downtown had much less in common with this movement-and much more in common with bin Laden.

Trying 9/11 cases here not hatred for city

By Dan Margolis
for the New York State Communist Party

Reading New York City's tabloid press, one could easily get the impression that President Obama hates our city. This is not exaggeration; in fact, the sensational headline on the January 14 issue of the New York Post actually asked, "Why does Obama hate us?" The issue that has created such perceived animosity (and real animosity towards Obama from those on the right) is the plan by the Department of Justice to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Manhattan.

While there are some legitimate concerns, the vast majority of the controversy has been spearheaded by the extreme right wing, which is doing all that it can to try to weaken Obama, this time by attempting to make him look "soft" on terrorism.

The announcement of the plan ignited a firestorm of demands that the DOJ change venues to somewhere outside the city, perhaps even somewhere outside the state-or civilian law. Those calls now span the political spectrum, as more and more elected officials have been changing their minds about supporting the Manhattan trial since the tabloids and our few Republicans began a campaign against it.

According to those on the right, trying Mohammed in the city would be an insult to the nearly 3,000 victims of the 9/11 mass murder. Further, it would place a huge target on downtown Manhattan and would cost the city billions of dollars for security measures.

But this is all nonsense.

Let's start with the simple stuff. Virtually everyone now knows that Washington will pay the billion or so dollars necessary for security, creating something of a downtown Manhattan stimulus program. As for increased risk for Manhattan, if the trial actually does attract homicidal maniacs, can't the same be said for anywhere else in the country? As a New Yorker, I love my city and don't want to see anyone attack it. On a more personal note, I don't want to be murdered by terrorists. But I'm not prepared to say, "Well, why don't they hold the trial in Des Moines? Better a terrorist attack there." Still, what could be more ridiculous than the idea that this will make Manhattan a target? As the cultural and financial center of the United States, Manhattan is, unfortunately, always going to be at the top of the list for any crazed terrorists.

The most pernicious of the claims made by the right wing, and those it has influenced, is that holding the trial here is somehow a "slap in the face" to those who perished on 9/11. This is just wrong; in fact, the opposite is true. By trying Mohammed in Manhattan, in a civilian court, Obama and his administration are upholding long-standing American traditions.

It is an old tradition that, in federal courts, people are tried in the same jurisdiction where they committed their crimes. The reason is that whatever local circumstances there are may have some sort of influence. Residents know more about the case in the area: if you're guilty, the knowledge will help the defense; if you're innocent, you're more likely to go free.

People like Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who represents parts of Long Island in Congress, have called for Mohammed to be tried in some secret military tribunal, "where he belongs." The New York Post openly talks about the upcoming trial as "just for show" and says that we should not "pretend innocence until proven guilty."

Is the American system of justice not good enough for people like King and his cohorts?

Mohammed is portrayed as a demon in the mass media, and this is all very likely true, even by his own admission, but do we want to allow monsters like this to be used as a pretext for subverting the notion of a fair trial, something for which generations of patriots, going back to the Revolution and even before, have fought?

That would be a real slap in the face.

There are, as in all things, pros and cons to trying Mohammed in Manhattan, and it may very well be a good idea to change the location for logistical or other reasons. In fact, the trial will most likely not be held here; the administration is currently looking at other locations across, and even outside, the state. However, condemning Obama's Department of Justice for trying to uphold cherished democratic legal traditions (and campaign promises) is misguided at best, and anti-democratic in essence.

Respect for our legal system is not "softness" on terror.

Statement on Disqualifications of DeBlasio and Alan Gerson from Ballots

Every so often, something happens that shines a light on an important problem that is usually hidden. The actions taken by the NYC Board of Elections, in which Bill DeBlasio and Alan Gerson were thrown off the ballot for Public Advocate and City Council, respectively, illustrates the point.

DeBlasio needed less than 10,000 petition signatures to get on the ballot in September; he turned in around 125,000. Why was he thrown off? An idiotic technicality: His campaign staff filled out a form wrong—by a single digit. The campaign turned in 132 folders of signed petitions, but mistakenly wrote on the form that they had 131 folders. The fact that this error would actually count against DeBlasio, making it seem that he had less signatures, and therefore couldn’t possibly be in any way interpreted as fraud didn’t matter—he was disqualified from the ballot.

For Gerson, it was the same type of thing: Gerson needed only 900 petition signatures, but turned in around 7,000. Unfortunately, because of an error made by Gerson’s printer, his wrong home address was displayed on the forms: Instead of his house number being listed correct as 505, it was listed as 1505. Gerson’s team corrected the error; they crossed the extra digit off. But that didn’t matter either—Gerson was disqualified.
Whatever one thinks of DeBlasio or Gerson, this is sheer lunacy.

Both DeBlasio and Gerson are scheduled for a hearing at the Board of Elections. If they lose there, they will go to the courts, which will most likely reverse the negative BOE decisions. Nonetheless, New York’s system is full of this kind of preposterous nonsense. These hyper-technical rules, the intricacies of getting on the ballot, are pointless. Worse than that, they are anti-democratic. For example, a candidate with strong support in his or her community but who is underfunded may not be able to go to court to challenge such disqualifications.

Under this system, candidates with less money—less money to employ lawyers to make sure that all of the city’s arcane filing regulations are fulfilled, and less money to fight battles if the Board of Elections says they’re not—are at a disadvantage.

In the interest of democracy and allowing New Yorkers the right to vote for whom they wish, we call for the city’s filing regulations to be simplified dramatically. There is simply no real argument for these rules.

The law allows for finding submissions valid if the error is insignificant, thus leaving room for the BOE’s discretion. The problem is that the Board of Elections is controlled by the right wing of the Democratic Party machine. We believe that either an independent review panel should be set up to handle any of these types of issues and to watch over the BOE, or to at least put it fully under the control of the city council.

This would be another step, albeit a small one, towards a more democratic New York.

By Dan Margolis
New York State Communist Party