A Saudi Arabian prince has been arrested after a series of videos emerged online that appear to show him abusing people. The short clips posted on YouTube and Twitter allegedly show the prince pointing a rifle toward a bleeding man who is pleading for his life.

One clip, that has been viewed over 760,000 times, shows 18 bottles of Johnnie Walker whiskey and a pile of cash. Consuming or selling alcohol is forbidden in the strictly Muslim country. Another clip shows the prince, Saud bin Abdulaziz bin Musaed bin Saud bin Abdulaziz, beating someone who is sitting in a chair.

After the videos went viral, King Salman ordered the arrest of the prince on Wednesday. He also ordered the arrests of any associates that could be seen in the footage. The king reportedly won’t allow the release of anyone involved in the case until a ruling is ready.

Royals Not Exempt From Punishment

Even though royals have a very special status in the country, they are not above the law. Last fall, a prince was executed after he was found guilty of killing another man. The beheading was carried out on the direct orders of King Salman.

WATCH: The moment when a Saudi prince was arrested.
More here: https://t.co/QAF4pRC1pA pic.twitter.com/ZA87JMsnks

— Al Arabiya English (@AlArabiya_Eng) July 20, 2017

The extended royal family is conservatively estimated to be some 6,000 members. King Salman has tried to make it clear that royal family members don’t get any special treatment. In an effort to rebuild its reputation on an international level, Saudi Arabia has hired U.S. lobbying firms to push its agenda. Impeding Iran’s influence in the Middle East and isolating Qatar have also been part of that same strategy.

Double Standards on Social Media?

While Saudi Arabia may have found support online for its handling of the prince’s videos, it was only a few days ago that social media was in an uproar over a girl being arrested for wearing a short skirt in the country.

The country is lagging behind the rest of the world when it comes to human rights and women’s rights. Women are still prohibited from going outside or driving a car without the company of a male guardian, and the law even dictates what they can wear.

Last weekend, a Saudi social media personality was arrested and questioned by the religious police after she walked around a historic Saudi fort wearing a short skirt. The arrest sparked outrage from people in other countries, and she was later released without facing any charges.

“Saudi Arabia’s purported plans to reshape society and advance women’s rights will never succeed as long as authorities go after women for what they wear,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Human Rights Watch in the Middle East.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Saudi Prince Arrested After Videos Allegedly Show Him Abusing People appeared first on Law Street.

Last Tuesday, the European Union Court of Human Rights upheld Belgium’s 2011 ban on wearing the full-face veil, also known as the niqab, in public places.

This decision comes after two Muslim women mounted a legal challenge to the ban, claiming that it violated their civil rights. Belgian national Samia Belcacemi and Moroccan national Yamina Oussar both say they voluntarily choose to wear the niqab and that in not being able to, their right to religious freedom is being infringed upon.

Oussar reportedly told the court that she decided to stay home after the ban was introduced in fear of legal repercussions. Belcacemi continued to wear the veil for a period, but stopped because of societal pressure and fear that she would be heavily fined.

Under the law, individuals who fail to comply with the law regarding full-face coverings face penalties ranging from a hefty fine to imprisonment for repeat offenders.

The European Court of Human Rights upholds a Belgian ban on wearing the full-face niqab veil in public pic.twitter.com/S1unR1Y4Dq

— AFP news agency (@AFP) July 11, 2017

Siding with Belgium’s legislature in a unanimous vote, the seven-person panel said a statement that the ban is “necessary in a democratic society” and that the Belgian law is meant to ensure “public safety, equality between men and women and a certain concept of living together in a society.”

A hot-button issue in Europe

The topic of people’s freedom of religious expression in the public sphere has been at the forefront of European politics for several years now.

Belgium is not the first country to take a stance against the niqab or burqa. France banned full-face veils in 2010, and since then, at least 10 other European countries have placed limitations on Islamic dress. Just last month, Norwegian legislators proposed a ban on full-face veils in public schools and universities. The bans are largely seen as a response to the influx of refugees in the region. In Belgium, the 2016 terror attacks have also intensified the debate.

Federal Pensions Minister Daniel Bacquelaine, a member of Belgium’s Reformist Movement party, said on Twitter he was delighted at the court’s announcement, which he believes will strengthen Belgians’ ability to live together.

“To forbid the veil as a covering is to give them more freedom,” Baquelaine said back in 2010 before the law passed. “If we want to live together in a free society, we need to recognize each other.”

Since the E.U. court’s decision, human rights groups have expressed their discontent with the ruling.

“Fostering human relations is a laudable goal,” wrote Hillary Margolis, the Women’s Division Researcher at Human Rights Watch. “But forcing women to choose between wearing what they want and being able to appear in public isn’t the way to do it.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post EU Human Rights Court Upholds Belgian Ban on Full-Face Veil appeared first on Law Street.

Police in India have arrested at least 15 people for celebrating too vividly after Pakistan beat India in a cricket match that took place in London on Sunday. The two neighboring countries have traditionally had a hostile and competitive relationship, and that also extends to the sports world. The men were arrested on suspicion of sedition, a charge that could carry with it ineligibility for government jobs or even life in prison.

Most arrests were made in the state of Madhya Pradesh in central India, after a neighbor called the police complaining about cricket fans who were shouting anti-India slogans and lighting firecrackers. Police seized 15 men aged 19 to 35 on charges of sedition and criminal conspiracy in the Burhanpur district.

“They expressed hatred toward India and friendship toward Pakistan. They are charged for sedition and criminal conspiracy,” said Ramasray Yadav, a police officer who took part in the arrests. However, he also said the men shouted slogans expressing their love for India while in detention.

15 Muslim men arrested in India for celebrating Pakistan’s victory over India in the Champions Trophy cricket final https://t.co/8xLdAgh5UT pic.twitter.com/e0EGmcZz9J

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) June 21, 2017

The neighbor who called in the complaint that led to the arrest of the 15 men is Hindu, while all the suspects are Muslim. And India is not free from Islamophobia. Muslims are a minority there, and many say they are experiencing an increase in violence and hostility, targeted because of their religion. Leaders of the ruling party BJP have tried to paint Muslims as violent and dangerous and accused them of scheming to rid India of Hindus.

Recently there have been several violent attacks on Muslims after people have accused them of killing, selling, and eating cows. Cows are holy in India, so slaughtering them is illegal. What Human Rights Watch calls self-appointed “cow protectors” have made it their task to crack down on Muslims suspected of stealing cows.

Since May 2015, at least 10 Muslims, including a 12-year-old boy, have been killed because of “cow protector”-related violence. On April 21, a mob of people brutally attacked a nomad family, including a nine-year-old girl and an elderly man. After their assault they set the family’s home on fire.

Pakistan, on the other hand, is mainly Muslim. Tensions between Pakistan and India turned so bad a few years ago that the annual cricket competitions had to be cancelled. Scheduled peace talks have been repeatedly abandoned for the past three years, and there seems to be no end to the conflict over the disputed area of Kashmir.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Indian Police Arrest at Least 15 for Celebrating Pakistan’s Cricket Victory appeared first on Law Street.

In a crackdown on religious freedom, the Chinese authorities have banned Islamic baby names and other religious symbols in the mainly Muslim region of the country, Xinjiang. About half of China’s 23 million Muslims live in this region, which is one of the most militarized in the country due to violent conflicts that authorities blame on religious extremists. Xinjiang is home to a Muslim minority group called the Uighurs.

Now Chinese officials have said that “religious” names like Islam, Quran, Saddam, and Mecca are prohibited, as such names could “exaggerate religious fervor.” Children that are given these names will not be eligible for household registration, which is what gives citizens access to social services, healthcare, and education in China.

The new rules follow other restrictions issued last month by the Xinjiang authorities that ban men from wearing an “abnormal beard.” Specific cities in Xinjiang already had bans in place prohibiting women from wearing face veils in public spaces like airports or train stations, but now the ban will apply to the whole region.

Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch, called the actions by the Xinjiang authorities “blatant violations of domestic and international protections on the rights to freedom of belief and expression.” She said that officials are punished by the state if they are too lenient on these “crimes” or other actions deemed inappropriate. One official was reprimanded for complaining about the new rules to his wife through a messaging app. Another one was fired from her job for having her wedding ceremony at home and not at a location approved by the government.

China bans Islamic baby names in Muslim majority Xinjiang province https://t.co/cWsITdTHeL pic.twitter.com/13i04R9yll

— Aüd (@CodeAud) April 25, 2017

There have been a number of violent incidents in Xinjiang in recent years that have been blamed on Muslim extremists. In 2013, 35 people, including 16 Uighurs, were killed in a confrontation between rioters and police. State media claims a group of religious extremists attacked police officers after one of their group members was arrested. Police killed 11 of them and labeled the act a terrorist attack.

That incident made many worry that the violence of 2009 would be repeated, when protests led to the deaths of at least 197 people. Many killed were Han Chinese, the main ethnic group in China. And in 2015, more than 50 people died in a knife attack at a coalmine in northwestern Xinjiang. State media claimed that one of the suspects said he had been carrying out a jihad.

But human rights experts say that the Chinese government’s harsh crackdown on Muslims will only deepen the Uighurs’ resentment. A spokesman for an exiled group of Uighurs, Dilxat Raxit, said that the violence was sparked by the Chinese government’s indiscriminate detentions of Uighurs. Others say that the government strongly exaggerates the level of organization behind protests and violence. “If the government is serious about bringing stability and harmony to the region as it claims, it should roll back–not double down on–repressive policies,” said Richardson.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post China Bans Islamic Baby Names, Beards, and Veils in the Xinjiang Region appeared first on Law Street.

An Iranian civil rights activist and former college student is in critical condition after going on a hunger strike for over two months. Human rights groups have been urging authorities to do something, but to no avail. Arash Sadeghi stopped eating four months into his own prison sentence to protest the arrest of his wife, Golrokh Ebrahimi Iraee, who was imprisoned because of an unpublished novel she wrote. Sadeghi is serving a 15-year sentence on charges of “assembly and collusion against national security,” “propaganda against the state,” “spreading lies in cyberspace,” and “insulting the founder of the Islamic Republic.”

Sadeghi has said that he was arrested because he supported a group of poor students who had been denied access to education. He also supported left-leaning students, the families of people who had been killed, and peaceful protests against executions and wrongful imprisonments.

His wife was working on a fictional novel about stoning in Iran, which is a common form of capital punishment in the country. But officials didn’t even know about the book draft until they were ransacking the couples’ home while arresting them both for Sadeghi’s “crimes.”

Arash is a political prisoner. He is on his 68th day of hunger strike demanding his wife be released. #SaveArash pic.twitter.com/E2qbBZz2HO

— Bahman Kalbasi (@BahmanKalbasi) December 30, 2016

As the draft contained a description of burning a Quran, she got the maximum punishment even though it was only fiction and not yet published. In a conversation with the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran (ICHRI) in October, she said:

I was interrogated dozens of times about the burning of the Quran in my story. Each time I explained: it’s only a story. I told them and I wrote [in my defense statement] that if what I did was a crime, then many scriptwriters and novelists should be arrested for committing the same crime.

Arash Sadeghi Is In “Critical And Worrying” Condition After 64 Days On Hunger Strike In Tehran’s Evin Prison #SaveArash pic.twitter.com/vnKj3qonfM

— Nick Sotoudeh (@NickSotoudeh) December 26, 2016

As Sadeghi hasn’t eaten for over 68 days, his body started to break down a couple of weeks ago. He was taken to the prison clinic on Wednesday night for low blood pressure, heart palpitations, asthma, and was coughing up blood. But he has refused medical treatments ever since he was banned from visiting his wife. In the late stage of a hunger strike it is very likely to fall into a coma or even die. Famous IRA activist in Northern Ireland Bobby Sands died after 66 days of striking in 1981. A source speaking on the condition of anonymity to ICHRI in the beginning of December stated:

Arash has lost a lot of weight and he’s suffering from stomach and intestinal problems. His blood pressure has dropped severely and he has been constantly in and out of the prison clinic during the past week. He spat out blood and he can barely stand or speak. His health is in critical condition and worrying,

Recently the hashtag #SaveArash started trending on Twitter, and several human rights groups have pleaded with the Iranian government to step in.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Imprisoned Iranian Civil Rights Activist Continues Hunger Strike appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Oh My Gosh, They Made A Three Parent Baby!

Five months ago, a scientific miracle was born in Mexico (because the U.S. ain’t about that life), a child born with the DNA of three parents. I know, I know, you must be asking: how does one have a three person baby? Well this family, fearing that their baby would inherit an awful condition from the mother’s side, allowed doctors to create an embryo using the dad’s sperm, the mom’s egg, and donor DNA, by removing the mitochondrial material that carried the disease and replacing it with the donor’s mitochondrial DNA. They essentially deleted the chance of that particular disease from the family’s offspring using this awesome new technique! Crazy, right?

The baby now carries less than one percent of that gene and doctors say it shouldn’t become a problem.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 28, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Amid growing fear of terrorism and divisive rhetoric on the campaign trail, researchers have identified a startling upward trend in hate crimes against Muslims. According to a recent study, these crimes have reached their highest levels since the period directly after the September 11 attacks in 2001.

Brian Levin and Kevin Grisham, researchers at the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, identified a slight rise in hate crimes overall but found a significant increase in those targeting Muslims. Using data from law enforcement officials in 20 states, they found 196 anti-Muslim hate crimes in the 2015 calendar year–a 78 percent increase from the previous year. Based on that sample, they estimate that there were approximately 260 hate crimes against Muslims across the country in 2015.

While most categories of hate crime saw either declines or slight increases, anti-Muslim and anti-Arab crimes spiked significantly, increasing by 78 and 209 percent respectively. They also found a 40 percent increase in anti-gender/transgender hate crimes. The 196 anti-Muslim hate crimes identified by the researchers in the 20 states surveyed amounted to a 29 percent increase relative to what the FBI found nationwide in 2014. The evidence for the increase in hate crimes with an Arab and gender bias came from smaller 10 and 9 state samples, respectively.

It’s important to note that these numbers almost certainly undercount the actual number of hate crimes in the United States. Incidents of hate crimes are notoriously difficult to measure–many victims may be reluctant to report these crimes and police departments may not identify hate crimes as such. And as the report notes (and I’ve previously written about), there is a significant gap between the number of reported hate crimes and the results of victimization surveys, which indicate that they occur much more frequently than these statistics suggest.

Last December, the researchers conducted a study of unofficial reports of hate crimes–largely by identifying incidents in news reports–and found evidence of a spike in the wake of the Paris shootings. With this study, they were able to build on their past findings using official data from police departments to identify an overall increase last year. “The newly available official data corroborates the December/November spike found in our earlier study,” they write. “The increase was real and material across the entire year as well.”

Trying to explain what is driving the recent increase is also particularly difficult, as causal connections are difficult to identify. But the authors note that recent rhetoric directed at Muslims is likely a factor. They point to a surge in anti-Muslim hate crimes that occurred after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. That spike dropped significantly–although it didn’t go away altogether–after September 17 when President Bush gave a speech at an Islamic center to distinguish terrorism from Islam and called for respect for American Muslims.

In contrast, they note that in the wake of the San Bernardino shootings last year, Donald Trump publicly called for a ban on Muslims entering the country. They note that after that point hate crimes against Muslims increased by 87.5 percent. Overall, the researchers identified a multi-year trend even predating the rise of Donald Trump in American politics.

The authors also note that the causes of hate crimes are extremely complicated. While hostile rhetoric may contribute to an increase in these events, there are many other factors at play. Many factors can contribute to prejudice toward a certain group and an even more complicated set of factors can explain whether a prejudice leads to violence. Ultimately, these statistics cannot provide a full picture of hate crimes in the United States, but they identify a trend that is troubling and difficult to refute.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Research Shows a Recent Surge in Hate Crimes Against Muslims appeared first on Law Street.

Sunday night a fire broke out at the Florida mosque that Orlando shooter Omar Mateen used to attend. The St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office said it got a 911 call around 12:30 am Monday and fire crews were sent to extinguish the fire at the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce. According to the authorities, security footage obtained from the mosque indicated it might be arson. In a statement they said:

Video captured at the Fort Pierce Islamic Center shows an individual approached the east side of the building just moments before a flash is seen and the fire starts […] As soon as we are able, we will release the video of this incident and ask for the public to assist us in identifying the person or persons responsible.

Fire at Orlando gunman’s mosque was ‘set intentionally,’ authorities say – Washington Post https://t.co/JeonpHAVT0 #breakingnews #news

— Breaking News (@140BreakingNews) September 12, 2016

The timing of the fire is particularly troublesome as it comes right after 9/11 and the morning before the big Muslim holiday Eid-al-Adha, the holiday of the sacrifice. It’s a major Muslim holiday that is celebrated by prayer, visits to family and friends, exchange of gifts, and feasts. It goes on for four days and commemorates when God appeared to Ibraham and asked him to sacrifice his son. As Ibraham was ready to do so, God stopped him and rewarded him for his loyalty.

David Thompson from the Sheriff’s Office spoke to reporters early Monday morning, saying:

I don’t want to speculate on a motive. We all know the implications of the date and the time of year that this is — the 9/11 anniversary. Is that related? I wouldn’t want to speculate, but certainly that is in the back of our minds.

Omar Mateen, who was responsible for the mass shooting at the gay nightclub Pulse in June, occasionally visited the Islamic Center to pray with his family. People there described him as quiet and focused on his prayers. If this connection is the reason that someone put the mosque on fire remains to be seen. It is also unclear how badly damaged the mosque was. People that wish to pray and honor Eid-al-Adha were asked to go to other mosques nearby.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fire at Orlando Shooter’s Mosque Investigated as Arson appeared first on Law Street.

Amid uproar over France’s enforcement of the burkini ban, the top court of France has overturned the ban in the town of Villeneuve-Loubet, the Associated Press reports. The decision, issued by the country’s Council of State, is likely to set a precedent for overturning the ban in all other ordinances in which it currently is enforced.

This action comes a few days after photos were released that showed police forcing a woman lying on a beach in a burkini to remove some of her clothing, deeming her outfit not beach-appropriate. As a result, France has been facing heat for what many believe is simply another way of exerting control over women’s bodies.

While the burkini seems to only be a slight variation on the wetsuit, it has its proponents in uproar over issues such as “hygiene” and “morality.”

The #BurkiniBan – ‘C’est ridicule!’ © Amy Clancy (@AmyClancyUK) pic.twitter.com/yohgEJ6G2J

— Amy Clancy (@AmyClancyUK) August 24, 2016

Men: Stop telling women what to wear https://t.co/eHdQ7kPq4y #BurkiniBan pic.twitter.com/zG5l6wrbW5

— Ann Telnaes (@AnnTelnaes) August 25, 2016

However, it is likely that this city’s overturned ban will be met with a lot of resistance in the country, where the ban has also received a lot of support in the name of secularism. Former French president (and current presidential candidate) Nicolas Sarkozy, for example, has called the burkini a “provocation” that supports radical Islam. Additionally, right-wing leader Marine Le Pen vowed that the battle would continue, and declared his support for a banning of headscarves in all public places.

The conservative mayor of the town of Villeneuve-Loubet, Lionnel Luca, isn’t happy with the court’s decision, believing that it “can only heighten passions and tensions, with the risk of trouble we wanted to avoid.”

The burkini ban is a continuation of recent French policies to crack down on overt religious expression, policies which have seemed to unevenly target Muslims. In 2004, a French policy banning religious symbols in public schools prevented students from being able to wear items such as headscarves. In 2011, a policy to prevent face coverings in public made it forbidden for women to wear burqas without facing consequences. This most recent ban seems to be a continuation of this fixation on Muslim women’s wardrobe and what it allegedly represents.

While male leaders in France continue to fight over women’s clothing choices, the repercussions of the French court’s decision will undoubtedly continue the discussions on secularism, religious freedom, and Islam within France and other European countries.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Court Overturns Burkini Ban in French Town appeared first on Law Street.

Newton County, Georgia, which bills itself as a center of southern small town charm, is now the site of an ugly dispute over land use as the local Muslim community struggles to build a Muslim mosque and cemetery.

Over the course of several years, the imam Mohammad Islam has built a congregation that now seeks to build a mosque and cemetery on a plot of land in Newton County, purchased by Islam in 2015. He made his plans clear, officially purchased the land, and was ready to build upon the site–until local backlash derailed what should have been a perfectly straightforward construction project. The plans to build the mosque, cemetery, and other affiliated buildings came under fire because they would have been approved without public comment, and an outpouring of protest from the community bolstered by social media led the Board of Commissioners to place a five week moratorium on the construction or the submission of plans for construction of any new religious structures. After the moratorium ends, the Board members will vote on whether or not they will change the zoning rules for religious structures. Ostensibly new zoning would impact any religious building, but thanks to the “Stop the Mosque” campaign and the mass turnout to the public hearings, there is no doubt that the Board is looking to penalize the Islamic community for their proposed structure. There has never been a similar reaction from the community regarding the construction of a Christian building. The objection to the mosque is so clearly prejudiced that federal investigators are looking into investigating the Board of Commissioners.

Comparisons will of course be made to citizens protesting the building of the proposed Park51  Islamic community center at Ground Zero, but comparing these two constructions makes virtually no sense. The proposed mosque and cemetery of Newton, County Georgia is not being built near the site of a massive American tragedy, that must be preserved for historical record. It is not angering locals because they think it disrespects the memory of lives lost (although that logic is flawed in and of itself). In fact, the reason Georgians want to shut down the construction of the mosque and cemetery is because at least some fear it will attract refugees to their community.

Tens of thousands of refugees have been forced from their homes because of uncontrollable violence, shuttled from country to country looking for a safe haven, trying to learn new languages, adjust to a new culture and, above all, contribute and participate in their new communities. The U.S. will not be accepting the same number of refugees that Europe has; our public services and law and order will not be strained under the weight of a population explosion like our European allies. We are accepting and seeking to aid refugees, but we are taking in only a minuscule portion of those who are seeking shelter–and yet, that is still too much for the residents of Newton County.

Never mind that the state of Georgia will be resettling far fewer refugees than states such as Michigan, Illinois and California or that the construction of a single mosque is not in fact what puts a community on the short-list for refugee settlement. Never mind that refugees are seeking to create new lives in which they will become participants in the community, working local jobs, paying county taxes, and sending their children to local schools. What is truly at the core of the objections to the mosque is more than bigotry, it is selfishness. Newton County residents are so afraid of sharing their resources, even land which has been purchased legally for a fair price, that they will not let fellow community members build a simple structure. It seems the refugee population is right to steer clear of them.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Stop the Mosque: Islamophobia in Newton County, Georgia appeared first on Law Street.

More than 30,000 Ahmadi Muslims from around the world came together in Hampshire, England over the weekend to reject the violence committed by ISIS and other terrorist groups. The three-day convention, called Jalsa Salana, is a 50-year long tradition for members of the Ahmadiyya Islamic movement.

On Sunday, the last day of the convention, participants raised Britain’s Union flag and repeated their condemnation of violence and extremism. The community’s worldwide Caliph, His Holiness Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, led the members through a prayer as they pledged their loyalty to their home country.

Speaking before the convention started last week, he said:

The only thing the terrorists are achieving is to completely violate the teachings of the Holy Quran and of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Let it be clear that they are not practicing Islam, rather it seems as though they have invented their own hate-filled and poisonous religion.

Ahmadiyya U.K. tweeted this powerful picture from inside the convention hall.

..30K Muslims converge for Britain’s biggest annual Islamic gathering to reject violence.. https://t.co/0YtGB0t1bRpic.twitter.com/ai6ej7xl8d

— Ahmadiyya UK (@AhmadiyyaUK) August 15, 2016

The Ahmadiyya movement was founded in India in 1889 and has the motto “Love for all, hatred for none.” The President of the U.K. branch, Rafiq Hayat, told the Independent:

The 30,000 plus people from over 90 countries gathering at the convention come in the spirit of fraternity–and to give thanks for the security and freedom they have found in Britain.

He emphasized that many had fled persecution in their home countries and have much to be grateful to Britain for.

But orthodox Muslims see the movement as heretical for having a different view on Muhammad. In March, an orthodox Muslim man killed a man belonging to the Ahmadiyya branch because he thought he had disrespected Islam.

At the closing ceremony on Sunday, Prime Minister Theresa May expressed her sympathy for the man’s death and praised the Ahmadiyya movement for its compassion and commitment to peace. She said, “Your motto–‘love for all, hatred for none’–shines from all you do. It is a message we would all do well to live by, especially as we build a stronger, more united future.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 30,000 Ahmadi Muslims Gather to Reject Violence and Extremism appeared first on Law Street.

The Mayor of Cannes, in Southern France, has banned the “burkini” from its beaches. He claims it is a threat to public order and a symbol of radical Islam.

A “burkini” is simply a garment that some Muslim women wear to the beach; it covers a wearer’s whole body and hair, but not her face. This ban has been met with criticism from anti-Islamophobia groups and citizens alike, who say that Mayor David Lisnard is simply trying to gain political points in the aftermath of recent terror attacks that have kept citizens on high alert.

#Cannes bans ‘burkini’ from French Riviera beaches https://t.co/LwkVJbsw7m pic.twitter.com/YAjrW53RbT

— dwnews (@dwnews) August 12, 2016

The idea that a piece of women’s clothing could be a sign of radical Islamism and terrorism has also caused protests on social media.

The ban on burkinis also scream of Islamophobia. While other religous symbols can still be displayed, a burkini ban =”radical islam”?

— Saddiq (@SyedSaddiq) August 12, 2016

According to the BBC, Lisnard confirmed to local media that even though the Muslim religious clothing will be banned on the beaches, the Jewish kippah and the Christian cross will still be permitted. The new rule says:

Access to beaches and for swimming is banned to any person wearing improper clothes that are not respectful of good morals and secularism.

Beachwear which ostentatiously displays religious affiliation, when France and places of worship are currently the target of terrorist attacks, is liable to create risks of disrupting public order.

With the new rule, women wearing a burkini will first be asked to change into some other kind of swimwear or leave the beach. If they don’t, they will be subject to a fine of about $42.

The organization Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF) has said it objects to the decision, saying in a statement on its website that no part of French law prohibits free expression of religion in public.

France has been the target of several terror attacks in the past few years; a truck attack in Nice in July was the most recent incident. CCIF pointed out in its statement that Muslims made up a third of the 85 victims at the truck attack, saying that terrorism affects everyone regardless of religion.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Muslim Women Can No Longer Wear Burkinis to the Beach in Cannes appeared first on Law Street.

Tucked away in one of Tokyo’s busiest districts is an uncommon structure in a city dominated by Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples: the powder blue domes and minaret of Japan’s largest mosque, Tokyo Camii. Japan, a nation of Shintoism–an ancient folk religion–and Buddhism, is home to roughly 15,000 Muslims and 50 or so mosques. Leaked police files from 2010 revealed an extensive, country-wide surveillance program that affected 89 percent of Japan’s Muslims, or 12,677 individuals. A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court dismissed a second appeal by 17 Japanese Muslims who were affected by the blanket policing program.

Japan’s policing of its Muslim community first came to light in 2010, when the leaked documents showed that police departments kept tabs on the vast majority of Japanese Muslims. Police recorded their names, a physical description, and personal relationships. Each profile also contained a section titled “suspicions.” Additionally, police around the country surveilled mosques, halal restaurants, and “Islam-related” organizations. A group of 17 Japanese Muslims took legal action after they found out the extent of the Japanese police’s grip on their lives. The first case was brought to the Tokyo District Court in 2014. The plaintiffs argued that the surveillance program infringed on their constitutional rights to privacy, equal treatment, and religious freedom.

The court initially ruled in favor of the government. But as a concession, and as a consequence of the leaked documents from 2010, the court offered the plaintiffs the equivalent of $880,000. And on May 31, Japan’s highest court shot down the plaintiffs’ second appeal, but agreed on the financial compensation. To Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who blew the cover off of America’s extensive surveillance program, Japan’s zealous supervision of its Muslims is born of fear.

“People of the Islamic faith are more likely to be targeted,” he said from Moscow, Russia, where he has lived since fleeing the U.S. in 2013. He spoke via a video feed at a symposium on government surveillance in Tokyo on June 4. He added: “Simply because people are afraid.” Snowden mentioned that in Japan, a place that is hardly ever mentioned as a target of terrorists, the origin of that fear should be scrutinized. After all, the country–one of the world’s safest–last saw a terrorist attack in 1995. In the spring of that year, Aum Shinrikyo, a fanatical doomsday cult, released sarin gas into the Tokyo subway system. 13 people died, and dozens more were injured.

So as the West and the Middle East are working out the best ways to repel very real terrorist threats, Japan is applying blanket surveillance techniques on nearly all of its Muslims. Junko Hayashi, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, worries how this will affect the next generation of Japanese Muslims. “It’s a really, really difficult thing to deal with, especially for the kids growing up here,” Hayashi said. “The police have been dealing with them as future terrorists.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Japan Keeps a Watchful Eye on Its Nearly 15,000 Muslims appeared first on Law Street.

A new survey released Thursday by the Public Religion Research Institution (PRRI), in collaboration with the Brookings Institute, offers a window into the divisions afflicting American society, the disaffection the 2016 election has exposed, and the similarities–and intense differences–among political, racial, and generational lines. But perhaps the survey’s most valuable insight, and the analysis that followed Thursday’s presentation of the results, is why Donald Trump is the leader America’s most anxious citizens are counting on this fall.

Across a number of topics–the economy, American culture, immigration–Trump supporters expressed more anxiety than Democrats, independents, and Republicans who do not support Trump. Though a slim majority of Americans feel threatened by terrorism–51 percent of those surveyed said they were worried that they or a family member would become a victim of a terrorist act–two-thirds of Trump supporters (or 65 percent) reported terrorism-related anxiety. White working class Americans–many of whom support Trump–registered similar numbers in regards to concerns about crime. So why is Trump the man to massage the fears of America’s most anxiety-riddled?

From the perspective of Trump supporters, “there are certain things the government ought to be doing, to ensure that they have a decent chance at a life of dignity, comfort, and security,” Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, said at the Brookings presentation of the paper Thursday. “They don’t believe the government is doing those things.” Aside from security, Trump supporters reported higher proportions of economic and cultural anxiety in comparison to the rest of the country.

34 percent of Trump supporters said they would be bothered by a non-white majority America, compared to 21 percent of the country as a whole (Democrats surveyed paralleled that number.) Trump supporters also reported considerably higher anxieties in terms of what they see as growing discrimination against whites, as well as the incompatibility of Islam with American values. Expectedly, Trump supporters are the most avid backers of two of his campaign’s touchstone conceits: trade deals are mostly harmful, and the U.S. should do more to protect itself from outsiders–build a wall along the border with Mexico, ban Muslims, and prohibit Syrian refugees from resettling in America.

“There is a palpable sense among white working-class voters of just personal vulnerability, of being exposed,” said Robert Jones, one of the architects of the PRRI survey, at Brookings on Thursday. Trump is tapping into that sense vulnerability that the country’s current leaders have thus far been unable to corral. The survey asked 2,607 people from across all 50 states and D.C. whether they think America is in need of a “leader willing to break some rules if that’s what it takes to set things right.” Seventy-two percent of Trump supporters agreed, compared with 57 percent of Republicans overall and 49 percent of America as a whole.

“If you think that the rules have been rewritten to your disfavor and that the rules have been rewritten to delegitimize you culturally, to take away from you,” explained Joy Reid, a host on MSNBC and a member on Thursday’s Brookings panel, “I think you would believe breaking the rules is completely legitimate because you don’t really believe in the rules.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America’s Anxiety at Record High, Especially Among Trump Supporters appeared first on Law Street.

After last week’s tragedy in Orlando, Donald Trump doubled down on a major theme that has reverberated throughout his campaign: in Trump’s America, Muslims are not welcome.

In an interview with CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, Trump referred to the profiling of Muslims as “common sense,” and claimed that American Muslims don’t do enough to “report” suspicious behavior in their communities. He also told Sean Hannity last week that Muslim assimilation in the U.S. has been close to “nonexistent.”

It’s not unusual for Trump to make controversial and misleading comments about Islam–since his campaign launched last year, such commentary has been a staple of his rhetoric. Last year, he made a claim that he saw Muslims in Jersey City “dancing in the streets” after 9/11, an accusation that has never been proven true. Then, after the San Bernardino attacks last December, Trump released a plan to ban Muslim immigration to the U.S. indefinitely, “until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the threat that it poses.”

Additionally, he has called for practices such as creating Muslim registries and putting surveillance on mosques, which would place Muslims in another category and treat them differently from other citizens.

His Islamophobia is not new, yet he has been able to use the Orlando attack to advocate for his harmful (and probably unconstitutional) policies toward the Muslim community. His latest round of comments continued to reflect the belief that Islam is somehow incompatible with American values, and that Muslims are fundamentally unable to assimilate into the American system while holding on to their belief systems.

At a rally in Atlanta on Friday, Trump told the crowd that the Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, was “born here, but his parents weren’t and ideas weren’t…his ideas were born from someplace else.” The idea that an American citizen by birth could be used as an example of why we need to curb immigration from Muslim countries is another means to alienate Muslims from the general populace. Trump’s grandparents and his own wife weren’t born here either–yet no one questions their devotion to this country.

Mateen and his ideas were not representative of American Muslims, yet Trump’s comments put the blame on his community for not reporting him (despite the fact that somebody actually did–and Mateen was still let off by the FBI).

Hate crimes towards Muslims reached a high last year, signaling that the environment is ripe for Trump’s rhetoric to permeate; if his ideas continue to spread, it will further create an environment that is hostile and harmful towards Islam in America.

Being “American” and being “Muslim” are not mutually exclusive, but Trump is suggesting that Muslims are lesser citizens than the rest of the American populace. Even if he doesn’t emerge victorious in November, it is likely that many of his ideas will continue to live on in the hearts and minds of his followers. If not viciously opposed, Trump’s rhetoric could continue to have a detrimental effect on the American Muslim community.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post After Orlando Shooting, Trump Fans the Flames of Islamophobia  appeared first on Law Street.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is no stranger to inflammatory remarks, and is not shy about offending large swaths of people, even citizens of the country he presides over. On Monday while speaking at an educational foundation in Istanbul, Turkey’s capital, Erdogan called on women to abstain from contraception, and to “multiply [their] descendants.”

“People talk about birth control, about family planning. No Muslim family can understand and accept that!” he said. “As God and as the great prophet said, we will go this way. And in this respect the first duty belongs to mothers.”

Erdogan, who has four children with his wife Emine, has called on Turkish women to bear at least three children, and that “four means abundance.” Turkey is the world’s nineteenth most populous nation with almost 80 million people, according to United Nations estimates.

The Koran, Islam’s holy scripture, does not explicitly condemn contraception. Eight of the nine schools of Islamic law permit the practice. And while Turkey is technically a secular democracy, Erdogan’s party, the AKP, is made up of Islamists, and critics (as well as global partners like the U.S.) fear that he is slowly steering his country in the direction of an Islamic dictatorship.

He’s jailed journalists and former military officers. Most recently, he booted Turkey’s Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, a move that critics saw as an attempt remove a man who he perceived a threat to his power.

Erdogan has also made a habit of offending women. In 2014, at a conference for justice and rights for women, he insisted that men and women are not in fact equal: “You cannot put women and men on an equal footing,” he said. “It is against her nature — because her nature is different, her bodily constitution is different.”

In a statement posted to Twitter, the Platform to Stop Violence Against Women, a women’s rights group, rejected Erdogan’s comments: “You cannot usurp our right to contraception, nor our other rights with your declarations that come out of the Middle Ages. We will protect our rights.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Turkey’s President: Birth Control Shouldn’t be Used by Muslim Women appeared first on Law Street.

With anti-immigrant sentiment rising amid terrorist attacks and nationalist political movements, many European countries are experiencing cultural clashes. Native identities and practices are being embraced in response to an influx of Muslim refugees, many of whom come from cultures vastly different than those in the West.

The most recent clash occurred in Switzerland, where two brothers sparked a national maelstrom when they refused to shake their female school teacher’s hand. According to Islamic teaching, it is considered haram (forbidden) to touch a member of the opposite sex if the two people are not related or married.

But according to Swiss custom, students shake their teacher’s hand before and after class.

This week authorities in Basel-Landschaft, the canton, or state, where the incident occurred, passed a ruling that religious grounds are not sufficient to validate refusing to shake a teacher’s hand. Parents of children who do so are subject to a fine of 5,000 Swiss francs (about $5,000).

“The public interest concerning the equality of men and women as well as the integration of foreigners significantly outweighs the pupils’ freedom of religion and belief,” the board for education, culture and sport in Basel-Landschaft in a statement. “The social gesture of shaking hands is important if pupils are to be prepared for working life.”

The board acknowledged the new rule as an “intrusion” on religious liberty, though still acceptable because “it did not involve the central tenets of Islam.”

And while one Swiss Islamic advocacy group ceded that shaking hands with a member of the opposite sex could be permissible (though it noted the ruling was “disproportionate” and a “slap in the face”), another group disavowed the mandate wholesale.

As Europe figures out how to assimilate the more than a million Muslim refugees into societies far different than the conservative ones they left behind, cultural debates are popping up throughout the continent.

In January, a small town in Denmark passed a proposal that required public day care centers and kindergartens to serve pork at lunch. The move was aimed at preserving “Danish food culture” as more and more adherents to the Islamic faith–which has dietary laws that prohibit consumption of pork meat–live, work, and learn in Europe.

European governments are also taking steps to more smoothly integrate the refugees. This week, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel announced a law meant to better amalgamate the refugees, mostly Syrians, by expanding job and German language programs.

As the civil war in Syria rages on and militant groups continue to uproot families in the Middle East and North Africa, the migrant crises will likely not abate any time soon, potentially leading to more of these sorts of cultural skirmishes.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Handshake Snafu in Switzerland Turns Into a “Slap in the Face” for Muslims appeared first on Law Street.

People love to joke that the Kardashian/Jenner clan is taking over the world, but some in Iran have genuine concerns.

Iranian officials have accused the family’s top bread winner, Kim Kardashian, of being a secret agent. On an Iranian news program Sunday night, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Organized Cyberspace Crimes Unit (OCCU) accused Kim of conspiring with Instagram to corrupt Iranian women with “un-Islamic photos.”

OCCU spokesman Mostafa Alizadeh explained that the reality star “targets” Muslim women with photos that are contradictory to an Islamic lifestyle:

They are targeting young people and women. Foreigners are behind it because it is targeting families. These schemes originate from around the Persian Gulf and England. When you draw the operational graph, you will see that it is a foreign operation. Ms. Kim Kardashian is a popular fashion model so Instagram’s CEO tells her, ‘make this native.’ There is no doubt that financial support is involved as well. We are taking this very seriously.

This comes just as eight women working as online models for social media platforms such as Instagram were arrested in Iran as part of the country’s larger crackdown on “un-Islamic” photos.

But now that I think about it, this is not the first time Kim K has been accused of espionage-like involvement. I decided to do some digging to see if Kim could in fact be a spy, and came to the conclusion…possibly? So, without further adieu:

Here’s Three Reasons why Kim Kardashian Could Actually be a Spy

1. Kim’s Favorite Television Shows are Very Suspicious

Once, when asked by a fan what TV shows she likes to watch, Kim answered, “I love investigating shows like ‘Dateline,’ ‘Forensic Files,’ [and] ‘I Survived…'” NBC’s “Dateline” regularly airs true crime stories, “Forensic Files” shows how scientists use forensic science to solve crimes, and “I Survived…” profiles people’s near death experiences.

I’m noticing a suspicious theme here.

2. Kim Loves Investigating Her Own Family

If you watch “Keeping Up With the Kardashians,” you’d know that Kim has a history of investigating her family and hiring private investigators. In an episode of the KUWTK’s spinoff “Kourtney & Kim Take Miami,” Kim is suspicious of Kourtney’s then-boyfriend Scott Disick, so she hires a P.I. to track him.

Watch her shady sleuthing in the clip below:

If she’d investigate someone she considers to be family, who’s to say she wouldn’t be down for investigating entire countries like….idk IRAN!

3. Tina Fey is Convinced There’s Something Amiss 

Tina Fey joked that the reality star was “made by Russian scientists to sabotage our athletes” in her comedic bestseller “Bossypants.”

I mean #NuffSaid. You may be on to something, Iranian officials. We’ll have to keep an eye out.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iran Officials Think Kim Kardashian is a Secret Agent: Maybe They’re Right? appeared first on Law Street.

At the St. Pancras train station in London on Tuesday, a tanned Englishman with silver hair and a French woman born in Spain walk and talk about a number of pressing topics. Among them: Donald Trump. Anne Hidalgo, Mayor of Paris, and Sadiq Khan, her London counterpart, met for the first time since Khan’s mayoral victory over the weekend.

Hidalgo seems to be in the same camp as Khan in her views of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, albeit with a slightly blunter delivery: “Mr. Trump is so stupid, my God, my God,” she said.

On Monday, Khan, London’s first Muslim mayor, expressed disapproval of Trump’s “banning Muslims” tactic and the overall tone of his campaign, comparing him to Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative Party mayoral candidate he beat out on Saturday.

“I’m confident that Donald Trump’s approach to politics won’t win in America,” Khan said in an interview with Time magazine. “I think to try and look for differences, to try and turn communities against each other is not conducive to living successfully and amicably.”

Hidalgo and Khan lead two of the world’s most diverse cities, Paris and London, and Khan especially has highlighted his background and multi-faceted identity as proof that Islam and Western democratic values are indeed compatible.

The son of Pakistani parents–a bus driver and a seamstress–a lawyer, a Muslim, and now the mayor of London, Khan views his new success as the antithesis to Trump’s calls for banning Muslims from entering the U.S., which he said he would do if elected president.

“What I think the election showed was that actually there is no clash of civilization between Islam and the West,” he said.

Khan and Trump engaged in a minor, press proxy scuffle earlier this week when Khan mentioned to Time he’d better visit America before January because “I’ll be stopped from going there by virtue of my faith.” Trump’s response: “There will always be exceptions,” he told the New York Times. Khan scoffed at Trump’s offer.

Whether Trump grants him a pass to his proposed Muslim ban or not was not the message Hidalgo and Khan aimed to send the billionaire with their meeting at the London train station. “Our message to Donald Trump is: this is how you work together; this is the best of humanity; this is the best of the west,” Khan said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo and London Mayor Sadiq Khan Meet; Diss Donald Trump appeared first on Law Street.

A female student admitted to the Citadel Military College in South Carolina will not be allowed to wear a hijab with her uniform. The young woman’s request was filed in the beginning of April. The school’s president, Lt Gen John Rosa, issued a statement on the school website on Tuesday, saying, “uniformity is the cornerstone” of the school, and that “The standardization of cadets in apparel, overall appearance, actions and privileges is essential to the learning goals and objectives of the college.” While he denied the request to wear religious headgear, he stressed the fact that the school offers other ways of practicing faith and expressed his hope that the girl will still attend the school this coming fall.

To many people, it came as a surprise that the school actually took the time to consider a deviation from its custom of strict uniformity and anonymity–for some it was a provocation, for others a positive sign of progress. The Citadel is one of the oldest military schools in the United States and has never made an exception from its standard uniform in its 175-year history. However, the school does have other ways to see to students differing religious needs, such as places of worship and special food for those with religious dietary restrictions.

A Facebook post from a current student, Nick Pinelli, initially drew attention to the issue. He argued that if a person practicing one religion is granted different treatment it would undermine the point of the school and be the opposite of equality. In the post, Pinelli wrote, “Equality means the same set of rules for everyone. Not different rules for different people.” He has reportedly been punished with 33 hours of marching since first speaking out.

The girl’s family is considering legal actions. According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, wearing the hijab is a religious obligation for Muslims. And as a gender professor points out to NPR, this can also be seen as a feminist issue, with the fact that she is a woman potentially making her fight even harder.

The Citadel educates students in leadership skills, which does not necessarily have to lead to a military career. Out of the roughly 2,300 students, only about 170 are women. They didn’t start admitting women until 1996 so that number–as well as religious diversity–may increase in the coming years.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Citadel Military College Denies Student’s Request to Wear Hijab with Uniform appeared first on Law Street.

In October 2014, a teenager from the suburbs of Chicago was arrested at O’Hare International Airport for attempting to join the Islamic State terrorist organization. His method of communication with the group, also known as ISIS, or ISIL: Twitter.

Over the past few years, ISIS has increased its presence on social media platforms as a radicalization tool. From the European Union to the United States, ISIS has taken advantage of the relatively borderless world of social media to bring Muslims and non-Muslims into its twisted realm of influence, encouraging them to take violent action in their home country or to make the journey and join the caliphate in parts of Syria and Iraq.

At a panel hosted by the Congressional Internet Caucus in Washington D.C. on Friday, experts discussed ISIS and other terrorist networks’ increasingly sophisticated online recruitment methods and what the government and the private sector can do to mitigate their efforts without affecting freedom of speech.

“[ISIS and other terrorist groups] reach out to disaffected youth and offer a sense of purpose, a sense of belonging,” said Rashad Hussain, member of the National Security Division at the U.S. Department of Justice. “As twisted as it sounds, they claim to be building something.”

A recent report by the Program on Extremism at George Washington University provided a window into the demographics of people ISIS is recruiting in the U.S. According to the report, the average age of those in the U.S. who have been recruited by ISIS is 26. Eighty-seven percent are male, and thirty-eighty percent are converts to Islam, not people who grew up in the faith. As of April 30, 2016, 85 individuals have been arrested on ISIS-related charges. 

Policing social media poses a unique challenge to the federal government: how to effectively tamper hateful messaging and support of violent acts without infringing on the First Amendment.

There has been increased co-operation between the government and social media companies to thwart the threat of online radicalization. But Emma Llanso, Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Free Expression Project and a member at Friday’s discussion, worries about government policies that could throw a blanket over the broad and ambiguous category of “unlawful speech.”

“Is it a direct incitement to violence? A true threat of violence? We don’t have broad prohibitions against hate speech, no definition of extremist content as a set of unlawful speech,” Llanso cautioned.

She underscored the importance of prohibiting hate speech or actions that incite violence, but also the imperative to preserve freedom of speech, something she noted as leading to the innovation that sparked the variety of ways we now have to express ourselves online.

Social media platforms all formulate their own terms of service, or a sets of rules that outline the types of messages that are or are not welcome on their sites and might be taken down or reported to government authorities. Llanso portended that a policy requiring companies to share messages deemed “unlawful” would do more harm than good.

She said it would lead social media companies “to err on the side of caution in reporting their users to the government as suspects of terrorist acts.”

Hussain agreed that government should play a limited role in ensuring social media platforms don’t exist as places where extremist ideas are disseminated and allowed to fester. He advocated for a “counter messaging” strategy, taking advantage of the platforms to spread messages on the other end of the spectrum as groups like ISIS.

He called for spreading messages “highlighting ISIL battlefield losses” and ones that “expose living conditions” of ISIS members.

“[Social media] platforms provide an opportunity for counter messaging and positive messaging,” he said, noting that there are also opportunities to spread the positive values Muslim communities stand for.

Seamus Hughes, who heads the Program on Extremism at George Washington University and is a previous member of the National Counterterrorism Center, also underlined the need for counter messaging in lieu of “takedowns,” or the removal of ISIS-supported accounts on sites like Twitter.

Studies have shown that accounts that are removed do experience an immediate drop in followers when they come back, he said, but the platform’s “built in system of resiliency” allows users to reconfigure their accounts under different names.

But for all of the radicalization opportunities afforded by the tricky semantics and difficult-to-police sites like Twitter, Hughes reinforced the fact that “the physical space of a caliphate is a driver for people to go.”

“Twitter is a place to facilitate the recruitment,” he said. “It’s not like if Twitter went away tomorrow we wouldn’t have recruits that are joining [terrorist groups].”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Delicate Dance: Fighting ISIS Online While Protecting Free Speech appeared first on Law Street.

While Iran has a parliament and president, like many western nations, its political structure is far more opaque. From the Supreme Leader to influential religious councils, understanding Iran’s leadership presents a challenge in and of itself. This challenge has been highlighted by a number of high profile events where it was unclear who had the final say in important Iranian policy decisions. Read on to learn how the Iran leadership was developed, how it is currently structured, and how that leadership defines itself both domestically and abroad.

The Revolution and Aftermath

The Iranian Revolution that occurred in 1979 was years in the making; its origins go back to at least to 1953. During that year, the CIA helped overthrow the recently elected prime minister in favor of the Shah, who had Western leanings and was an opponent of Soviet-style communism. While the Shah honored his loyalty to the United States, he was less kind to his own people, frequently imprisoning and even torturing those opposing him.

This set the stage for the revolution of 1979. This movement was led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who returned from Paris where he had been exiled during the Shah’s rise. In place of the Shah’s one-party government, the Ayatollah installed his own based on Islamic teachings, placing himself as the country’s Supreme Leader. The new emphasis on strict adherence to Islam meant a rollback on the Shah’s few, more liberal reforms concerning the economy and women’s rights.

The following video details the specifics of the Iranian Revolution:

The Shah, who had come to power following World War II, ruled as the head of a constitutional monarchy with himself as the final arbiter. When he was deposed by Khomeini the democratic institutions that had existed were kept, however, any power they had was drained. In the new system, Khomeini ruled as the unquestioned leader of his own government which focused heavily on instilling Islamic concepts and resisting interaction with Western nations he viewed as corrupting Iran. The next sections will detail the unelected and elected elements of Khomeini’s Iran and how they are structured so that his power is virtually unchallenged.

Unelected Officials

Similar to the U.S. government, part of Iran’s government is appointed, independent of any elections. In the Iranian case, however, this aspect of the government is unquestionably the most powerful part, including many important institutions.

The Supreme Leader

As the final decision maker, the Supreme Leader has either direct or indirect control over nearly the entire government because his primary responsibility is to maintain the continued existence of the Islamic State of Iran. To ensure this, the Ayatollah has power over all three branches of government, the military, and even the state-run media. He also has power or influence on virtually every other political institution, the economy, and major policy decisions. In other words then, the Supreme Leader is the undisputed power in the Iranian regime.

The person who spearheaded the 1979 revolution and the first to hold this all important office was Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khomeini founded the state and defined his role in it by championing four key characteristics, “justice, independence, self-sufficiency, and Islamic Piety.” Khomeini also offered a religious justification for the office, believing he held the place on earth of a 12th Imam, a descendant of the Prophet Muhammed who has since gone into hiding. Khomeini died in 1989 with no appointed successor.

The man who succeeded him and the current supreme leader of Iran is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei has served in this position since 1989 making him the second longest current ruler in the Middle East. Khamenei was a longtime loyalist to Khomeini and also served two terms as Iran’s president before outmaneuvering rivals for the coveted Supreme Leader position.

The Guardian Council

Next in Iran’s unelected hierarchy is the Guardian Council. The Guardian Council is arguably the most important Iranian institution aside from the Supreme Leader. The council has the final say on legislation passed by the parliament and maintains the ability to determine which candidates are eligible to run for public office in the parliament, presidency, and the Assembly of Experts. There are 12 members, six chosen by the Supreme Leader and six chosen by the judiciary and confirmed by parliament. The members of this group serve six-year terms. This group’s ability to evaluate legislation is part of its role that is similar to the U.S. Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court evaluates laws based on their adherence to the U.S. Constitution, the Guardian Council determines whether laws are compliant with both Iran’s constitution and Islamic law.

The Expediency Council

The Expediency Council serves as advisors to the Supreme Leader, much as the cabinet does to the president. This assembly is directly appointed by the Supreme Leader and consists of highly regarded political, social, and religious authorities. Aside from advising the Supreme Leader, this body’s main responsibility is to act as the final arbiter in disputes between the Parliament and Guardian Council. In 2005, it was also granted sweeping powers by the Supreme Leader over all branches of the government.

The Judiciary

Iran’s judiciary is a multi-tiered system of courts tasked with overseeing the enforcement of the law and settling grievances among Iranian citizens. The Supreme Leader has a considerable amount of control over the judiciary as he appoints its leader, who then appoints the head of the Supreme Court and the top public prosecutor. There are three main branches of the judiciary, the public courts, the revolutionary courts, and the special clerical court. While the public court deals with criminal and civil matters, the latter two courts deal with everything else.

Based the structure of the judiciary and its position beneath the Supreme Leader, many believe that it is often used as a political tool to squash dissent and maintain strict control over the people of Iran. Critics also note that the trial process in Iran is often very opaque and restrictive, allowing greater government influence.

The Revolutionary Guard

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is yet another body whose leadership is appointed by the Supreme Leader, along with the regular army. This group was created following the revolution to defend its key figures and fight its opponents. Unsurprisingly, this group only answers to the Supreme Leader. Aside from being in charge of militia branches in every town in Iran, the Revolutionary Guard has widespread influence throughout Iranian life.

The Revolutionary Guard’s special place both within the military and within Iran itself comes from its initial purpose of serving as an armed body loyal to the revolution as the regular army that had been loyal to the departed Shah. Since its inception, the guard has acquired billions of dollars from a variety of activities such as shipping, construction, defense contracts, and oil production. The group uses many of these assets to fund militant or extremist groups abroad such as Hezbollah. The Revolutionary Guard is so powerful, in fact, that some of the American and E.U. sanctions have targeted the IRGC specifically.

The two other major components of Iran’s defense forces are the army and the ministry of intelligence and security, which is essentially the Iranian CIA. All three of these groups are under the direction of the Supreme National Security Council. While this agency is again tentatively under the control of the president, in reality, the Supreme Leader possesses most of the control.

Elected Officials

Also similar to the United States, a portion of the Iranian government is elected by the people. Anyone over 18, including women, is eligible to vote. Also like in the American system, the different branches have some checks on one another.

The President and Cabinet

The presidency in Iran shares some of the characteristics of the same position in the United States. Namely, the presidential term is four years, and a president can only be elected for two consecutive terms. However, while the president, in theory, is the second most powerful person in Iran behind the supreme leader, reality suggests that the office’s power is drastically curtailed by unelected leaders. Not only does the president answer to the Guardian Council, which chooses who can run for the position in the first place, but the Supreme Leader retains final authority over most major political decisions. In fact, the President of Iran is the only executive in the world to not have control over the country’s military.

Parliament

Iran’s parliament has 290 members and is similar to most western legislatures. Notably, this body has its membership determined through popular elections. Once elected, members have the power to introduce and pass laws as well as summon and impeach cabinet ministers and the president. Once again, though, Parliament’s power and even who is eligible to run for office is determined by the Guardian Council. Unlike in the United States, the Iranian legislature is a unicameral body whose members serve four-year terms. The Iranian parliament’s sessions and its minutes are open to the public.

Assembly of Experts

The final part of Iran’s leadership that is directly elected is the Assembly of Experts. There are 86 members of this body and each one is elected to an eight-year term. To be considered, each member must be a cleric or religious leader. This group has the critical responsibility of appointing and subsequently monitoring the Supreme Leader. Members of this group are vetted first by the Guardian Council, the primary check on its influence. This group meets for only one week each year and although it has the power to depose the Supreme Leader it has never challenged any of his decisions since the Islamic Republic of Iran formed. The accompanying video gives a concise explanation of how the Iranian government is organized:

Major Challenges Facing Iran’s Leadership

Domestic Dissent

Protests in Iran became particularly significant in the 20th century, as Iranian citizens frequently spoke out against the government. For the first half of the century, this was aimed at the decadent dynastic government and later colonial masters. The resistance then focused on the Shah, which eventually led to the Iranian Revolution. Following the revolution, discontent emerged in 2009 when people took to the streets to dispute then President Ahmadinejad’s reelection. In 2011, another flare-up of protests occurred concurrently with the Arab Spring revolts in nearby countries. Much of the protest again focused on the contentious 2009 elections and were led by the Green Movement.

International Relations

Political decisions in Iran are often the result of a complex process that is typically driven by the Supreme Leader. Given the nature of the Iranian government, several international concerns have significant implications for the country and how its government responds.

Possibly the most pressing concern facing Iran is its proxy war with Saudi Arabia. The two countries have effectively positioned themselves as the defenders and standard bearers of Islam, but champion different denominations. This is especially true of the Supreme Leader who feels it is his mission to lead Islam and who also views Saudi Arabia as an obstacle in the way of that. This proxy conflict threatens to turn into more direct action if Iran reneges on its nuclear deal. The video below details the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia:

The recent nuclear deal between Iran and the United States brings up another important challenge for the country. While the two groups have worked together to finalize the deal, a conflict remains. Aside from the history of distrust between both countries, Iran’s support for a number of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas–which are considered terrorist organizations by the U.S. State Department–and its anti-Israel policy remain hurdles.

Conclusion

Iran has a large and complex leadership structure, which originated in the aftermath of the revolution in 1979. On one hand are democratic institutions such as the president and parliament, which are similar to American and Western models. On the other are a series of appointed offices that wield a significant portion of political power in the country. At the heart of this system lies the Supreme Leader who has control over many of the appointments and final say over virtually all of the country’s affairs. This system itself is a reaction to the previous secular regime of the Shah, which was founded upon a greater emphasis on Islamic law as well as inherent animosity toward the United States.

Iran is a mixture of theocracy and democracy, and understanding how Iran is governed and run is critical to understanding how to effectively deal with it. As history has shown, many countries, particularly the United States, have misinterpreted or misjudged the nation’s leadership.

Resources

The New York Times: 1979: Iran’s Islamic Revolution

United States Institute of Peace: The Supreme Leader

BBC News: Guide: How Iran is Ruled

Your Middle East: Iran’s Century of Protest

Global Security.org: Pasdaran: Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)

The Guardian: Iran Protests See Reinvigorated Activists Take to the Streets in Thousands

Politico: The Hidden Consequences of the Oil Crash

The New York Times: U.S. and Iran Both Conflict and Converge

Encyclopedia Britannica: Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi

United States Institute of Peace: The Oil and Gas Industry

PBS: The Structure of Power in Iran

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iran’s Leadership: Inside the Complex Regime appeared first on Law Street.

President Barack Obama made an appearance at an American mosque on Wednesday for the first time in his presidency, a symbolic act during a time when anti-Islamic rhetoric is growing. The mosque, at the Islamic Society of Baltimore, was at one time just a small gathering place but has now grown into one of the largest Islamic communities in the Mid-Atlantic.

“If we’re serious about freedom of religion—and I’m talking to my fellow Christians who are the majority in this country—we have to understand that an attack on one faith is an attack on all faiths,” Obama said to the crowd gathered at the mosque.

Obama stressed the importance of unity among all Americans, especially amongst different faith communities. Obama also praised the Muslim community for its contribution and role in America’s history. The United States is home to 1.8 million Muslim adults and 2.75 million Muslims of all ages, according to the Pew Research Center.

“Muslim Americans keep us safe,” said Obama. “They are our police. They are our firefighters. They’re in [the Department of] Homeland Security.”

This is not the first time a president has visited a mosque. George W. Bush visited one shortly after the 9/11 attacks, whereas Obama has only been to mosques outside of the country.

During his presidency, Obama has been asked by many different Muslim groups to visit mosques as well as to publicly denounce the comments made by 2016 presidential candidates and the growing Islamophobia in general. However, it was not until Wednesday–seven years into his presidency–that President Obama first stepped foot inside an American mosque.

This trip is a bit more complicated for Obama than it was for George W. Bush. The President has been constantly criticized for being a “closeted Muslim,” making his visit in light of those conspiracy theorists a tricky thing to work around. A CNN/ORC poll done in September found that 29 percent of Americans said that they believe that Obama is a Muslim; among Republicans, it was 43 percent.

Rush Limbaugh, conservative radio host, often refers to Obama as “Imam Barack Hussein Obama,” putting more of the emphasis on the words “Imam” and “Hussein.” He has also asked, “…why can’t we call Imam Obama America’s first Muslim president?”

Timing is a key factor for his recent visit. This election cycle has brought out increased Islamophobia among Americans and shown how polarized the issue of terrorism really is.

During this election cycle more than one Republican presidential candidate has spoken out against Islam altogether:

“Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.” – Donald Trump, Nov. 2015

“It’s not about closing down mosques. It’s about closing down any place — whether it’s a cafe, a diner, an internet site — any place where radicals are being inspired.” – Marco Rubio, Nov. 2015

“[There is] a fundamental foundational problem in Islam of embracing issues of freedom of conscience and religious persecution.” – Rick Santorum, Sept. 2015

“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.” – Ben Carson, Sept. 2015

In reference to the alleged Muslim “no-go zones” in Europe, former candidate Bobby Jindal said, “If we’re not careful the same no-go zones you’re seeing now in Europe will come to America.”

The refugee issue has also caused candidates Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz to propose that preference should be given to Christian refugees, claiming that Christians are at no risk of committing violent crimes.

In contrast, here is what the Democratic candidates have been saying:

“I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists…you can talk about Islamists who also are clearly jihadists.” – Hillary Clinton, Nov. 2015

“It’s always playing one group against another. That’s how the rich got richer while everybody else was fighting each other. Our job is to build a nation in which we all stand together.” [in response to islamophobic rhetoric] – Bernie Sanders, Oct. 2015

During a time when the anti-Muslim rhetoric is growing, not only among presidential candidates but also in the general public, the President’s visit was crucial in his effort to combat the nonacceptance and fear felt by many Muslim-Americans.

Here is the full video of President Obama’s speech:

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Obama Visits an American Mosque For the First Time appeared first on Law Street.

Teachers are the key to educating and developing the minds of future generations. They are an invaluable asset to break down barriers, open minds, distill fear and misunderstanding, and to bridge the gaps across cultural, ethnic, racial, and gender disparities. Teachers are sometimes the only individuals within a child’s life, apart from parents or grandparents, that take on a quasi-parental role and are provided with an opportunity to teach children much more than a couple of history lessons. They can greatly influence the lens through which children see the world in adulthood, which can both be excellent and scary all in the same breath. This is especially true during times of great uncertainty–during times of terrorism and fear, teachers’ personal beliefs may end up being at issue as well.

In light of the growing rate of Islamophobia within the United States, the general population has become more aware, more critical, and more concerned with safety, particularly in the context of religious interaction. Accordingly, parents have been more demanding of the schools in which their children spend most of their time and the individuals who assume the roles of caretakers in school settings. Due to the heightened awareness and concern, regardless if justified, a Muslim New Jersey teacher named Sireen Hashem was reportedly fired for showing her class a video about Malala Yousafazi, a young advocate for children’s education worldwide and the youngest person to ever win a Nobel Peace Prize for her advocacy. Read on for a look at the case, including the Muslim teacher who was fired, the circumstances of her employment at Hunterdon Central Regional High School, and her lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for discrimination.

The Discrimination Battle

On December 14, 2015, Sireen Hashem filed a civil complaint against  Hunterdon County, the Board of Education, Hunterdon Central Regional High School, and four named individuals including the history department’s supervisor–Robert Zywicki, and Principal Suzanne Cooley. Here are the facts her complaint alleges:

Sireen Hashem, a Muslim American of Palestinian descent, had joined the Hunterdon Central Regional High School’s history department in September 2013. No stranger to criticism, Hashem has shared that she had experienced several complaints regarding her lesson plans, which she alleges were no different than and followed the same curriculum as her fellow history coworkers. Furthermore, the video about Malala that Hashem showed to her class, subsequent her own screening to make sure it fell in line with her lesson for the day, was suggested by her non-Arab, non-Muslim, and non-Palestinian coworker, Lindsay Wagner, who had shown the exact same video in her class on the same day. Yet Hashem alleges she was the only teacher to suffer any reprimand.

According to her lawyers, many of the complaints against Hashem do not revolve around the lessons taught to her own classroom, but rather pertain to her assistance and help provided to other teachers. Hashem had been asked by a coworker to translate an interview of a Palestinian subject. She had also been asked to take part in a discussion about “The Lemon Tree” and assist in translating a Skype conversation that the students were able to have with a Palestinian character featured in the book, with which she complied. Parents were allegedly unhappy about Hashem’s participation in the Skype conversation.

Further, Hashem was allegedly criticized for her essay question asking students to “compare the actions of John Brown at Harper’s Ferry to the actions of Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001”–a document-based question used by a number of teachers across the United States. Despite her desire to help her coworkers to bridge gaps and build understanding across cultural, ethnic, and religious norms by engaging discussion around current events and educating her students to minimize misunderstanding, Hashem’s actions were allegedly interpreted to have political overtones and misrepresented agendas. As such, Hashem claims that she was subject to a heightened level of discrimination by the school relative to her coworkers and became the target for egregious public posts on a student Facebook wall stating that Hashem’s brother was a terrorist, that she was anti-Israel, and that she threatened students who had different opinions and views.

According to her complaint, eleven days after showing her class the Malala video, Hashem was called into her supervisor’s office who told her that because of her religion, national origin, and background, she was not allowed to teach current events in the same ways that her coworkers did. She says that was further told that she “she should not mention Islam or the Middle East in her class” and that she was not to “bring her culture, life experience or background into the classroom” by the principal.

Hashem received a written notice on April 21, 2015 that her contract with the school would not be renewed. Subsequently, she was informed of the reasons and provided an opportunity to speak in front of the Board of Education for review. She appeared in front of the board on June 15, 2015, with approximately 60 students present to show support for Hashem, however they were not allowed to enter the deliberations and only five could speak on her behalf. Deliberations were held behind closed doors. On June 17, 2015, Hashem received notice that her employment and contract would be terminated on June 30, 2015. Approximately one month later, two Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents appeared at Hashem’s home because of an alleged threat she had made to the Board during her meeting for review.

Hunterdon County District has rejected all accusations made by Hashem as “brazenly false” and “frivolous.” It went on to explain that Hashem’s contract was simply not renewed and that the reasons for the non-renewal were explained to her, asserting that those reasons had nothing to do with religion or national origin as Hashem claims. The district expressed that “the board and the administration respect and embrace the diversity of the district’s employee and student population, and value the relationships it enjoys amongst persons of all faiths.” No further details have been provided by the district or any of the other defendants named as of yet.

The Complaint and Its Legalities

The complaint filed on behalf of Hashem is the first legal step to starting the lawsuit against Hunterdon Central Regional High School and the others named in the suit. The nature of action in the complaint filed is for employment discrimination, disparate treatment, and disparate impact under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer is prohibited from failing or refusing “to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Accordingly, the employer cannot engage in practices that treat individuals differently based on protected classes that include one’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Such practices are classified as disparate treatment, are against the law, and can serve as the basis of a Title VII lawsuit. In order to prove disparate treatment, the employee must show that he or she was treated differently by his or her employer on the basis of the protected characteristics mentioned above. However, an employer can explain, but is not required to prove, that there is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the treatment to which the employee must show that the employer’s reasoning is a pretext for discrimination, or a false reason that hides the true intentions of the employer.

Additionally, discriminatory consequences of employment practices are also considered in a Title VII legal analysis under disparate treatment, which allows the court to look beyond the isolated treatment of the individual and dive into employment practices that appear to be facially neutral (not discriminatory as a policy or on their face), but in practice subject a certain protected class to discrimination. Essentially, an employee must prove that a neutral policy or practice of an employer has a disproportionate effect on a protected group, which can sometimes be difficult as the courts do not have a specific threshold test or analysis but rather assess each situation on a case-by-case basis. However, if an employee is able to show adverse and discriminatory affects on a protected class, then the employer has to prove that its policies and conduct were justified as a business necessity.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination provides for a greater amount of protected characteristics including “race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, familial status, sex or sexual orientation, atypical cellular or blood trait, generic information, or service in the armed forces.” Further, employers are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of handicap, unless such a handicap would prohibit the employee from carrying out the essential functions of the job. Under New Jersey law, an individual is likely to have a successful claim if they are able to show that 1) they are in a protected class, 2) they were working up to the expectations of their employer, 3) they suffered adverse job action such as suspension or termination, and 4) they were replaced by an individual not in the protected class of the employee or that the adverse employment action was directly related to the employee’s protected status.

Hashem’s complaint outlined additional causes for her action including conspiracy to discriminate, deprivation of rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, unlawful discharge with malice, and defamation per se.

What’s Next?

While the lawsuit is still in its beginning stages, supporters of Hashem suggest that in disallowing her to teach students the same curriculum and in the same manner as her non-Arab, non-Muslim, and non-Palestinian coworkers, she was discriminated against on the basis of her race, religion, and national origin pursuant to federal law. Further, her attorneys allege that she has been treated less favorably than her colleagues, particularly pertaining to the discriminatory nature of what she was and was not allowed to teach her students.

The complaint filed on behalf of Hashem and her recollection of Hunterdon’s restrictions suggest that all of the prohibited lessons centered around current events, books, and influential people had a connection to Islam. Hashem claims that she taught in compliance and accordance to the school’s curriculum and the criticism she endured was often because of her assistance to other teachers for her specific skill set. Hashem’s supporters highlight that she was trying to help other teachers and provide insight and understanding that other teachers did not have, which is precisely why they came to her and asked for her help; that she was trying to bridge educational and cultural gaps while hoping for a more compassionate and understanding future generation.

Ironically, in trying to join the common cause to advocate for children’s education and showing Malala’s video, Sireen Hashem was allegedly fired for her educational implementation on the basis of race, national origin, and religion. We will have to wait and see how the lawsuit unravels and what is in store for Sireen Hashem pursuant to Title VII and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Resources

Primary

Hashem v. Hunterdon Central Regional High School

U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Employment Law New Jersey: New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

Additional

The Huffington Post: Mother Upset Over School Assignment About Islam

The Malala Fund: Malala’s Story

The Daily Beast: Muslim Teacher Fired After Showing Malala Video

 Sandy Tolan: The Lemon Tree

 RT: Muslim Teacher Sues NJ School District for Pattern of Discrimination Over Her Religion

 The Huffington Post: New Jersey Teacher Says She Was Fired After Showing a Video of Malala

The New York Times: New Jersey School District Rejects Claim of Anti-Muslim Firing

FindLaw: Disparate Impact Discrimination

 McDermott, Will, & Emery: New EEOC Rule Significantly Increases Employer Burdens in ADEA Disparate Impact Cases

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sireen Hashem: Was her Firing Discriminatory? appeared first on Law Street.

Charming to some. Smug to others. Abrasive to most. But even with such mixed feelings and emotional reactions invoked at the mention of his name, Donald Trump is leading the Republican polls. Most recently, Trump called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States–which he further explained did not apply to U.S. citizens who were Muslim and would only last until the incompetent politicians on the hill can get themselves together. What that means is unclear, but it is evident from his interview with CNN’s Don Lemon that Trump, along with much of America, is not pleased with the lack of progress, law-making, and reform taking place in Washington, D.C.

Yes Mr. Trump, give yourself a pat on the back for creating a dialogue on an issue that is quite important and one that most Americans are less than educated about. However, you get points off for spreading extra bigotry. The American public needs to be wary of what Trump’s proposal actually means and the kind of law-making it reflects before we nod in agreement like the political pawns we are expected to be.

Apart from the blatant unconstitutional basis for this proposal, such a ban as the one proposed by Trump is problematic for a number of reasons. First and foremost, to ban a group of people from entering the United States on the basis of religion would be next to impossible in practice. There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, equaling about 23 percent of the world’s population. These are 1.6 billion people coming from the Asian-Pacific region, the Middle East, Europe, Northern Africa as well as other African nations, just to name a few. These are people that do not share many physical characteristics and are not identifiable by a singular trait as they encompass anybody and everybody.

So how exactly would one prove he or she is not Muslim? Would people carry around affidavits sworn by their pastors? Would wearing a cross save you from categorical discrimination on the basis of religion? And what about the atheists of the world who practice no religion at all? How would they convince those around them that they are not Muslim? Additionally, do we really think ISIS members or other radical extremists would volunteer information about their practices to U.S. Customs Officers? These questions might sound absurd, but they are real and only highlight the ridiculousness of Trump’s proposal.

Secondly, there are a large number of Muslim businessmen and women, doctors, scientists, and academics that frequently travel to the United States and greatly contribute to the technological, educational, medical, economic, and scientific growth and advancement of the U.S.–areas of practice and study that have been decreasing in domestic educational interest for years. To ban them from entry into a country that they have been actively and positively contributing to would not only serve to offend them and turn them off from future engagements and endeavors, but it would be just plain stupid. Punishing Muslim innovators and educators due to the actions of a few–people whose behaviors they condemn and find absolutely reprehensible–is a waste of invaluable resources on an unfounded basis.

Thirdly, Trump’s ban is reminiscent of much darker times in history–i.e. when Jews were forced to wear badges identifying their faith under Adolf Hitler’s leadership and when Japanese-Americans were placed into internment camps following the attack on Pearl Harbor. One would assume that many lessons had been learned following the colossal tragedies that resulted out of such blatant and unfounded discrimination, but yet, with Trump’s rhetoric, it appears we have not. This Nazi-esque type of discrimination and exclusion based on religious beliefs has been condemned by parties on all sides and was even dubbed “un-American” by former Vice President Dick Cheney.

Finally, Trump seeks to confuse the issue at hand and puts the U.S. into an action-based response that is anticipated, wanted, and planned by extremist groups such as ISIS. The point of terrorism is to create terror, to stir up emotions of fear and irrational reactions used to isolate, alienate, and leave people vulnerable, open to great influence–exactly what the likes of ISIS would welcome, large groups of Muslim people feeling abandoned, isolated, and unwelcomed by the very societies they have set out to enrich, contribute positively to, and raise families in as model citizens. ISIS wants to build a “complete society” with men and women alike and they will recruit. Those vulnerable and rejected by Western societies are likely targets.

Trump’s rhetoric is dangerous two-fold. Not only does it seek to alienate and isolate Muslims from Western societies, leaving the doors open for ISIS recruitment, but it also works to confuse Islam with terrorism, dangerously perpetuating the idea that the two are interchangeable when they are absolutely not. Trump is promoting a display of Islamophobia that would be considered disgusting for anyone, much less a possible Republican Presidential candidate.

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dangerous Rhetoric of Donald Trump appeared first on Law Street.

The Republican field is about to have its fifth (but feels like 275th) debate of the 2016 primary season, hosted by CNN. Given that the field is still depressingly crowded, the last debate of 2015 promises to be a contentious one. Here’s a rundown of what you need to know before tomorrow night’s debate:

Participants:

It’s no secret that the Republican field has been so crowded this time around that we’ve needed two debate stages to hold them all. CNN is following the format of the first four debates, with a “JV” table consisting of Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham ,and former New York Gov. George Pataki.

The main debate will feature nine presidential hopefuls–according to CNN:

Businessman Donald Trump, the front-runner for the nomination, will again be center stage flanked by retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson on his right and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz on his left, CNN announced Sunday. The six remaining participants in the prime-time contest will be Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, businesswoman Carly Fiorina, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

The moderator will be Wolf Blitzer, with CNN’s Chief Political Correspondent Dana Bash joining Salem Radio Network talk show host Hugh Hewitt as questioners.

Seating Arrangements

The podium arrangement, which places higher-polling candidates front and center, will look like this:

.@CNNPolitics releases lineup, podium arrangement for final GOP debate of 2015 https://t.co/flm7OnriN0pic.twitter.com/ke1uPuRo2s

— Allison Wisk (@allisonwisk) December 13, 2015

Where’s the debate?

It’s going to be held in Las Vegas, at the Venetian hotel. It’s hosted by CNN, so if you want to stream it from the comfort of your own living room while playing a drinking game (no judgment) check out CNN.com’s live stream.

Will there be any feuds?

Given that we’re getting closer and closer to primary votes–the Iowa caucuses will be held in February–candidates are starting to get a bit nastier with each other. For example, Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz–two of the frontrunners, are almost certain to attack each other, most likely on foreign affairs issues. Cruz is painting Rubio as a centrist who can’t be trusted, while Rubio’s gripe with Cruz is that he’s weak on security-adjacent concepts like surveillance.

We may also see some squabbles between Cruz and Donald Trump. Trump has gone after Cruz hard in recent days. On “Fox News Sunday” Trump called Cruz a “little bit of a maniac” when discussing his career in the Senate. Cruz’s response was surprisingly even-tempered, as he tweeted a reference to “Flashdance” at Donald Trump:

In honor of my friend @realDonaldTrump and good-hearted #Maniacs everywhere: https://t.co/KOPIi4XTVt

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) December 13, 2015

Whether or not Cruz will take the bait on the stage remains to be seen. 

What will they talk about?

Unlike the last few debates, tomorrow’s doesn’t have a specified theme. So, what the candidates will talk about could encompass a wide range of issues, but there are a few topics that it’s very safe to bet will be discussed. For starters, national security will be a hot topic. A lot has happened since the last debate on November 10, most visibly the horrific terrorist attack in Paris, France, that sparked conversations about the fight against ISIS, Syrian refugees, terrorism, and the status of Muslims in the United States. Additionally, the shooting in San Bernardino, California set many Americans even more on edge, leading to calls from Trump to stop allowing Muslims into the United States. Questions about gun control may also come up, as well as the economy and Planned Parenthood. 

Law Street readers: are there any topics you want to see discussed? Let us know the in the poll below:

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Do You Want to Hear About in the Next Republican Debate? appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of last week’s gruesome Paris attacks, Muslims have reignited the #NotInMyName campaign on social media to combat growing Islamaphobia perpetuated by ISIS’ extremism. The campaign allows Muslims to not only condemn the terrorism, but inform others that ISIS does not reflect Islam’s beliefs.

Here are some of the messages being shared using the hashtag:

Islam has taught me to show peace and goodwill to all. Terrorism has no religion. Thoughts are with those affected in Paris #notinmyname

— Hasan Ansari (@iamhasanansari) November 17, 2015

Most Muslims do not follow & aren’t aware of the violence in their scripture. Muslims ≠ Islam. Fight ideologies, not people. #NotInMyName — Ali A. Rizvi (@aliamjadrizvi) November 17, 2015

Another act of terrorism for Muslims to condemn. Another burden. #NotIslam #Paris #NotInMyName #NotAllMuslims pic.twitter.com/mbTsdX5fry

— Philistine Ayad (@Cre8tvlyLicnsd) November 14, 2015

“Whoever kills an innocent person, it is as though he has killed all of mankind” (Quran 5:32) #TerrorismHasNoReligion #NotInMyName — Shehnaz Khan (@shehnazkhan) November 14, 2015

Each time a bomb explodes I find myself pleading to God: “Please don’t let the culprit be Muslim” #NotInMyName

— Salina N. (@salinanas) November 13, 2015

For anyone confused about what we, as Muslims, believe. Remember, terrorism is #NotInMyName. pic.twitter.com/rJ1Zn57RVe — Noor Al-Khaled (@a_view_so_cruel) November 14, 2015

ISIS doesn’t represent Islam ISIS doesn’t represent Islam ISIS doesn’t represent Islam ISIS doesn’t represent Islam #NotInMyName @BDUTT — Syed Salman Chishty (@sufimusafir) November 17, 2015

A muslim can never be a terrorist and a terrorist can never be a muslim #NotInMyName — Awais Satti (@awasssatti) November 15, 2015

I don’t need another reason for the world to hate my religion once again #NotInMyName — Siti Arbaiya (@sitiarbaiya) November 14, 2015

For every terror attack claimed in the name of Islam: #notinmyname . Monsters do not represent my faith. — Ligwina Hananto (@mrshananto) November 14, 2015

A great campaign, spread this link & get involved! https://t.co/1h6J3l9fH8 #NotInMyName pic.twitter.com/LJcjcOmQav — Shekin D. (@Shxkin) November 16, 2015

Even though the campaign has been praised by many as an opportunity to combat religious and cultural stereotypes, some believe it actually does the opposite. In an oped for ABC News, Griffith University Associate Professor Mohamad Abdalla proclaimed that Muslims shouldn’t apologize for the murders in Paris and Lebanon writing,

While I’m required to stand for justice and condemn all acts of evil, I refuse to apologise for the actions of evil people, ISIS or anyone else. But this is exactly what seems to be expected of all Muslims. When a criminal act is committed by a Muslim in Paris, Lebanon or Australia, we are expected to apologise and take ownership of the crime. The same standard is not expected of anyone else.

He makes a valid point. When devout Christian  Dylann Roof attempted to incite a “race war” by shooting up a black church,  Christians weren’t expected to apologize for Roof’s warped religious beliefs. Nevertheless the #NotInMyName movement is empowering many Muslims to reclaim their beliefs and speak out against Islamic misconceptions.

Check out the hashtag to learn more about this movement.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Muslims Use #NotInMyName to Condemn Paris ISIS Attacks appeared first on Law Street.

ISIS has been at the center of media attention since the group began taking over and controlling large portions of land in Iraq last summer, but amid this coverage, several important misconceptions about the organization and its goals have emerged.

The Atlantic recently published an article titled “What ISIS Really Wants,” which discusses the group’s underlying ideology and the misconceptions about it in the western world. Writer Graeme Wood carefully researched the organization by studying nearly every available source of information about it. Central to Wood’s article is the idea that the Islamic State adheres to established Islamic texts and principles and is not simply a group of crazy people twisting religion to support their blood lust.

While the claim that the Islamic State is Islamic may not be surprising–most radical extremist groups tie their goals to religion one way or another–Wood takes ISIS’ connection to Islam a step further. He says,

“The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.”

This argument is important to understanding ISIS–religion clearly plays a vital role in its actions and recruiting strategy–but this quote and the implicit argument throughout his article has dangerous implications for the religion of Islam. While Wood does not make the outright claim that Islam is a violent religion, many readers have interpreted it that way. As a result, some variation of this logic arises: ISIS is the purest manifestation of Islam, and peaceful Muslims are somehow less faithful to their religion.

That argument, however, is a dramatic mischaracterization of the Islamic State and is a serious insult to the 1.6 billion Muslims around the world.

I am not an expert on Islam, and determining the proper way to interpret the Quran and its foundational texts should be left to Islamic clerics and individual Muslims. Historically, there have been many different interpretations of Islam, and while ISIS’ ideology represents one interpretation that does not mean it is right or even valid. Not only do clerics believe ISIS misinterprets many of Islam’s sacred texts, they also note that the group’s “literal” interpretation is very exclusive. The passages that the Islamic State chooses to justify its actions are very specific, and the group ignores those that may conflict with its actions.

Nearly all of the world’s Muslims reject the Islamic State and its abhorrent actions that are reportedly done in the name of Islam. In addition to aggressively denouncing the cruel actions of ISIS and the misinterpretation of Islamic texts that supposedly justify them, most Muslims object to ISIS’ refusal to acknowledge the peaceful and compassionate teachings that clerics commonly accept.

Wood’s article ignited a debate over ISIS and its beliefs, so much so that its reception prompted him to write a short follow up summarizing the responses he received. Many respondents acknowledged the importance of ideology to ISIS, but argued that other factors–like group identity and the current circumstances in Iraq–are equally important to understanding ISIS. Some went even further, challenging Wood’s assertion of “the Islamic State’s medieval nature.” John Terry, writing for Slate, argued that the Islamic State selectively remembers the medieval times to fit its modern goals.

ISIS’ ideology is a variant of Salafist-Jihadism, which calls for a return to the “pure” practice of Islam that was established during the early days of the religion using outward violence. The first issue of ISIS’ Dabiq magazine includes a section titled “The World Has Divided Into Two Camps.” ISIS believes that it is the true manifestation of Islam and that all others are in a state of disbelief, which makes them enemies. One aspect of ISIS that makes it unique in the context of radical Islam is its use of takfir, or the practice of excommunicating another Muslim. In fact, the vast majority of its violence is directed toward Muslims and has led its recent rift with al Qaeda.

The nature of the organization and the stated commitment to its apocalyptic goal presents unique challenges for the United States and the coalition against it. The Clarion Project summarizes this issue in a recent article,

“The fundamental problem of Islamists seeking to trigger these end-of-times events will remain. The Islamic State could be crushed, but others with similar beliefs will arise. This entire mindset of fulfilling prophecy through war needs to be challenged by peace-seeking Muslims.”

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is ISIS Actually Islamic? appeared first on Law Street.

By now we have all heard about the heart-wrenching news that three young people have been killed in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The three were Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23; Yusor Mohammad, 21; and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19. Barakat was a student at the University of North Carolina School of Dentistry, and his wife, Yusor Mohammad was to begin her studies there this year. Her younger sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, was a student at North Carolina State University in nearby Raleigh. They were shot by a man named Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, who is now in police custody.

Victims’ dad says he believes students’ deaths in #ChapelHillshooting are hate crimes. http://t.co/EdxTgmcPEM#wralpic.twitter.com/sRCQxU5lGR

— WRAL NEWS in NC (@WRAL) February 11, 2015

Here’s a picture of Barakat and Mohammad at their recent wedding:

God willing they will spend eternity together #ChapelHillShootingpic.twitter.com/k08A1LHxgm

— rabia chaudry (@rabiasquared) February 11, 2015

The motive of the attack isn’t known yet–police are saying that it might have been over some parking spots. Others, including the family members of the slain, are concerned it was a hate crime. Some are saying that it was terrorism.

I don’t know exactly what happened, and it would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise. That being said, I’m not surprised by this news. Horrified, sure. Disgusted, absolutely. Incredibly saddened, of course. Surprised? Not at all.

This is what happens when we take an entire group of people and stereotype, demean, and dehumanize them for years and years. When we make them the bogeymen for our problems. When we associate them with people who do horrible things just because they happen to share a religion. We use violent rhetoric, and then we’re supposed to be surprised when there’s a violent result.

What violent rhetoric am I talking about? Here are some examples, but they’re only examples–this is by no means anywhere near a full list.

From Fox New’s “Outnumbered:”

The quote that stuck out to me was Andrea Tantaros saying:

If you study the history of Islam. Our ship captains were getting murdered. The French had to tip us off. I mean these were the days of Thomas Jefferson. They’ve been doing the same thing. This isn’t a surprise. You can’t solve it with a dialogue. You can’t solve it with a summit. You solve it with a bullet to the head. Its the only thing these people understand. And all we’ve heard from this president is a case to heap praise on this religion, as if to appease them.

You read that right: “You solve it with a bullet to the head.” Furthermore look at the language she uses…”these people”….”this religion.” This is a piece on ISIS, yes, but it’s one that’s not careful about making any sort of distinctions. “This religion” refers to Islam as a whole, make no mistake.

Or how about the time that Joe Walsh, a man who was actually elected to the United States Congress said that “One thing I’m sure of is that there are people in this country – there is a radical strain of Islam in this country -– it’s not just over there –- trying to kill Americans every week.” Again, there’s a clear message here–Muslims are trying to kill people. There’s no distinction here–Walsh is basically saying that every single one of the roughly three million Muslims in the United States are out to get anyone who adheres to a different religion.

Or what about the time Sean Hannity compared the Qur’an to Mein Kampf?

Muslim extremists exist, of course, but to use violent rhetoric in reference to all Muslims is as inaccurate as it is reprehensible. But that’s exactly why I’m not surprised–if you are constantly inundated by media and leaders who treat a segment of the population as less than, it’s easy to internalize that misinformation as fact.

I’m not necessarily saying that Hicks committed a hate crime–his family keeps repeating that it was over a parking dispute. But it seems incredibly likely–after all the definition of a hate crime is pretty broad. As CNN’s legal analyst Sunny Hostin points out: “To qualify as a hate crime, all that matters is that the crime was motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias.” Evidence has come out that Hicks was a militant atheist, and that he often decried religion. Again, I don’t know what happened here. But calling it a hate crime, in today’s environment of vitriol, doesn’t seem like it’s too much of a stretch. When there’s so much hate, it’s very hard to imagine that said hate plays no part.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chapel Hill Shooting: An Environment of Hate appeared first on Law Street.

A few weeks ago, Saudi Arabian monarch King Abdullah died. At the time of his death Abdullah was 90 years old, which made him the oldest living sovereign. While his country’s place on the world stage has changed dramatically over the course of his life time, his death leaves many questions unanswered. Read on to learn about the Saudi monarchy, and the problems plaguing the new ruler.

The Al-Saud Family

The site of modern day Saudi Arabia has been settled in some form for approximately 20,000 years. The region was a key trading corridor for the ascending civilizations of the Nile Valley and Mesopotamia, following the invention of agriculture.

The area’s first era of prestige, however, came hand in hand with the founding of Islam. Two cities, Medina and Mecca, located in present day Saudi Arabia, served as two of the birthplaces of Islam. They remained vital and began attracting thousands of pilgrims as the Muslim world expanded from North Africa to China.

The first developments of modern Saudi Arabia came in the seventeenth century when Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab and Muhammad bin Saud formed an agreement promising to return to the original teachings of Islam, which culminated in the first Saudi state. The state proved prosperous and quickly covered much of what is now modern day Saudi Arabia. However, this prosperity drew the attention of the Ottoman Empire, which crushed the aspiring nation in the early nineteenth century. A second Saudi state was established soon after, but also met a similar fate. This time the current patriarch, Abdul Rahman bin Faisal Al-Saud, was forced into exile in the Empty Quarter, a desert region in the east, before finally fleeing to modern day Kuwait.

Faisal Al-Saud’s son, Abdulaziz, began to reverse the family fortune, when in 1902 he led a daring raid into the current capital of Riyadh, and with a small force was able to take over the city. Abdulaziz gradually reestablished control over the whole territory, two of his most symbolic conquests being of Mecca and Medina in 1924 and 1925, respectively. Finally, the modern nation of Saudi Arabia was established in 1932 by its first monarch, the same Abdulaziz Al-Saud.

The Road to Succession

King Abdulaziz wanted one of his sons to succeed him on the throne; however, he had approximately 45 sons from which to choose. Thus it is no surprise then, that every ruler of Saudi Arabia since the death of Abdulaziz has been one of his many sons. This trend continued, as the recently deceased King Abdullah was succeeded by another of his brothers, Crown Prince Salman. The next in line after Salman is his brother, Crown Prince Muqrin.

While so far all of Abdulaziz’s successors have been one of his sons, this is likely to end soon. Crown Prince Muqrin is the youngest of Abdulaziz’s sons, but youngest is a relative term, as he is in his sixties. Therefore, if he actually ever ascends to the throne of Saudi Arabia, Muqrin is likely to be the last son to do so. The next ruler of Saudi Arabia after Muqrin therefore, assuming he outlives all his brothers and half-brothers, is one of the many grandsons of Abdulaziz.

While the proverbial changing of the guard has the potential to cause trouble, since the death of Abdulaziz the line of succession has never been an issue. Power has continued to pass down the line of brothers. The only change to the succession formula in fact, was the creation of the deputy crown prince position, formerly occupied by Prince Muqrin, which was put in place precisely because all of Saudi Arabia’s leaders are so old.

The smoothness of the succession process can be attributed partly to this familiar formula, as well as the Allegiance Council, which was created by King Abdullah in 2006. The council, made up of his brothers and nephews, is responsible for deciding the next monarch.  While the sons of Abdulaziz still reign, the council has a smaller pool to choose from, however once the next generation rises to prominence, the decision of the council could be potentially much more difficult politically.  For now though, the council followed the traditional track and declared Salman, the oldest living son of Abdulaziz, the new king and Prince Muqrin his successor. The video below summarizes this succession process.

Challenges for the New King

Oil Prices

While the succession to Saudi Arabia’s throne seems clear, the challenges facing King Salman are anything but. The first and most obvious problem plaguing Saudi Arabia is how to handle plummeting oil prices. In November, contrary to conventional wisdom, OPEC, which is dominated by Saudi Arabia, decided not to cut production even as prices were already dropping dramatically.

The reason why the Saudis may be willing to flood the market with cheap oil is geared more to the long run. By driving costs so low, the Saudis can put many of their competitors, such as upstart fracking operations, out of business, because the cost to access the oil is more than it is being sold for.

Not only may Saudi Arabia be forcing the price of oil down to eliminate its competition, there are also political factors at work. There’s a worry that Saudi Arabia has been working behind the scenes with Russia, a country that cannot afford low oil prices, offering to decrease production that would then raise prices again. In return, the Saudis would most likely want Russia to rescind its support for the regime of Assad in Syria.

Regardless, as the landscape of the global oil market changes, the role that the Saudis play in it will continue to change. How King Salman handles the oil market is certainly something to watch.

ISIS

ISIS, or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, is a terrorist organization that has carved out a large swath of territory for itself in Iraq and Syria, and whose ultimate goal is to establish a new caliphate. ISIS’ goals pose several problems for Saudi Arabia.

First, the areas under its control are close to the eastern regions of Saudi Arabia where a large number of Shi’ites reside in the predominantly Sunni nation. This is also the part of the country where Saudi oil is centered. The Saudis are wary of ISIS rhetoric creating discontent in the Saudi Shi’ite community, especially if it affects oil production.

Second, as part of ISIS’ would-be caliphate, it would have to conquer the two holiest places in Islam, Medina and Mecca. These two places are both located inside Saudi Arabia, meaning ISIS would have to invade the nation at some point if it hopes to rule either site.

Not surprisingly then, Saudi Arabia has already joined the coalition, led by the United States, which has riddled ISIS with constant airstrikes; however, unlike most other Muslim countries, Saudi Arabia has gone even further, attacking ISIS in Syria and even allowing the U.S. to train Syrian insurgents within its borders.

Saudi Arabia’s Neighbors

Aside from attempting to undermine ISIS, Saudi Arabia’s efforts in Syria are also calculated to inflict damage on a proxy state of its chief rival. Saudi Arabia has already poured large amounts of resources into the fight in Syria in the hopes of deposing Assad, viewed to be a client of Iran. However, the proxy war between the two extends far beyond Syria.

The recent coup in Yemen, located on the southwest border of Saudi Arabia, was led by a group known as the Houthis. This group is also purportedly under the influence of Iran. The interference of both Saudi Arabia and Iran in the affairs of their neighbors have led to a sort-of proxy war between the two powers.

While neither side can claim victory yet, geographically Saudi Arabia finds itself encircled. Normally this would not be too serious as Saudi Arabia traditionally has had the support of the US, the strongest military power in the world.

Recently though the strength of this relationship has come into question. U.S. talks with Iran over nuclear weapons have begun. While Saudis may fear the talks could lead to a closer relationship between the two, if Iran were to instead to go nuclear that could also have major consequences for the region and the proxy conflict. It is widely assumed that if Iran does go nuclear, Saudi Arabia will quickly follow suit, acquiring weapons from Pakistan whose program it originally helped fund. King Salman must prepare for that possibility.

Internal Struggles

Lastly, the new monarch of Saudi Arabia must consider what is going on inside the kingdom itself. Although government did very well in preventing the mass protests that plagued other nations during the Arab Spring, it can’t just throw money at all its problems. The list of potential problems is extensive, including human rights violations, xenophobia, and discrimination against women and non-Muslims. While these problems have yet to flare up, there certainly exists the potential for them to do so.

Domestically, the situation in Saudi Arabia is unlikely to change dramatically. While the late King Abdullah made some minor changes, the established order remains virtually unaltered. That is an order in which women are second-class citizens and wealth is concentrated among the few. For this to change anytime soon, Saudi Arabia would probably require some strong external pressure forcing it to alter the country’s way of thinking.

Conclusion

Following the death of King Abdullah, many experts have speculated there could be a succession crisis in Saudi Arabia; however, as of right now the succession seems to be about the only thing that won’t present problems in the future.

That is about the only well-established factor currently in the nation. While the succession is clearly laid out, Saudi Arabia has a number of other concerns: dropping oil prices, ISIS, its proxy war with Iran, and unrest among its own people. These concerns are only further exacerbated by the U.S.’s waning commitment. Thus while choosing a new king was relatively easy, maintaining the kingdom of Saudi Arabia may be potentially much more difficult.

Resources

Primary

Embassy of Saudi Arabia: History of Saudi Arabia

Additional

BBC: Saudi Arabia: Why Succession Could Become a Princely Tussle

Al Jazeera: The Question of Succession in Saudi Arabia

Daily Star: For Saudi Arabia Problems Abound All Around

Economist: Why the Oil Price is Falling

Business Insider: The Saudis Floated the Idea of Higher Oil Prices to Get Russia to Stop Supporting Assad in Syria

Huffington Post: Saudi Succession Raises Questions For ISIS Fight

Washington Institute: Nuclear Kingdom: Saudi Arabia’s Atomic Ambitions

Middle East Monitor: Saudis Most Likely to Join ISIS, 10% of Group’s Fighters Are Women

Al-Jazeera: Saudi Arabia, Iran and the ‘Great Game’ in Yemen

Guardian: Iranian President Says Nuclear Deal With the West is Getting Closer

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Saudi Arabia: Succession in the Chaos appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a new Texas state representative named Molly White. She’s a Republican, represents District 55 in Central Texas, and is a huge bigot.

Why is she a huge bigot? Well, this is a Facebook post from her page a few days ago on Muslim Capitol Day in Texas.

Freshman Rep. Molly White welcomes you to Texas. But not *you.* https://t.co/BHtVRiuKbVpic.twitter.com/CblzqTaRq5

— Scott Bixby (@scottbix) January 29, 2015

There are so, so many things wrong with that post. First of all, White is a representative of the U.S. government. Here in the United States, we have something called “Freedom of Religion.” Obviously White isn’t trying to make a law that prohibits the free practice of religion or anything overtly illegal, but I think we can all agree that this pretty fundamentally stands against the expressed values of the nation she purports to represent. Freedom of Religion is just that. Not “Freedom of Religion only if I like your religion.” Or “Freedom of Religion if you do what I say.” Or “Freedom of Religion only if you prove it.”

White apparently has never imagined how demeaning it would be to prove her “loyalty” to the United States just because she’s in the minority. This myth, conspiracy theory, and thought of pure lunacy that Islam is synonymous with terrorism needs to end. Right Now. As does this habit of asking Muslims to denounce the actions of terrorist groups. It’s demeaning on so many levels, beginning with the fact that it takes almost one quarter of the world’s population and boils every single, diverse, individual member of a major religion down to no more than their religious beliefs. And not only that, it assumes that a quarter of the world’s population supports horrible violent actions in the name of said religion. That’s just insane. That would be like asking all Christians to condemn Timothy McVeigh (the man responsible for the Oklahoma City bombings), or Wade Michael Page (the man responsible for the Wisconsin Sikh Temple Shooting), or Jared Lee Loughner (the man who shot Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, as well as others).

White’s post also makes an odd, seemingly random mention of the Israeli flag. Seriously? Does she think that Israeli flags are what, kryptonite to Muslims? Is that some weird superstition I’ve never heard of? Does she think that it’s like vampires with garlic? Seriously, Ms. White, what the hell does that even mean?

I don’t even think that White is a bad person. She’s behaving the way that she truly believes is right. She genuinely thinks these horrible things, borne out of misinformation and fear. In some ways that’s worse–I truly don’t think she believes what she did was wrong.

What sparked this disgusting display of bigotry? According to the Texas Tribune:

Texas Muslim Capitol Day, which began in 2003, is organized by the Texas chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and brings members of Muslim communities in Houston, Dallas and other areas of the state to the Capitol to learn about the political process and meet state lawmakers.

Sounds nefarious, truly. So nefarious that White wasn’t the only one who flexed her offensive muscles that day. The day was met with protests, shouts of “go home,” and harassment.

Anti-Islam protesters at Texas Muslim Capitol Day screaming “go home!” and “Mohammad is dead!” #txlegepic.twitter.com/SqF27tK1O1

— Lauren McGaughy (@lmcgaughy) January 29, 2015

There are so many more things that I could say about this. So many times that I could lament the rampant bigotry, Islamophobia, prejudice, and miseducation in this country. So many times I could be sad, so many times I could be angry, so many times I could get into this argument. But I’m going to go one step further. As a white American woman who was raised a Christian, I’m going to go ahead ad renounce State Rep. Molly White and all who think like her, and pledge my allegiance to America and our laws. After all, she and I share some thoughts, so unless I renounce her, everyone will assume that I support her disgusting behavior, right?

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Everything’s Bigger in Texas: Even Islamophobia appeared first on Law Street.

Yemen is a small country on the Arabian Peninsula bordered by Saudi Arabia to the north, Oman to the east, the Red Sea to the west, and the Gulf of Aden to the South. While geographically small and relatively isolated, Yemen is currently having a major impact on world politics. This recent attention is due to a current vacuum of power, which depending on the outcome, threatens to strengthen a powerful branch of Al Qaeda.

The path to this point however, is about as clear as the current situation on the ground there–that is to say, very unclear. Nonetheless, here is what you need to know about the history of the nation, highlights of the major groups wrestling for control, and important considerations as Yemen moves forward.

History

Yemen’s legacy is very impressive. At the time of the Roman Empire, Yemen was a thriving trade center, which served as a sort of central point between Europe and Indian ports to the east. Yemen was also a very diverse place, and home to large Christian and Jewish populations until it was conquered during the Islamic expansion of the eighth century AD.

From then up until the nineteenth century, Yemen was primarily ruled by a succession of Zaidi dynasties, a sect of Shia Islam. That era ended with the British annexation of Aden, the principle port of Yemen, in 1832. In 1904, the British and the Ottomans agreed to divide the country in half, with the British ruling the south and the Ottomans overseeing the north. After independence, as well as years of fighting between royalists, colonial powers, and even communist groups, the country finally united again in 1990; however, political divisions linger, which has led to continued infighting.

This infighting is perhaps best personified through former president Ali Abdallah Saleh. Saleh became the leader of then-North Yemen in 1978. He increased and consolidated his power, becoming leader of the combined Yemen in 1990. In 1994 he put down an attempted partition of the country by southern dissidents who felt marginalized in the newly combined state. From then until 2011 Saleh continued as president. While he continuously dealt with insurgent groups, his power was never legitimately threatened.

Arab Spring

The situation changed in 2011 as the Arab Spring movement swept into Yemen. Unrest began with a demonstration that January that forced Saleh to agree to not seek re-election. Saleh’s efforts at appeasement failed and protests mounted, leading him to impose a violent crackdown. The violence only continued when, that April, he refused to sign an agreement to hand over power, despite the fact that the agreement was authored by his own party. Eventually, Saleh was injured by a bombing and had to travel abroad for medical treatment. In November 2011, several months after his return, he finally agreed to cede power to his lieutenant, Adrabbuh Mansour Hadi.

The group that had opposed Saleh during the uprising was a complex mix including socialists, secularists, and moderate Islamists. One of the most important opposition groups was the Islah Party, or the Yemeni branch of the Islamic Brotherhood, which ultimately came to dominate the movement.

The protests ended with a semi-bipartisan government. Although Saleh was indeed forced to leave power, his party was given half the seats in the new parliament and he was granted immunity.  The rest of the Parliament was made up of members of Islah.

Thus, while Saleh finally gave up control after 33 years of rule, the violence did not stop because none of the issues that caused the conflict in the first place had actually been resolved, and new issues arose from dissatisfaction over the new government. Following his ascension, new President Hadi had to contend with a new variety of violent factions, most notably an Al Qaeda-affiliated group and Zaidi rebels.

These Zaidi rebels are known as the Houthis, a Shia group from the mountainous north who feel marginalized by the new government, composed of a mix of Islah and Saleh supporters. Due to this perceived marginalization this group has continued fighting and has now occupied the capital city, Sanaa.

Current Situation

The current situation in Yemen can best be described as chaotic. Just last week President Hadi, the prime minister, and his entire cabinet resigned following an attempted peace deal between the government and the Houthi rebels. The government resigned because they no longer wanted to be part of the standoff with the Houthis. Who exactly is in charge in Yemen right now is completely unclear. Observers worry that this power vacuum could lead to continued conflict, or open up control of Yemen to terroristic control.

The Houthis, as touched on earlier, are a Shi’ite Zaidi rebel group from northern Yemen. Their name comes from their former leader, Hussein Badr al-Din al Houthi, who led an unsuccessful uprising in 2004 and was killed later that year. The Houthis’ main issue with the Yemeni government is their perceived marginalization as Shias in a Sunni-dominated nation. They also strongly oppose the United States, the most prominent example of which comes from one of their slogans, which translates in part to “death to America, death to Israel.”

Other Players

Iran’s Role

The Houthis have been linked to Iran. Similar to Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis are a minority Shia group fighting in a nation with a sizable majority-Sunni population in Yemen. Following the uprising against the government, Iranian officials proclaimed their public support for the Houthi rebels. Nonetheless, the Houthi rebels deny any direct backing from Tehran or any Iranian supporters.

AQAP

AQAP, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, was formed in 2009 by terrorists from Yemen and Saudi Arabia under the direction of Nasir al-Wahishi and is designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States. The goal of the organization is to reestablish a caliphate on the Arabian Peninsula. While the group had performed numerous attacks already in Saudi Arabia and on Western nationals, it came to prominence globally with the failed bombing of a U.S. flight over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009. AQAP was also responsible for another failed attempt to detonate bombs hidden in printer cartridges bound for the U.S. on cargo planes in 2010.

The organization was also home to the American cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki. Using Awlaki’s teachings, the group also tried to reach out to dissatisfied westerners; it even had its own magazine, Inspire. In 2011 the group was able to conquer a sizable amount of territory before it was repelled a year later by the Yemeni military. Nevertheless, it continued planning attacks against American and Yemeni targets, and in 2013 the threat was serious enough that the United States closed several locations in the area. Most recently, AQAP claimed responsibility for the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris. Now it’s one of the many groups operating in Yemen, and complicating the situation further.

U.S. Interests

Prior to 2000, Yemen’s most well known interaction with the United States seemed to be its denunciation of the first Gulf War. This all changed in 2000 with the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in the port of Aden, which killed 17 American service personnel. Nevertheless, following the attack, U.S. involvement in Yemen remained minor, consisting of covert operations to capture specific targets and occasional airstrikes; however, since the unrest following the Arab Spring protests in 2011, the number of air strikes has increased dramatically.

Specifically of interest is the increased use of drones to carry out these attacks. This reached a height following the killing of American citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki without due process. While the Obama Administration eventually produced a memo from the Department of Justice signing off on the attack, it has been heavily criticized and is still being debated. While the debate may rage on, this past Monday the U.S. launched another drone strike against Yemen, the first since the Hadi government resigned. The video below gives a brief recap and summary of the major players in Yemen.

Important Considerations Moving Forward

With all these groups jostling for control in Yemen, what’s on the radar moving forward? First is the role of the Houthis. Since their coup and the resignation of the government, the Houthis seem to be hesitant to claim power for themselves, which has left some experts wondering if they can or even want to. Something that does seem certain going forward is the Houthis will, while not necessarily trying to run the future government, at least increase their status and avoid any perception of marginalization again.

Another concern is the role of Iran. While the Houthis have denied direct support from Tehran it is quite possible that Iran or its allies, such as Hezbollah, have provided weapons to the Houthis; however, this revolution is Yemen-centric, so it is important to not give Iran too much weight. Nevertheless, with Iran and Saudi Arabia locked in an ongoing proxy war, this does potentially present Iran with another opportunity to empower a Shia Islamic movement.

In the meantime however, this has opened Yemen to increased chaos. This could very likely help AQAP attract new members who are unsatisfied with the government and weary of the advancing rebels. AQAP might also be increasingly hard for the U.S. to target in Yemen without government support and an unfriendly Houthi regime in charge. Furthermore, there are also fears of succession in the south, which is something Saudi Arabia has long favored.

For the U.S., Yemen offers no resources or other tangible benefits; however, its proximity to Saudi Arabia, a major oil producer, as well as the presence of AQAP, the only Al Qaeda branch since 9/11 to attempt attacks on the American homeland, will likely keep the United States interested at the very least. The video that follows discusses several of the possibilities looming in Yemen’s future.

Conclusion

Yemen is in a chaos bordering on failure. Its government has resigned and in its place is a rebel tribe, possibly backed by Iran, and an Al Qaeda offshoot vying for power. Amid all this anarchy the average citizen remains poor, hungry, and likely very afraid.

Yemen’s role alongside the U.S. is also in doubt. Without a loyal government, U.S. counterterrorism efforts could take a hit, which is especially troubling as the AQAP is perhaps the most dangerous Al Qaeda branch beyond its own borders, as exemplified by the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France. Therefore while Yemen hashes out its internal politics, the whole region and world will be paying close attention. The results could have ramifications far beyond its borders and affect more than just its inhabitants.

Resources

Primary

Congressional Research Service: Yemen: Background and U.S. Relations

Additional 

Time: A Brief History of Yemen

BBC: Yemen Profile

BBC: Arab Uprising

CNN: Yemen’s President, Cabinet Resign

BBC: Yemen Crisis: Who Are the Houthis

NPR: Who Are the Houthis of Yemen?

Global Security: Al Qaeda Organization

Al Arabiya: Yemen’s Houthis

BBC: Yemen Crisis

The New York Times: Anwar Al-Awlaki

Daily Star:  Yemen’s Crisis

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Yemen: Anarchy at the Edge of the Arabian Peninsula appeared first on Law Street.

The violence in Paris several weeks ago united Europe as little else has in recent years. Plagued by economic decline, some of the more prosperous nations have voiced discontent with the state of the European Union. Partly leading this surge is a wave of far-right political movements. These nationalist movements are gaining traction from Berlin to Paris to London as people tire of stagnant economic growth and demands for bail outs.

Additionally in many of these countries, a dramatic demographic change is occurring in which traditional peoples and cultures are finding themselves increasingly co-habitating with people who have different beliefs and practices. Read on to learn about the political shift and rise of right-wing groups in Europe after years of economic concerns and changing demographics in the region.

History of the European Union

The European Union, unsurprisingly, traces its roots to the aftermath of WWII. With the continent in ruins, several representatives from leading nations attempted to finally find some way to unify the region and put an end to the seemingly endless fighting that had just led to the most destructive war the world has ever known.

The process started with the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, which had six founding members: West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. These six nations agreed to unite their coal and steel production. The foundation was built up further with the Treaty of Rome in 1957, which created the European Economic Community (EEC). In 1967 the European Parliament was created and in 1979 it had its first direct elections.

The European Union itself was codified in 1993 through the Treaty of Maastricht. In 2002, the Euro replaced the currency of 12 of the 15 members of the organization. The Euro reached its highest value against the dollar in 2008; however, like much of the rest of the developed world, the EU was then rocked by the global economic crisis. Since this time, the EU has been attempting to fight off recession and recover, with the only real bright spot being the addition of its twenty-eighth member country Croatia in 2013. The video below gives a succinct explanation of the EU.

Economic Turmoil

In 2008 the global financial crisis hit the European Union and the results have been devastating both economically and with regard to the unity of the region.

The Rich

The economic crisis has hit both rich and poor countries within the Eurozone alike. While many of the rich countries were not in need of bail outs, they still suffered from high debt. First, they had to bail out those troubled fellow EU members that were unable to pay off their high debts after the crisis hit. They also lost markets to sell goods as the cash-strapped nations to the south could not afford to buy as much of their products.

Furthermore, while some indicators of a healthy economy appear to show rich countries in the EU doing well, these can be misleading. In the case of Germany for example, unemployment sits at a very respectable five percent; however, economic growth is virtually flat. In the third quarter of 2014 the economy only grew 0.1 percent, which followed on the heels of a second quarter in which Germany’s economy actually shrunk by 0.1 percent.

Germany is far from the only and certainly not the worst-off wealthy nation in the Eurozone either. France, the second largest economy in the EU, has an unemployment rate of over ten percent and grew only 0.3 percent during the third quarter of 2013. This miniscule growth, similar to that of Germany, also followed a second quarter contraction. Other cases include Spain, the number four economy, and Italy, the number three economy in the Eurozone, with unemployment rates of about 24 percent and 13 percent respectfully.

The Struggling

While the economic crisis certainly hit both wealthy and poor European nations, as is usually the case, the less robust economies ended up worse off. It begins of course with the bail outs. Ireland, Portugal, Greece, Spain, and Cyprus all had to accept large sums of money from other EU members to avoid default.

Furthermore, as a result of the bail outs, these countries and others struggling with the debt crisis have had to employ austerity measures; however, this strategy limits growth especially because creditors will be hesitant to lend money to struggling economies. This then creates a brutal cycle in which these countries have a difficult time paying off their debts because growth is low and unemployment will remain high. The video below gives a great explanation of the European Union’s economic problems.

Changing Demographics

Coupled with a shaky economic situation are dramatic demographic changes in Europe. This change can be divided into three categories: fertility, age, and ethnicity. First Europe as a whole has a very low fertility rate. Fertility rate is basically the number of children a family can expect to have during its childbearing years. Replacement level, or the level of children being born needed to adequately replace the existing population, is 2.1 children. In 2012 the average fertility rate for countries within the European Union was 1.6 children–well below replacement levels.

Since fewer children are being born, the average populations of these countries are rapidly aging. In Poland for example, the percentage of people above the working age population, 15-64, is expected to increase from 20.9 percent in 2010 to 58 percent in 2050. A large aging population can be a double edged sword, as not only are older people more dependent on public services such as health care and pensions, but they are also less productive in the economy and save less, which affects investing.

Thus a lack of new labor and a society that increasingly needs it has led to mass migration in Europe. This migration can be broken down into two groups. First is the traditional type of immigration, specifically from countries outside the EU to countries inside of it. In 2012, for example, 1.7 million people migrated to the European Union. The other type of migration is within the European Union itself; this figure also was approximately 1.7 million for the year 2012. Both types of migration are headed in one specific direction–west. Western European nations, which not coincidentally have the best economies, are bearing the brunt of the mass movements. The top five destinations in order of descending immigrant arrivals were Germany, the UK, Italy, France, and Spain.

It’s also important to note the origin of the people immigrating. Many are coming from Eastern Europe. A large portion of the incoming people and groups are also Muslim. While it cannot be reiterated enough that the vast majority of Muslim immigrants are in every way able adaptable to European life, there is tension in Europe over this influx. Current events, such as the fact that it has been estimated that currently as many as three thousand European-born Muslims have fought on behalf of ISIS or other extremist groups in the Middle East, haven’t helped this tension.

While fear of these fighters returning home has far outstripped any actual problems, the recent shootings in Paris show what can occur when a marginalized group becomes incredibly radicalized. Unfortunately this image of radicalized Muslims plays perfectly into the hands of politicians and right-wing groups that have come to prominence at the expense of immigrant groups.

Europe has a long history of xenophobia. When it deals with mass immigration, the fear has turned into Islamaphobia.  While western Europeans may not be particularly thrilled with eastern European immigrants, Muslims are being singled out in particular because of their different culture and the historical legacy of conflict between Christian and Muslim areas of Europe and the Middle East. This fear and Islamaphobia also extends to first and second generation Muslims as well, particularly in a time of economic uncertainty.

The Reemergence of the Right Wing

All these issues–economic problems, low fertility rates, and mass immigration–have led to a resurgence in the power and appeal of right-wing parties in Europe. More specifically, what has led to this rise is how economic problems are perceived as being compounded by immigration. For example, in the European Union the youth unemployment rate as a whole is 23 percent; in Greece it has been as high as 60 percent.

In a sadly ironic twist the backlash to this has usually been against immigrants who are perceived as stealing the few precious jobs that are available; however, immigration is necessary in the first place because the birth rates are so low. Additionally, immigrant populations have even higher unemployment rates than native youth.

As a result of these concerns, in recent elections several far-right parties including France’s Front National, Greece’s Golden Dawn, Hungary’s Jobbik, and the United Kingdom’s UKIP all won a surprising number of votes. Each of these parties display different combinations of outward anti-Semitism, anti-immigrant sentiments, and racism, or have been associated with such traits in the past. While this by no means represents a majority, it does indicate a disturbing trend for the European Union.

While it seems clear that far-right political movements are on the rise in Europe, the question turns to what exactly these groups want. Just like other political groups, especially across national lines, their interests vary. Overall, the focus seems to be anti-immigration, specifically based on a fear that immigrants will take away badly needed jobs from native residents. At the forefront of this movement is the Front National in France, which won the most seats in the European Parliament of any far right party.

The Front National can be characterized as one of the most moderate of the far-right parties coming to power.  Its primary focus is on nationalism instead of more overtly far-right ideologies espoused by other groups such as Golden Dawn, Jobbik, and the accused neo-Nazi NPD group in Germany; however, Front National has its roots in exactly the same kinds of dogma that these groups maintain, namely anti-Semitism and racism. This is why the far right party in Britain, the UKIP, has refused to join with them. Thus the main connection these groups all seem to have is strong support for anti-immigration measures, which entails moving away from a united Europe and its open migration policies between nations. The video below provides further explanation of the rise of far-right parties and what they believe.

Current State of the Union

Europe appears to be in serious trouble. Its native population is dwindling because of low fertility rates and an aging population. The people migrating in to fill this void, while on the whole younger, also bring different cultures and mindsets. All this has led to a wave of right-wing parties that are in favor of closing borders, ousting immigrants, and breaking away from the ailing European Union.

Europe’s economy, while growing slightly, is still badly damaged and will likely take years just to return to pre-recession levels. Additionally, fertility rates in Europe show no signs of increasing for the most part, at least in native-born citizens. Without more people to assist the aging population, immigration is also likely to continue. This immigration is also likely to continue from Eastern Europe and nations with different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, which often include large numbers of Muslims.

In the future, however, it seems possible that significant changes could come to the union. First it is possible that the UK leaves the EU. Prime Minister David Cameron has already been cornered into a vote on whether or not to stay in the union. While a vote certainly doesn’t mean anything for certain, the mere fact that it is being forced upon him does. If the UK does leave it could have additional shockwaves on other nations such as France and Germany and may also lower confidence in the EU’s future.

A lot rides on France and Germany. They both have already invested a lot in the European Union and reaped rewards from it, so it might be a stretch for them to leave; however, calls for potential European bank reforms to mimic what they have done nationally shows not only how they view their own importance in Europe, but also is a test of how the other members view them as well.

Conclusion

Far right parties are becoming increasingly popular and powerful in Europe. This has been the result of a number of factors; notably the Eurozone economic crisis, low fertility rates, an aging population, and a large influx in immigrants. Furthermore, every indication shows that these mechanisms are only likely to keep moving down this path and not reverse course. Therefore, while it is too early to give up on the grand experiment of a United States of Europe, serious reforms are needed if the experiment is to work. Reform is also necessary if European leaders hope to quell the rising influence of far-right parties and their supporters.

Resources

Primary

World Bank: Learning About the Unknown: The Economic Impacts of Aging in Europe and Central Asia

European Commission: 2014 Autumn Economic Forecast; Slow Recovery With Very Low Inflation

European Commission: Eurostat; Migration and Migrant Population Statistics

Additional

NPR: A Brief History of the EU

Forbes: Suddenly the EU’s Break-Up Has Moved From a Long Shot to a Probability

The New York Times: Study on Wealth Fuels Euro Crisis Debate in Germany

Statista: Unemployment Rate in Member States of the European Union

Eurostat: Total Fertility Rates

Vienna Institutefor International Economic Studies: Effects of Euro Crisis on Europe’s Periphery

Telegraph: Muslim Europe; The Demographic Time Bomb Transforming Our Continent

CNN: From Antwerp to Aleppo–and Back; Europe’s Nightmare

Guardian: Eurozone Growth Figures; Germany Narrowly Avoids Triple-Dip Recession

New Geography: Will Europe Hit a Demographic Turning Point?

Huffington Post: Sudden Rise of Far-Right Groups in EU Parliament Rings Alarm Bells Across Europe

USA Today: Immigration Backlah is on the Rise in Europe

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Right-Wing Groups in Europe: A Rising Force? appeared first on Law Street.

Sharia law can be confusing to many people outside of the Muslim community, mostly because of a combination of what we hear on the news, stereotypes, and what we are told by those practicing the Islamic faith. Find out more about what Sharia law is, as well as its parent religion Islam and its history.

What is Islam?

Islam is a monotheistic religion that was founded by the prophet Muhammad. The focus of Islam is the worship of God, or Allah in Arabic. Islam literally means “surrender” or “submission” and its practitioners are called Muslims, a term that means “one who submits.” The short video below gives a more in-depth understanding of the basics of it.

Islam came into being when Mohammad received a vision from Allah in 622 AD. It was first practiced in Mecca, where it was crushed, but it gained a foothold in the nearby town of Medina. Since then Islam has spread to all corners of the world with roughly 1,500,000,000 believers. Islam has different sects and branches. While the practices described in this piece are traditional, like any religion, every practicing Muslim has a different relationship with Islam.

How is Islam alike and different from Christianity and Judaism?

The biggest similarity between the three is that they are all monotheistic religions–each believes in one God. Islam broke off from the Judeo-Christian tradition and interprets events differently than Judaism and Christianity. For example, like Christianity, Islam believes in Abraham as its father, but differs from Christianity in its interpretation of which son of Abraham’s was the one for whom Allah would make a nation.

What are key points of Islam?

Islam has five key points, or pillars. According to the Cheadle Mosque:

Shahadah, profession of faith, is the first pillar of Islam. Muslims bear witness to the oneness of God by reciting the creed “There is no God but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God.” This simple yet profound statement expresses a Muslim’s complete acceptance of and total commitment to Islam.

Salah, prayer, is the second pillar. The Islamic faith is based on the belief that individuals have a direct relationship with God. The world’s Muslims turn individually and collectively to Makkah, Islam’s holiest city, to offer five daily prayers at dawn, noon, mid-afternoon, sunset and evening. In addition, Friday congregational service is also required. Although salah can he performed alone, it is meritorious to perform it with another or with a group. It is permissible to pray at home, at work, or even outdoors; however it is recommended that Muslims perform salah in a mosque.”

Zakat, almsgiving, is the third pillar. Social responsibility is considered part of one’s service to God; the obligatory act of zakat enshrines this duty. Zakat prescribes payment of fixed proportions of a Muslim’s possessions for the welfare of the entire community and in particular for its neediest members. It is equal to 2.5 percent of an individual’s total net worth, excluding obligations and family expenses.

Sawm, fasting during the holy month of Ramadan, is the fourth pillar of Islam. Ordained in the Holy Qur’an, the fast is an act of deep personal worship in which Muslims seek a richer perception of God. Fasting is also an exercise in self-control whereby one’s sensitivity is heightened to the sufferings of the poor.Ramadan, the month during which the Holy Qur’an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, begins with the sighting of the new moon, after which abstention from eating, drinking and other sensual pleasures is obligatory from dawn to sunset. Ramadan is also a joyful month. Muslims break their fast at sunset with a special meal, iftar, perform additional nocturnal worship, tarawih, after evening prayer; and throng the streets in moods that are festive and communal. The end of Ramadan is observed by three days of celebration called Eid Al-Fitr, the feast of the breaking of the fast. Customarily, it is a time for family reunion and the favored holiday for children who receive new clothing and gifts.

 Hajj, the pilgrimage to Makkah, is the fifth pillar and the most significant manifestation of Islamic faith and unity in the world. For those Muslims who are physically and financially able to make the journey to Makkah, the Hajj is a once in a lifetime duty that is the peak of their religious life. The Hajj is a remarkable spiritual gathering of over two million Muslims from all over the world to the holy city. In performing theHajj, a pilgrim follows the order of ritual that the Prophet Muhammad performed during his last pilgrimage.

What is Sharia Law?

Sharia law is a comprehensive set of regulations that pertain to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody, as well as daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings for all practicing Muslims. Sharia, or Islamic law, influences the legal code in most Muslim countries making it the go-to for any and all questions that many Muslims have on any subject with regard to their daily and spiritual lives.

The Qur’an, the holy book of Islam. Image courtesy of Mattia Belleti via Flickr

What provides the basis for Sharia Law?

There are three sources from which Sharia laws take form. They are the Qur’an, which is the Muslim holy book, the Hadith, which is the sayings and conduct of the prophet Muhammad, and the fatwas, which are the rulings of Islamic scholars.

The Qur’an, pictured above, is the word of Allah, in the way that the Bible is the word of God in Christianity. The Qur’an differs from the Bible in many ways. One of the main differences is that unlike the Bible, which is translated in many different languages, the Qur’an is not. This is because in Islam non-Arabic versions of the Qur’an are considered to be interpretations of the Qur’an and unless the original Arabic verses are embedded on the page alongside the translation, it cannot technically be called a Qur’an.

The Hadith is a series of four books that talk about the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad as well as his conduct. The Hadith covers, quite literally, everything that Muhammad did or said, including details on what to do for public matters such as drinking water, eating, and sleeping, to more private matters such as bathroom habits and sex.

A Fatwa is an “Islamic legal pronouncement issued by an expert in religious law also called a Mufti, pertaining to a specific issue, usually at the request of an individual or judge to resolve an issue where Islamic jurisprudence, also called fiqh, is unclear.” A Fatwa is not binding as is the verdict of a secular court, such as the United States Supreme Court, even though it is considered to be applicable to all members of the Muslim Faith; it all comes to down to the individual to decide if he or she wants to respect the ruling or not. An example of a Fatwa is one that was passed in 1983 forbidding vasectomies, tubectomies, and all forms of abortion.

The list below shows the qualifications that Mufti must have to be able to give a Fatwa:

Know the verses of Qur’ān pertaining to the ruling at hand;

Know the reason behind the verses of Qur’ān related to the ruling – when each was revealed and why;

Distinguish the supportive and oppositional verses of the Qur’ān;

Know all the hadith pertaining to the ruling and the soundness of their chain of transmission;

Be familiar with the legal precedents of the issue before him, including the arguments or consensus reached by earlier scholars; and

Be well-versed in the syntax, grammar, pronunciation, idioms, special linguistic uses, customs and culture prevalent at the time of the Prophet (s) and succeeding two generations.

Anyone who issues a Fatwa that is not qualified according to the standards set above has broken the commands as set out by Muhammad’s successor Umar and is subject to punishment. To some Muslims, these unqualified groups would also include any radical extremist groups.

Where is Sharia Law mostly to be found?

Thirty-five countries currently incorporate Sharia into their civil, common, or customary law; however, they enact the laws very differently. For example, Indonesia, Egypt, Turkey, and Morocco all use Sharia as a primary source of law and do not allow for the stoning or mutilation of people for crimes. On the flip-side, more hard-line Islamic states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Somalia do allow for them, but they are rarely used or enforced.

What are examples of Sharia Law?

The main examples that the Western World hears about are called Hadd offenses, which are unlawful sexual intercourse including sex outside of marriage and adultery, false accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, drinking certain types of alcohol, theft, and highway robbery. These five crimes can be punished in one of the following five ways: flogging, stoning, amputation, exile, or execution. These forms of punishment may also be turned into public spectacles. The reason for this is to serve as a deterrent for others who may be thinking about committing the same crime. There are other ways to break Sharia Law with different punishments or policies attached.

How is Sharia Law applied in secular nations?

That is a debatable question that has been raging for the last decade. Here is how Sharia Law has been used in a few different secular nations.

Britain

According to the BBC:

In two important areas British law has incorporated religious legal considerations. British food regulations allow meat to be slaughtered according to Jewish and Islamic practices – a touchstone issue for both communities.

Secondly, the Treasury has approved Sharia-compliant financial products such as mortgages and investments. Islam forbids interest on the basis that it is money unjustly earned. These products are said by supporters to meet the needs of modern life in a way that fits the faith.

America 

Sharia law has entered into some state court decisions, usually to do with personal disputes. An example of this is a case that happened in the state of New Jersey where a woman filed for divorce on the basis that her husband had left her. The husband cited Pakistani law, which follows Sharia, claiming that New Jersey had no right to interfere. The trial court agreed with the wife and ordered the husband to pay spousal maintenance; however, the Appellate Court overturned the ruling based on the fact that the couple’s Islamic pre-marital agreement did not provide for spousal maintenance and did not allow the wife to take an interest in the husband’s property.

Conclusion

Sharia Law is a collection of laws that dictate order to Islamic societies. Many Muslims who wish to be true to the commands of Allah attempt to follow these laws as best as they can. Although there’s a lot of misinformation out there, Sharia Law’s applications depend on the circumstances, nation, and individual.

Resources

Primary

Saudi Embassy: Five Pillars 

Islamic Supreme Court of America: What is a Fatwa? 

Additional

Slate: How to Read the Quran

BBC: Q&A Sharia Law Explained

Patheos Library: Islam 

JRank: Comparative Criminal Law and Enforcement: Islam – Hadd Offenses, False Accusation Of Unlawful Intercourse (kadhf ), Drinking Of Wine (shurb), Theft (sariqa)

Council on Foreign Relations: Islam: Governing Under Sharia

PBS: Five Pillars

JRank: Comparative Criminal Law Enforcement Islam

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to credit select information to BBC. 

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sharia Law: History and Modern Application appeared first on Law Street.

Hello again! It feels like it has been a year since I’ve written. (Get it? Because it is 2015 now? Lol?) But I am back now, and it’s time to get into the thick of it.

We are now nearly two weeks into the new year and have already had a heavy dose of tragedy. Unless you have been cut off from internet and television over the past few days, you’ve heard about the Charlie Hebdo shootings. Regardless of what your opinion is of that publication, the murder of those people was an act of terror and an infringement on their rights as humans and French citizens.

Whenever there is an act of extremism related to one system of belief, there are those who call out the entire group. I don’t know why this does not go without saying, but ONE BAD APPLE DOES NOT SPOIL THE WHOLE BUNCH.

While Al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups call themselves Muslim, not all Muslims belong to Al-Qaeda. Yet, people like news magnate Rupert Murdoch go off and blame the entire religion.

Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible.

— Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) January 10, 2015

Uhh….

Luckily, we have witty and intelligent people in the world like J.K. Rowling, who some of you may know as the author of a little series called Harry Potter, to put people like Murdoch in their place.

I was born Christian. If that makes Rupert Murdoch my responsibility, I’ll auto-excommunicate. http://t.co/Atw1wNk8UX

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) January 11, 2015

.@dom209 The Spanish Inquisition was my fault, as is all Christian fundamentalist violence. Oh, and Jim Bakker.

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) January 11, 2015

 

It is always promising when voices of reason speak out, especially when those voices have four million Twitter followers. Rowling’s cutting sarcasm continued with responses to fans who joined in her satire, resulting in a truly entertaining and enlightening Twitter feed.

When horrible things happen, like the events in Paris on January 7, instead of playing the blame game, those with sizable influence–like Murdoch–should join in the fight for justice. Yet, too often, we see hate answered with hate.

We can be thankful that most of the world’s population, including many political leaders, have joined together and targeted the real source of the attacks: religious extremists. Infamous hacking organization Anonymous has even declared war on jihadists, laying out a plan of attack centered in cyber world. It is not the responsibility of practitioners of Islam to rid the world of Islamic extremists. We are all affected by their acts, and we can all help in the effort to “destroy their growing cancer.”

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post J.K. Rowling Has Perfect Response to Anti-Muslim Tweets appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, Christmas is right around the corner. Unlike my awesome, totally not annoying friend on Facebook who has had a daily countdown to Christmas going since like, October (I shit you not), I am kind of freaking out right now.

Oh come on, like you aren’t. Gift buying is hard.

However! Despite the stress of Christmas money-spending and family-schmoozing, there is some holiday time awesomeness happening in the world this week.

And it’s happening in—wait for it…

Australia!

The land of terrifying spiders and other freakishly large insects is setting a really great example for the rest of the world this week, as they respond to the hostage crisis that’s currently unfolding in Sydney.

In case you haven’t been following the news, Man Haron Monis, an Iranian political refugee, held 17 hostages at gunpoint inside a Lindt Chocolat Café in downtown Sydney early Monday morning. After 16 hours, Australian police stormed the café.

Three people were killed—Monis being one of them—and four were injured. Monis had an extensive prior record with law enforcement in Sydney, and officials currently believe he acted alone.

This is a terrible, awful thing that happened in Sydney, and I think it’s safe to say that our hearts are collectively with the hostages and their families.

However.

The people of Sydney are handling this tragedy remarkably well. And I mean like, really, REALLY well. People of the United States—and actually, the whole rest of the world—take note.

Here’s what’s happening.

Muslims in Sydney were feeling understandably concerned about their safety in the aftermath of this hostage crisis. In countries like the U.S., every time Muslims are in the news, for literally any reason—whether it’s a terrorist attack or an innocent debate about where to build a new mosque—anti-Muslim hate crimes increase.

So, to recap, whenever Americans are reminded that there are Muslims among them, they start attacking them at significantly higher rates.

Seriously, guys? This is some racist bullshit. Stop it.

But, in Sydney, they tend to handle things a little better. Or, you know, a LOT better. Instead of attacking Muslim Australians or vandalizing their homes, businesses, and mosques, non-Muslims in Sydney decided to step up and protect their fellow residents.

A Twitter hashtag, #IllRideWithYou, started when a single, non-Muslim person offered to walk with a woman wearing a Hijab who presumably felt unsafe.

Muslim removed her hijab, out of fear. Passenger told her to put it back on and offered to walk w her #IllRideWithYou http://t.co/h3uGyTjUmC

— Jeremy Duncan (@duncanjeremy) December 15, 2014

Tweets started to follow, as other non-Muslims throughout Sydney started to post their commuting routes, offering to ride with any Muslims in religious clothing who were concerned about their safety.  

Anybody concerned for their safety going to work in Brisbane tomorrow morning from the Northside, #illridewithyou — Ben Clark (@scouse_roar) December 15, 2014

If you wear religious attire, & need to get from #Adelaide‘s west suburbs to the city on Tues but don’t want to travel alone #illridewithyou

— Sharna Bremner (@sharnatweets) December 15, 2014

Practical thing: I’ve made a temporary sticker for my bag so people who need me can spot me #illridewithyou pic.twitter.com/aVldEn9wVU — Kristen Boschma (@Kristen_Boschma) December 15, 2014

The hashtag has since gone viral, and that’s really fucking awesome.

#illridewithyou anytime. This campaign makes me proud to be an Aussie in the face of something truly… http://t.co/YDsD8FC1VE

— Ms Darlinghurst (@msdarlinghurst) December 15, 2014

“Small acts, if multiplied by millions, can transform the world”#illridewithyou [pic] — https://t.co/NrF8jgNW5A — Linda Sjahreza (@lindasjahreza) December 15, 2014

The people of Sydney are using social media to let Muslims in their communities know that they’re safe in their homes and on the streets. No need to fear retaliation in the name of this hostage crisis—the people of Australia understand that the actions of one disturbed human being don’t translate to an entire religion of people who have nothing to do with him.

For those who still struggle, here’s a better illustration. #illridewithyou pic.twitter.com/5DiHn6BfS3

— Junaid (@Its_JunaidS) December 15, 2014

In short, Australians are responding to the Lindt hostage crisis by doing the opposite of what many Americans would do.

They’re being actively anti-racist.

I’ll be in the city/Craigieburn line/59 tram today with this on. Sorry the writing isn’t very big! #illridewithyou pic.twitter.com/GCJ6sjCgvo

— Neezus. (@thatnem0kid) December 15, 2014

So, people of Sydney, we salute you. You’re restoring our collective faith in humanity today. Keep being awesome.

Everyone else—let’s follow Sydney’s example, mmkay?

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Australians School the World on How To Not Be Racist appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of the tragic and monstrous attacks on America on September 11, 2001, it is important to continue commemorating and honoring that day, and it is important to keep discussing that day’s stories and contexts. One survivor of the attacks is asking for just that. This year, Greg Trevor wrote an op-ed for New Jersey’s Star-Ledger requesting that September 11 be memorialized as a “National Day of Discussion, where Americans actively seek ways to find common ground across political, religious and cultural divides.” He suggested this as an alternative to 9/11 being commercialized like Memorial Day or rarely brought into mainstream attention like Pearl Harbor Day. America should listen to this survivor and talk about our feelings toward Islam, and our judgments about religion in general.

This summer, the Arab American Institute polled Americans about their attitudes toward Arabs and Muslims. Its key findings include sad statistics: just under half of Americans “support the use of profiling by law enforcement against Arab Americans and American Muslims,” while an increasing “percentage of Americans say that they lack confidence in the ability of individuals from either community to perform their duties as Americans should they be appointed to an important government position.” In the 13 years since 9/11, these numbers have only gotten worse. It’s part of a persistent Western Islamophobia. One Gallup article details this fear that so many in the West have of Muslims. At 48 percent, Muslims are the religious group most likely to feel racially or religiously discriminated against by Americans. There is great concern among Muslims internationally, too, about how the West treats them. Because the terrorists who orchestrated 9/11 were Muslim, a great deal of latent Islamophobic sentiment was released after the attacks. How are we addressing this reaction?

President Obama recently reaffirmed his statement that Islamist extremists, from Al-Qaeda to the Islamic State, are not truly Muslim. Saying that the Islamic State “is not Islamic,” he claimed that “no religion condones the killing of innocents.” Obama has made this claim before, and his predecessor affirmed the same. Less than a week after 9/11, President George W. Bush said that “the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.” On the one hand, these proclamations from American presidents are laudable and can do much to temper Islamophobia in the U.S. On the other hand, it isn’t their place to make claims like that about an entire religion.

Let’s get something straight: religion is kind of complicated. There are a lot of religious texts, doctrines, and mandates that condone, value, and encourage violence. This isn’t restricted to Islam. The Old and New Testaments, too, have inspired a great deal of violence. Religions that originated in the East are not free from it, either; this summer Buddhists in Burma again attacked their Muslim neighbors.

Yet peace is prevalent in religious texts, too. Love, compassion, and understanding are fundamental in many religions, Islam included. Both these presidents are Christians, but they were more than willing to paint the over one billion adherents with one broad brush. I do not think that one person of any religion should make a broad claim about each of its adherents. Religion is a complex web of faith that we should be wary of characterizing singularly. President Obama is right in that Islam is a peaceful practice. President Obama is wrong, too, as devout Muslims have looked to their texts for justification of sick violence.

Politically, it’d be preferable if religion could be summed up by either “peace” or “violence” or some other trait. But religion’s complexity, dynamism, and diversity make it interesting, relevant, and beautiful, even. Of course, the aspects of violence contribute in no way to that beauty. Should people use religion as a justification for violence? Never. But to ignore that violence is a part of religion’s history, present, and most likely its future is unfortunately a mistake.

This is why we need a Day of Discussion. This is why we need to talk, learn, and grow. We can’t be prejudicial of Muslims, but we sure can be prejudicial of the terrorists in Iraq and Syria. We have to be mature enough to condemn those Muslims and not condemn all Muslims. Hindsight allows us to condemn the Spanish Inquisitors who persecuted people of other faiths. Those Catholics did horrible things, but we can’t condemn all Catholics or Catholicism generally. Making these distinctions is important, and generalizing is dangerous. If we listen to survivor Greg Trevor and sit down to talk about it a little more, I think we would be on the right path.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Violence, Religion, and the Need for a 9/11 Day of Discussion appeared first on Law Street.

Meriam Ibrahim, the 27-year-old Christian woman who was jailed for apostasy in Sudan and sentenced to death by hanging last May has finally been set free, again.

Ibrahim’s story has gone global as she is the only Sudanese woman to escape a death sentence without renouncing her faith. Ibrahim was convicted of apostasy, the renunciation of one’s religion, after marrying a Christian man, Daniel Wani in 2011. The Sudanese government sentenced Ibrahim to death after she birthed her child, but through the efforts of diplomats and other world leaders, Ibrahim was released from jail and the charges were dropped.

Ibrahim’s release seemed to be a step forward by the hard-ass Islamic government in Sudan. It seemed that they had finally realized how barbaric they were being. But just as I raised my hands up to applaud the Sudanese government, they went and re-arrested the poor woman.

Liars! I say liars! Ibrahim barely had 24 hours of freedom before she was arrested for trying to leave the country. Really? Just for trying to leave after being imprisoned for holding on to her faith. Sudan, I didn’t hold your policies in the highest regard before, but now I am so ashamed, I can barely look you in the eye.

So ashamed.

Thankfully she was re-released on the condition that she remains in Sudan, according to her lawyer. She now faces forgery charges because of the travel documents she attempted to use to fly out of the country. South Sudan gave visas to the family to travel to America because the husband, Wani, is recognized as a citizen there. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that Ibrahim had all the documents needed to travel to the U.S., but that “it is up to the government of Sudan to allow her to exit the country.” Sudan sounds like a clingy ex if you ask me.

You would think that through all this Ms. Ibrahim would at least have the support of her family right? Wrong. Her own brother was quoted by CNN saying, “The family is unconvinced by the court’s decision. We were not informed by the court that she was to be released; this came as a surprise to us…This is now an issue of honor. The Christians have tarnished our honor, and we will know how to avenge it.”

Who said blood was thicker than water?

If it wasn’t for the international outcry by so many official figures across the world, Ms. Ibrahim wouldn’t have been saved. But support has come from notable figures such as British Prime minister David Cameron who said he was “absolutely appalled,” by the sentence given by the court, and told The Times that “religious freedom is an absolute, fundamental human right, I urge the government of Sudan to overturn the sentence and immediately provide appropriate support and medical care for her and her children.”

Amnesty International headed a campaign demanding the immediate release and halted execution of Ibrahim, started a Change.org petition that has gained more than 600,000 signatures, and released a statement saying, “the fact that a woman has been sentenced to death for her religious choice, and to flogging for being married to a man of an allegedly different religion is appalling and abhorrent. Adultery and apostasy are acts which should not be considered crimes at all. It is a flagrant breach of international human rights law.”

The U.S. State Department said it was “deeply disturbed” by the sentence and called on the Sudanese government to respect Ms. Ibrahim’s religious freedoms.

And to put the sweet icing on top of the justice cake, tweets calling on the Sudanese government to release Ibrahim from Hillary Clinton, David Cameron, and British personality Laura Laverne were retweeted thousands of times.

I am absolutely appalled by the decision to sentence #MeriamIbrahim to death. The way she is being treated has no place in today's world.

— David Cameron (@David_Cameron) May 31, 2014

Meriam Yahya Ibrahim’s death sentence is abhorrent. Sudan should stop threatening religious freedom and fundamental human rights.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) May 24, 2014

#Sudan: pregnant mother sentenced to death for apostasy. Take action to save her life https://t.co/fQqZlRIRxx

— Lauren Laverne (@laurenlaverne) May 21, 2014

The problem at hand here is the so called “Freedom of Religion” in Sudan. In 2005 the Interim National Constitution of Sudan provided freedom of religion throughout the entire country, but in practice religious minorities exist between the North and the South. Christians in the North face strong social pressure to convert, and Muslims who express interest in converting face even stronger pressures to recant. Ibrahim was the first woman who did not have to convert religions to be released. Forcing women into believing in a certain religion doesn’t seem all that holy to me, and while the step is small, Ms. Ibrahim’s case is a step in the right direction.

Although she is being forced to stay in Sudan, I have a strong feeling that Amnesty International, the U.S. State Department, the British Parliament, and Hillary Clinton will all still have a strong voice in the matter and Ms. Ibrahim and her family will be free at last.

Bring it

—

Trevor Smith

Featured imaged courtesy of [Waiting for the Word via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meriam Ibrahim: Free at Last? appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, have you been watching the news lately?

I’m guessing yes, because you’re all socially conscious, politically engaged legal mavericks, right?

Awesome! So you’ve heard about ISIS, then, I’m sure.

In case you haven’t been watching the news lately — because sunshine and summer weather — ISIS is an extremist Muslim terrorist group that currently controls a significant chunk of northern Iraq and parts of rebel Syria. Not coincidentally, their territory overlaps a TON with important oil sources. Once a part of al-Qaeda, ISIS split off as its own separate entity earlier this year.

Why?

Because their ideology was too extreme even for bin Laden’s cronies. That says a lot.

ISIS — which stands for The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – made news this week after the Washington Post translated its “Contract of the City,” a document that was distributed to citizens of the Iraqi province of Nineveh. Folks, it’s pretty cray.

The contract essentially reads like a list of rules, a dos and don’ts guideline, if you will, for the people of Nineveh. It lists limb amputation as a suitable punishment for stealing, allows for the crucifixion of criminals, and essentially bans women from leaving their homes.

This is really not cool. But! Before you get all hawk-eyed and demand American intervention in Iraq to save all the poor, downtrodden Iraqi victims, let’s all take a moment and listen to Jon Stewart.

I fucking love this man.

Folks, here’s the deal: Groups like al Qaeda, and its increasingly violent offshoot, ISIS, are awful and dangerous and need to be stopped. They totally need to stop existing. We are all in agreement there.

Not only do they pose a threat to the Iraqi people as a whole — who are at risk of getting their limbs chopped off willy nilly if they break a rule on their way to work — but they also pose a threat to the larger global community. Their ideology is depressingly common, and the more power groups like theirs seize, the more hostile the world becomes to people who don’t fit into their agenda.

Namely women, queer people, trans people, disabled people, and people of different races, ethnicities, and religious backgrounds.

This is a group that sees women as inherently less than. They’re required to wear “modest dress,” which essentially means they’ll be punished for wearing anything other than a full burqa. They can’t leave their homes. They are bought and sold like property from fathers to husbands. And wife beating? Totally cool.

ISIS doesn’t see women — or anyone else who isn’t a straight, masculine-presenting, Muslim man — as people. They’re not human beings. It’s a really, really bad situation.

And because of that, along with obvious national security concerns, many Americans want to rush our military right back into Iraq. John McCain, as the always entertaining Jon Stewart reminds us, is one of those folks. But there’s a huge hole in that plan.

Groups like ISIS exist because of Western intervention in the Middle East. They are a direct result of Western imperialism. Al Qaeda formed in the late 1980s as a reaction to Russia’s occupation of Afghanistan — a move that subjected the Afghan people to extreme violence and poverty. It formed as a resistance movement, an answer to the injustices Afghanistan faced at the hands of European, imperialist oppressors.

And they only gained traction as the West continued to insert itself into a corner of the world where it ultimately didn’t belong. Violence and living conditions worsened for civilians. Coups were staged, leaders were deposed, and corrupt figureheads were set up in their place. (Remember Saddam Hussein? The U.S. and Great Britain put him there).

The political problems that plague the Middle East are largely our fault. But instead of taking responsibility for the consequences of misguided power-grabbing and oil pursuit, the U.S. likes to paint a different picture. A pretty racist one, in fact, where Iraqi is a confused, childlike nation, unable to govern itself without making a huge mess. And Americans? We’re painted as the concerned father figure, stepping in to calm the commotion.

But folks, it’s not true. This story is a lie.

The U.S. isn’t a soothing father figure. It’s more like an instigator. And the sexist, xenophobic ideology of groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda isn’t the product of an unsophisticated, backward, childlike nation. The ideology of our conservative leaders is chillingly similar, if more palatably phrased and with Jesus, not Allah, at its helm.

The white savior narrative that war hawks like John McCain are spewing was created by an elite group of politicians and corporate powerhouses who crave money, power, and oil. They don’t care what it costs.

But I hope that you do.

Let’s come up with a more innovative solution to warmongering in Iraq. A solution that doesn’t rely on lies, racism, and increased violence. A solution that creates real, positive change for the people living under ISIS’ tyranny.

Show the comments what you’ve got.

Featured image courtesy of [United States Forces Iraq via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post PLEASE STOP: How Warhawks Are Perpetuating Violence and Racism appeared first on Law Street.

Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor is the last Jewish Republican in Congress, but he was just beaten in the primary by Tea Party candidate Dave Brat. As a result, some Jews (and some Goys) have been schvitzing over the lack of Jewish representation in the GOP. Minority representation in the Republican party is one concern, regardless of how disingenuous that concern is among Republicans. Another concern that carries some actual weight in the GOP is that American relations with Israel could be strained. The discussion is posed as though Cantor himself is some sort firewall between American support of and disregard for Israel. While I am Jewish and I do care about Israel, I know that Jerusalem isn’t going to be affected by Cantor being gone. At all.

First, the Republican party is going to be just as pro-Israel as it was before. According to the Pew Research Center, 68 percent of Republicans already sympathize more with Israel than with Palestine. Among conservative Republicans, the statistic is even higher at 75 percent. Only seven percent of the GOP would support Palestine over Israel, while the rest said “neither” (nine percent) or “both” (16 percent). Republicans have their reasons for supporting Israel. Well, they have the one reason: the Muslim Middle East is still a bad thing in the eyes of Republicans; as recently as the last midterm election, Pew revealed how Republicans were one of three main groups to view Islam “unfavorably.” The other two groups were the elderly and less-educated people.

It’s not like the GOP is trying to support a demographic in their constituent base. Again, a Pew study shows the political leanings of different Jewish denominations. Only Orthodox Jews have a majority that identifies with the Republican party. All others identify as or at least lean Democratic: Conservative Jews at 64 percent, Reform Jews at 77 percent, and no denomination at 75 percent. On the whole, 70 percent of Jews favor Democrats. Republicans will continue to support Israel fiercely, not because Jews support the GOP, but because of the state’s position as a counterweight against the Muslim Middle East.

When considering the president’s stance, it’s even more evident that Israel’s fate won’t be affected by Cantor’s defeat. In a piece from Bloomberg, Jeffery Goldberg writes about an interview he conducted with Obama. ” Obama will warn Netanyahu that time is running out for Israel as a Jewish-majority democracy…Obama was blunter about Israel’s future than I’ve ever heard him.” The president’s policies on Israeli-relations, as detailed by Goldberg, seem to be some of his strongest and most balanced policies ever. Obama is quoted saying, “I’ve said directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu he has an opportunity to solidify, to lock in, a democratic, Jewish state of Israel that is at peace with its neighbors and…has an opportunity also to take advantage of a potential realignment of interests in the region, as many of the Arab countries see a common threat in Iran.” It’s a mitzvah we have someone in office who can deal with the complexities of an alliance, and not be sorry about being straight with our friends.

Constructively criticizing one another is an essential part of friendship. And what does pro-Israel mean, anyway? In the long run, would the state be better off struggling with its own Arab citizens and belligerent neighbors? Or, isn’t it more likely that Israel’s future will be secure if Jerusalem negotiates with Palestinians? The difference between being a mensch and a shmendrick here isn’t about dogmatism and hostility toward Palestine. Being powerful and pro-Israel means looking down the road and understanding that a peaceful compromise is the greatest possible outcome. It would be enough if we had a president who even acknowledged this, but Obama and Kerry have been actively seeking this goal, too. Dayenu, am I right?

With Cantor gone, no, there won’t be any Congressional Republican Jews. But between the conservative funding of everyone’s least favorite chosen person Sheldon Adelson,a Republican party that’s consistently defensive of Israel, and a president who may be taking the most level-headed approach to the matter in U.S. history, our relationship with Jerusalem will remain solid. We’ll remain the shmeer to their bagel, they the capers to our lox. Still, it’s amazing to me that people care so much about the lack of Jews in the Republican party when it seems as though the Republican party cares so little about Jews. The conservative pro-Israel stance is based on defining Jews against the rest of the Middle East. Should I kvetch that American political parties actually bring Jews into the national conversation? Maybe not. But it may be less insulting to ignore Jews than to use us as a means to end. 

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kevin J. Steinberg via Wikipedia]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cantor Defeated in Primary, Israel Will Be Just Fine appeared first on Law Street.