On Friday, some Arabs praised President Donald Trump on social media after his attack on Syria. On Thursday night, Trump authorized America’s first direct military action against Syria, in retaliation for the Syrian government’s chemical weapons attack against its own people. It was an unexpected move that brought forth condemnation from Russia, praise from fellow Republicans, and a whole host of other reactions worldwide.

Many Arab social media users called Trump Abu Ivanka–“Father of Ivanka.” The nickname is a sign of respect and endearment. Some also referred to him as Abu Ivanka al-Amreeki–Father of Ivanka the American, and photoshopped a picture of him so that it looked like he had a full beard.

More Abu Ivanka al Amreeki hilarity from Syrian friends pic.twitter.com/j72ewXjIiJ

— Kareem Shaheen (@kshaheen) April 7, 2017

One Facebook user gave Trump another kind of makeover wearing a traditional tarboosh hat and wrote, “We love you.” Another one called him a “man of his words” and said that he managed to do what Obama couldn’t in eight years.

Arabs thank President Trump for airstrikes & give him new nickname: Abu Ivanka Al-Amreeki. https://t.co/hjwug8BVEi @BBCWorld pic.twitter.com/V0Vc7m1LDo

— Tara Hamawandi (@TaraHamawandi) April 7, 2017

It may seem bizarre that many people in majority Muslim countries are praising Trump after he announced a ban on Muslim refugees and immigrants. But U.S. allies across the Middle East that were angered when Obama didn’t act more forcefully against Iran to limit its nuclear program or stand against the Syrian government now may see Trump as a more decisive leader.

Many lavished Trump with praise, seemingly with the hope that this marks a shift in the U.S. approach to the conflict in Syria. Israel was also complimentary. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Trump’s actions would send a “message of resolve in the face of the Assad regime’s horrific actions.” However, U.S. officials have not indicated the missile launch is a part of a bigger program–instead the move may just be considered a warning.

“People are jubilant in the Gulf right now,” said Saudi-Arabian Mohammed Alyahya, a fellow at the Atlantic Council, to the New York Times.  “What is clear is that Trump understands what American power can change and is willing to use it.”

“Everyone here in Khan Sheikhoun is happy. It is revenge for the families of the victims,” said Yasser Sarmini, a rebel fighter in the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun that was hit by the latest chemical attack.

However, despite an unusual amount of international support for Trump, many people also criticized his actions. One blogger named Karl Sharro wrote that Trump, in the true tradition of U.S: politics, had discovered that when things go wrong at home you can always “start a military venture 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 Donald Trump Receives Some International Praise After Syria Attack appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning everyone, hope you have all your Christmas gifts in order and you’re finished shopping! Some of us get really stressed out from those last minute errands, but here are some of today’s rants to help you channel all that energy. Stay calm and have a good day! 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:

After Berlin, Trump Doubles Down on Anti-Muslim Rhetoric

Yesterday, President-elect Donald Trump insinuated that the deadly truck attack in Berlin shows that he was right to want to ban Muslims from entering the United States. When reporters asked him whether the attack would cause him to re-evaluate his stance on Muslims, he replied: “You know my plans, all along, I’ve been proven to be right. One hundred percent correct.” It wasn’t clear exactly what Trump meant.

Donald Trump seemed to suggest that the Berlin attack vindicated his proposal to bar Muslims from entering the U.S. https://t.co/V9Wsrnu0Gd

— The New York Times (@nytimes) December 22, 2016

But later, one of his advisers, Jason Miller, said that Trump was only repeating his previous statements that he would “suspend admission of those from countries with high terrorism rates and apply a strict vetting procedure.” Trump has both said and tweeted confusing comments since appearing on the political scene and seems unable to make up his mind on some things. “We know he’s got some instincts and predilections, but there is no coherent Trump foreign-policy doctrine, and we’re not likely to see one,” said vocal Trump critic Professor Eliot A. Cohen to the New York Times.

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 RantCrush Top 5: December 22, 2016 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.

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.

Last week’s verbal battle between London’s new mayor, Sadiq Khan, and Republican candidate Donald Trump is not over. Trump has now replied in an interview with British ITV, and said that Khan’s comments that he is ignorant were “very rude” and that he “will remember them.” Trump pointed out that Khan doesn’t know him and has never met him, and that he doesn’t really care about him or what he thinks. He also suggested an IQ test battle (which Khan declined).

Khan’s comments about Trump being ignorant came after several outbursts from the Republican about Islam and a possible ban on Muslims entering the U.S. After Trump’s comments, British politicians debated a ban on Trump entering their country, after a petition that was signed by over half a million people. However, the discussion in Parliament was seen more as an opportunity to discuss opinions about Trump and will probably not lead to an actual prohibition on a visit from the American. It did, however, lead to a statement from British Prime Minister David Cameron saying Trump’s suggestion to ban Muslims was “divisive, stupid and wrong.”

Donald Trump tells @piersmorgan: I may not have a 'very good relationship' with David Cameron if I become presidenthttps://t.co/Rw3Wc1ojec

— ITV News (@itvnews) May 16, 2016

In this morning’s interview Trump said that he and Cameron are “not going to have a very good relationship” if he’s elected President. In regard to Cameron’s comments, he said that he is not divisive at all, but that “unlike our president now, I’m a unifier.” He also said that Britain leaving the European Union wouldn’t matter to him and would probably not hurt Britain’s economy at all–totally contrary to what President Obama said about the issue in April. Obama said that Britain would end up in the “back of the queue,” since when the U.S. is negotiating trade deals it is primarily focusing on doing so with the bigger block that is the EU.

Britain’s possible exit from the EU, generally called “Brexit,” will be decided in a referendum on June 23. The supporters of Brexit think that the EU is holding Britain back when it comes to trade and economics, and are critical of the many rules and membership fees that the EU is charging. Another point of disagreement is the free movement principle within the EU that allows people from other countries to come and work in Britain.

In the end, Trump called Britain a great ally, and said that the nation would definitely not be at the back of the queue with him, despite his quibbling with the British officials.

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 Trump Responds to “Very Rude” Statements Made by Sadiq Khan and David Cameron appeared first on Law Street.

A development that has so far been described using anecdotal evidence now has some data to back it up: in the wake of the Paris attacks, hate crimes against Muslims and mosques may be increasing. An analysis from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism found that the number of hate crimes since the Paris attacks is nearly three times greater than the monthly average in the past five years. While this finding is striking, it is important to acknowledge how incomplete hate crime data is in the United States.

According to the analysis–which used the FBI’s criteria and definitions from American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code to identify hate crime incidents in news reports–the study found 37 suspected hate crimes between November 13 and December 13. Brian Levin, the director of Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, notes that these findings represent a significant increase based on available data. According to FBI statistics, the United States averaged 12.6 hate crimes with an anti-Islamic bias each month over the previous five years. There were 11 anti-Islamic hate crimes in the week after the San Bernadino shootings alone.

It is important to note that the FBI data on hate crime is, put simply, incomplete. The statistics published each year by the FBI are almost certainly an undercount of the total number of hate crimes. The data, which includes incidents and offenses known to law enforcement, are voluntarily submitted by local law enforcement agencies. While 15,494 agencies participated in Hate Crime Statistics Program last year, only 1,666 agencies reported crimes.

To get a sense of how much information might be missing from the data, let’s look at the numbers. Florida, the third most populous state in the country with nearly 20 million residents, reported 72 hate crimes in 2014. By contrast, the District of Columbia has fewer than 660,000 residents but reported 87 hate crimes over the same period. The FBI even publishes an additional table with all of the agencies that reported zero hate crimes.

Survey data on hate crimes further highlights the gaps in the FBI’s statistics. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, an annual survey of a nationally representative sample of American households, there were about 293,800 hate crimes in 2012, while the FBI data shows fewer than 6,000.*

It is important to note that both data sets are trying to measure different things–the survey tracks self-identified victimization while the FBI data includes incidents known to law enforcement–but the massive gap illustrates that the FBI data is most likely missing something. Even when you account for the fact that approximately 60 percent of survey respondents did not report their victimization to the police, the numbers remain far apart.

So does this mean we should dismiss the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism’s analysis? Researchers claim that there was a significant increase in anti-Islamic hate crimes after the Paris attacks, but they are comparing news reports to FBI data, which is most likely incomplete. The lack of accurate data on hate crimes makes it difficult to draw sweeping conclusions, but there is additional evidence to suggest that Islamaphobia is on the rise in America. Another review of anti-Islamic crimes found that crimes targeting mosques increased after the Paris attacks as well. According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations–which tracks damage, harassment, intimidation, and zoning incidents related to mosques–2015 experienced a significant increase in incidents, especially in recent months. There have also been widespread reports of mosques increasing security because of the perceived threat against Muslims. Even if there has not been a dramatic growth in hate crimes, the perception among Muslims in the United States and around the world is, by itself, a notable consequence of these trends.

While researchers look at a possible increase in hate crimes, anti-Islamic rhetoric has been on the rise. Donald Trump has said we should temporarily ban Muslims from entering the country, supports a database to track Muslims, and said that the United States should consider shutting down mosques. Marco Rubio went further to say that the government should not only shut down mosques but any place where radicalization happens. Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz have argued that preference should be given to Christian refugees fleeing prosecution, indicating that they pose less of a threat than Muslims fleeing the same thing. Ben Carson even used an analogy to compare Syrian refugees to a rabid dog.

We may not know the extent to which growing fear of terrorism has caused hate crimes, but as public resentment towards Muslim Americans grows the evidence, while anecdotal, seems difficult to dismiss.

*The FBI added an addendum to its 2012 report to include additional submissions from Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Texas, but even when the additional data is accounted for the total doesn’t increase much. [back]

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 As Anti-Islamic Rhetoric Grows, Hate Crime Against Muslims May be Rising 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.

First, Donald Trump wanted to ban Mexicans. “Build a wall” he said, and make the Mexican government pay for it. And despite the long list of inherent problems with said plan, a large number of people rejoiced at this supposed fix for America’s “immigration problem.”

Now, Trump has moved on from just banning nationalities and has opted for religions as well. On Monday, the current leader in the race for the Republican presidential nomination voiced that he would call for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” until we can “figure out what’s going on.” That’s right folks, all Muslims. 

Watch Trump’s Comments Below

These seemingly unconstitutional comments marked a swift change from Trump’s usual anti-Muslim rhetoric, quickly distancing the mogul from his GOP counterparts. Now politicians, celebrities, and entire countries are coming out in droves to denounce Trump’s statements and even ban him from certain parts of the globe.

People for Banning Trump

Several American mayors have begun voicing the desire to ban Trump from entering their respective cities–despite having no legal power to actually do so. St. Petersburg, Florida’s Mayor Rick Kriseman announced the decree on Twitter and Sunnyvale, California’s Mayor Jim Griffith quickly followed suit. Kriseman told NBC News on Tuesday that he felt Trump’s statement deserved an equally “ridiculous” response.

I am hereby barring Donald Trump from entering St. Petersburg until we fully understand the dangerous threat posed by all Trumps.

— Rick Kriseman (@Kriseman) December 8, 2015

Ya know, I think Mayor Kriseman is on to something here… https://t.co/txdhBwBlFS — Mayor Jim Griffith (@JimGriffith_SV) December 8, 2015

It’s not just Americans hoping to ban Trump. As of this afternoon, a petition to prohibit Trump from entering the UK has reached 200,000 signatures and is climbing. The petition first went up on Parliament’s website Tuesday, and only needed 100,000 signatures in order to be automatically considered for debate in Parliament.

The GOP Takes a Stand

Many in the Republican Party wasted no time informing the public that Trump’s statement was not indicative of the party as whole. Speaker Paul Ryan was praised after holding a press conference where he simply stated “this is not conservatism.” Fellow presidential hopefuls Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich also called the proposal “unhinged,” “offensive,” and “outrageous” on social media.

Donald Trump is unhinged. His “policy” proposals are not serious.

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) December 7, 2015

I disagree with Donald Trump’s latest proposal. His habit of making offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together. — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) December 8, 2015

pic.twitter.com/noMfFeL3vq

— John Kasich (@JohnKasich) December 7, 2015

Emotional Response

New York Daily News took a more emotionally charged stance on the offensive proposal in the form of a political cartoon comparing Trump to Hitler on Wednesday’s cover. The cartoon was modeled after Pastor Martin Niemöller famous poem, “First They Came,” and drew similarities to Nazi Germany.

Today’s @NYDailyNews cover accompanied by an emotional guest column about @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/Ue4IXx97gr pic.twitter.com/X9xLdSlaYG — New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) December 9, 2015

The Downright Hilarious

However, J.K. Rowling proved she is the master of all things Twitter yet again, with one single tweet that perfectly captured what everyone else was thinking.

How horrible. Voldemort was nowhere near as bad. https://t.co/hFO0XmOpPH — J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) December 8, 2015

Even though politicians, countries, and celebrities are strongly against Trump becoming the next president of the United States, a large portion of America still seems to love him. It appears that the more outrageous the statement, the better Trump polls, and his ability to capture the approval of non-traditional voters has proved he’s more than just a sideshow, he’s an actual contender. But will people finally say “enough is enough” when Trump starts condemning more nationalities, ethnic groups, and religions?

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 The Best Reactions to Trump’s Idiotic Plan to Block Muslims From Entering U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump is know for touting the most controversial comments while on the campaign trail, but his November declaration that “thousands” of New Jersey Muslims celebrated on 9/11 continues to gain traction with fellow Republicans–despite evidence disputing it.

Trump claims that he saw “with his own eyes” on television thousands of people cheering as the buildings came down. Yet experts have combed through news clips from that time period and found nothing. There were, however, several news clips from that time of people celebrating the attack overseas in Muslim countries. Some people have chalked Trump’s comments up to a misrepresentation of those videos, while others think he just pulled the memory out of thin air.

Needless to say, controversy over the comment has caused a division within the Republican party. Some GOP members agree with Trump, and others condemn the political ploy, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush who said it just “didn’t happen” and “I don’t believe it,” respectively. So if you’re looking to keep tabs, here is a list of  the people who have so far chosen to hop on Trump’s Muslim-partying-bandwagon.

Dr. Ben Carson

Carson was one of the first people to support Trump’s claims by saying that he also saw a video of thousands of Muslims partying on 9/11–in New Jersey. But when reporters began to hound him he opted to clarify his statement saying, “I did see the film. I don’t know where they were, but I did see the film.”

Rudy Giuliani

The former mayor of New York City who was in office during the 9/11 attacks should be a reputable source–right? Well, when questioned by CNN Giuliani said “we did have some celebrating, that is true.” However, he rebuked claims that it was “thousands,” but more like “10, 20, 30, 40” people. Giuliani then recounted a story of a Muslim-owned candy shop he’d heard about where some Muslims celebrating in the streets that day were beaten up by local school children.

On the other hand George Pataki, the governor of New York at the time of the attack, disagreed.

Not sure what luxury spider-hole @realDonaldTrump was hiding in on Sept11 but I saw Americans come together that day @GStephanopoulos

— George E. Pataki (@GovernorPataki) November 22, 2015

Debbie Schussel

Schussel, a controversial anti-Muslim right-winged columnist, wrote a column swearing that “thousands of Palestinian Muslims outside Paterson’s town hall” celebrated that day, and even referred to an MTV news report in Paterson, NJ from that time as proof. MTV has since debunked these claims  by digging up the clip in question, which can be watched below. They edited it to add in new footage where they reinterviewed the main witness from that day, then-high school senior Emily Acevedo, who claimed to see kids rioting. Fourteen years later Acevedo says what she saw that night “would have happened any other summer night.”  

Ann Coulter

The controversial commentator claimed to have proof that Muslims did celebrate on 9/11 when she tweeted out a video featuring a Howard Stern taping, where callers claimed to have seen Muslims celebrating in Paterson. Again these claims have not been substantiated.

WOW – THIS MAKES IT 10 PIECES OF PROOF OF MUSLIMS CELEBRATING 9/11 ATTACK IN NJ! @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/3v21LUJyWI — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) December 2, 2015

So are all of these people flat out liars, or could they just be exaggerating or remembering what happened that day wrong? Well according to Elizabeth Loftus, a psychologist and expert on the ways the mind concocts memories at the University of California, that very well could be the case. She claims Trump may be just misremembering rather than lying saying,” just because someone tells you something with a lot of confidence, detail and emotion, it doesn’t mean it really happened.” Whether it’s misremembering or lying, it unfortunately appears to be spreading around.

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 Here’s The Growing List of People Who Swear NJ Muslims Celebrated on 9/11 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.

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.

While you were grinding away last week, you might have missed these three great articles. The #1 story of the week came from Anneliese Mahoney with her take on Fox News guest Steven Emerson’s totally fabricated “facts” about Muslim residents of Birmingham, England; Alexis Evans made her debut with the #2 article of the week–a smart takedown of rapper 2 Chainz debate with TV host Nancy Grace over marijuana policy; and the #3 article of the week came from Morgan McMurray’s coverage of anti-Muslim sentiment on Twitter. ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 No Surprise: Fox News Just Makes Up Facts Now

We all know that Fox News interprets the second part of its name very loosely, but it hit a new low this weekend when it allowed guest Steven Emerson to blatantly make stuff up. Read the full article here.

#2 2 Chainz vs. Nancy Grace: Rapper Wins Debate Over Legalizing Pot

Is this real life? HLN viewers were gifted TV comedic gold the other night in the form of a marijuana debate between the always controversial Nancy Grace and “Fed Watching” rapper 2 Chainz. Grace, whose Wikipedia controversy section alone is cause enough for pause, brought 2 Chainz, who was arrested in 2013 for possessing a weed grinder, on her show to discuss the legalization of marijuana. Funnily enough, it was 2 Chainz who upstaged Grace with actual valid points while she rebutted by showing him irrelevant videos of parents forcing toddlers to smoke pot. Read the full article here.

#3 J.K. Rowling Has Perfect Response to Anti-Muslim Tweets

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. Read the full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.