Wednesday, May 25, 2022

Thurgood Marshall


Thurgood Marshall was a famous lawyer and jurist. Marshall first gained notoriety when he successfully argued and won the very famous landmark case that declared that a separate but equal education for people of color to be unconstitutional – Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas in 1954. He was the first African-American to be a Justice in the United States Supreme Court. His accomplishments were in no small measure due to his hard work and persistence; for, he had to overcome many of the obstacles placed in his way due to the color of his skin.
Marshall was born on July 2, 1908 in Baltimore Maryland in a political climate that was permeated with Jim Crow – the body of local and national laws and customs designed to deny African-Americans the full rights entitled to them as citizens. His parents were Willie and Norma Marshall. It would be of value to preface his story with a cursory view of race history in the United States.
 
Slaves were first brought to the colonies in 1670 and the institution of slavery flourished within the United States for 270 years until the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863.
Prior to this historic pronouncement, issued by President Abraham Lincoln, there were many instances of laws and rulings that were designed to deny African-Americans equal rights. For example, in 1705, the Virginia legislature passed a law that effectively equated Negro, Mulatto and Indian slaves as real estate with no legal rights or legal identity. This was in comparison to states like Massachusetts and Vermont that guaranteed the equal rights to all of its citizens. In addition, on a number of instances, Supreme Court decisions upheld the widespread belief in the inherent inferiority of Blacks.
The famous Dred Scott Decision of 1856 validated the belief that slaves were to be treated separately. Dred Scott was a slave who lived with his owner in the free states of Illinois and Wisconsin. When his owner died in 1843, Scott sued for his freedom. The Supreme Court eventually heard the arguments and in 1857 decided that an African-American slave or free had no constitutional rights.
In the words of Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, “People of African descent are beings of an inferior order and are altogether unfit to associate with the white race in social or political relations, and are so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and legally be reduced to slavery for his benefit.”
To reclaim the inherent rights of all U.S. citizens, the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution were passed beginning in 1868. They were as follows:

AMENDMENT XIII
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--
These amendments were passed to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves during the post-Civil War era. It was Jim Crow that was effectively employed to subvert these newly-held rights. It was into such a racially charged environment that Marshall was born. His grandfather was born into slavery.
In spite of these additional guarantees written into the constitution, the Supreme Court once again ruled in favor of segregation. In 1892, Homer Plessey, one-eighth African-American, purchased a first-class ticket on the East Louisiana Railroad with the intention of challenging state law. He was ordered into a “black car;” he refused and was subsequently thrown off the train and convicted of violating the law. The Supreme Court heard the legal arguments in 1895 and during the next year voted 7-1 against his appeal. In the Court’s opinion, as written by Justice Henry B. Brown, “Legislation is powerless to eradicate social instincts or to abolish distinctions based upon physical differences and the attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present situation.” In his descent, Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote, “…U.S. government laws must protect all citizens.” The nation would endure sixty more years of such racial discrimination and segregation.

America at the time of Marshall’s birth had a population of eighty-nine million and was composed of forty-six states. Ten percent of the population was African-American and in Baltimore, African-Americans constituted twenty percent of the population. Jim Crow was evident everywhere. Additionally, less than half the population of the country enjoyed full legal rights; this was before woman’s suffrage. In addition, child labor was very common with workers as young as seven or eight years old – making as little as ten cents per day.

The Marshall family valued education. Willie Marshall taught his children tolerance and pride in their black heritage. Norma graduated college – an unusual achievement for a woman, especially being African-American. There were limited expectations for a young black person seeking a college education. The most that could be hoped for was a professional career such as medicine, dentistry and teaching. Even within these professions, the graduate could not hope to serve the white community. In order to further understand the obstacles felt by African-Americans, especially males, in that era, it should be kept in mind that between 1889 and 1918 there were 2500 lynchings in the United States with 15 of those reported in the state of Maryland. There were race riots in Atlanta, Georgia in 1906 and Springfield, Illinois in 1908. This was the daunting environment into which Marshall was born.

In spite of these fierce and uncompromising racist attitudes, there were African-Americans courageous enough to stand their ground in opposition. One of these was W.E.B. Du Bois who founded the Niagara Movement for the purpose of opposing segregation and the oppression of black people. This organization ultimately failed, but he went on to merge with like organizations to found the National Association of the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

The Marshall family moved to New York’s Harlem in 1910. In this regard, Marshall vividly remembered a banner that read, “This part of 135th Street guaranteed against Negro invasion.” He started working when he was only seven years old. The family eventually returned to Baltimore where the racial tension was exceedingly high and the city was highly segregated. At that time, there were no toilet facilities of any kind available to African-Americans.

Marshall was severely impacted by these brutal realities as he was growing up. In particular, he remembered a story out of Washington D.C. in which two African-American males accosted a white woman and grabbed her umbrella. As a consequence, the woman’s husband and his friends decided to lynch the two men. The mob of white vigilantes roamed the streets indiscriminately attacking any blacks they found. The unforgiving nature of existence that Marshall had to endure as a child made him a “tough kid” by his own admission.

In response to these aspects of daily life, his parents emphasized black heritage and his mother, especially, inculcated the idea of standing up against racism. Marshall did not apply himself in school and often got into trouble. On one of these occasions, his punishment was to memorize the U.S. Constitution. By the time he left school he knew it by heart. Ironically, this punishment inadvertently exposed him to the egalitarian nature of the nation’s premier document and its potential to improve the social condition. He ultimately became its undying advocate.

Marshall entered Lincoln University in 1925 in Oxford, Pennsylvania. He was enamored of his social life and at one point was threatened with suspension. The famed poet Langston Hughes was a senior at the University at that time and intervened on Marshall’s behalf. He eventually decided to apply himself enough to pass.

On September 4, 1929, Marshall married Vivian Buster Burey. It was her influence that helped Marshall begin to apply himself. It was at this point that he developed an interest in the law and finally decided to enter law school. According to him, “My father never told me to become a lawyer. But, he turned me into one by teaching me to argue, to prove every statement I made and by challenging my logic in every point.”
 
He applied to the University of Maryland and was denied acceptance on account of race. He entered Howard University in Washington D.C. There, he was greatly influenced by Charles Hamilton Houston who brought to his class such notable figures as Clarence Darrow and Felix Frankfurter. The class also took field trips to police stations, courtrooms, and mental asylums. Houston emphasized that a lawyer wages battle in court and needs to be a social engineer. According to his mentor, “We’ve got to turn this whole thing around. And the black man has got to do it; nobody’s going to do it for you.” Marshall was ultimately convinced by this logic and understood where his professional life would lead him.

In 1933, he became a licensed attorney. His attempt at starting his own legal business; however, was daunting since the nation was in the grips of a Depression in which one out of three workers was unemployed. He did not even have access to the local Bar Association - he was denied membership on account of his race. Marshall was not deterred by these difficulties; instead, he used the court library to gain access to the legal books so essential in a lawyer’s career. Finally, in 1934, he was hired by the NAACP.

It was in this role that Marshall, as lead attorney, presented the evidence to Earl Warren’s Supreme Court to support the argument that a separate but “equal” education was unconstitutional in the renowned case of Brown et al. v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas in 1954. He was, of course, successful in this endeavor. Marshall and his team of lawyers had worked for four years to perfect their case.

On account of his illustrious career at the Bar and as an avid supporter of civil rights, Marshall was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 2, 1967. Marshall resigned from the Supreme Court on October 1, 1991 having resided on the court through six different presidential administrations. Ironically, his position was filled by Clarence Thomas appointed by President George Bush. Thomas, an avowed conservative, holds views on matters of social equality and justice that run counter to those of Marshall. Marshall was not terribly happy regarding this choice. He died on January 24, 1993.

In a commencement address delivered at the University of Virginia on May 21, 1978, Marshall demonstrated his profound commitment to the Constitution. The following is an excerpt from that speech.

“The democratizing aspects of the Constitution cannot be overstated. For me, its cardinal principle is that all persons stand in a position of equality before the law. The Constitution gives to each and every one of you an equal right to your own opinions and to participate in the process of your own governance. These are precious rights that we must continually strive to preserve, and whose promise we must seek to attain. There are still far too many persons in this country who cannot participate as equals in the processes of Government – persons too poor, too ignorant, persons discriminated against by other people for no good reason. But our ideal, the ideal of our Constitution, is to eliminate these barriers to the aspirations of all Americans to participate fully in our government and society. We have realized it far better than most countries, but we still have a long way to travel and we must continue to strive in that direction.”

Friday, May 20, 2022

Dag Hammarskjold

 


The United Nations (UN) was created in 1941 by the Allied powers during World War II anticipating the end of the war with the goal of maintaining the peace after the hostilities had ended. The one significant drawback regarding the makeup of this organization is the fact that it is essentially controlled by the powerful industrial nations through the Security Council that was originally composed of five members - the United States, the Soviet Union, China, France and England.

The UN is under the leadership of the Secretary General, who is voted in. The first Secretary General was Trygve Lie, who remained in that position until 1952. During his administration, many UN members had lost confidence in the international organization for a number of reasons. The Security Council had become known for its inaction. Furthermore, the Taiwanese government represented China on the Security Council after mainland China - People’s Republic of China (PRC) - had fallen to the Communists. As a consequence, about one-quarter of the world’s population was not represented. In protest regarding this exclusion, representatives of the Soviet Union boycotted the UN from January to August 1950; it was their absence that allowed for the UN-sponsored military intervention in Korea.

At that time, Lie had supported the Security Council’s decision to resist by force the invasion of South Korea by military forces from North Korea - a conflict that was first called a “police action” but eventually came to be referred to as the Korean War. The Soviet Union essentially ignored Lie after 1950 and right-wing elements of the United States were severely critical of his leadership. As a consequence of the Korean War, Lie came under intense political pressure. He ultimately resigned his position on November 10, 1952.

At that time, Dag Hammarskjold was Minister of State in Sweden’s Foreign Office. He was recommended for the post of Secretary General of the UN and was accepted by all with the exception of the Chinese. Hammarskjold was truly surprised by the nomination; he never expected it. After considerable personal deliberation, he accepted the nomination and on April 10, 1953, he was instated.

The following taken from a speech he made at John Hopkins University in 1955 sheds considerable light on his worldview and the principles that motivated him, “The dignity of man, as a justification of our faith in freedom, can be part of our living creed only if we revert to a view of life where maturity of mind counts for more than outward success and where happiness is no longer to be measured in quantitative terms. Politics and diplomacy are no play of will and skill where results are independent of the character of those engaging in the game.” He was a realist, but also was a man of strong ethics. He was a believer in the power of the mind, especially when operating through reasoned judgment. He deeply valued integrity and what he often referred to as “maturity of mind.”

To further illustrate the character of his thinking, I have included a number of his commentaries taken from his book entitled, Markings:

“The more faithfully you listen to the voice within you, the better you will hear what is sounding outside. And only he who listens can speak. Is this the starting point of the road towards the union of your two dreams – to be allowed in clarity of mind to mirror life and in purity of heart to mold it?”

“A heart pulsating in harmony with the circulation of sap and flow of rivers A body with the rhythms of the earth in its movements? No. Instead: a mind, shut off from the oxygen of alert senses, that has wasted itself on “treasons, stratagems and spoils” – of importance only within four walls. A tame animal – in whom the strength of the species has outspent itself, to no purpose.”

“Like the bee, we distill poison from the honey for our self-defense – what happens to the bee if it uses its sting is well known.”

“O how much self-discipline, nobility of soul, lofty sentiments, we can treat ourselves to, when we are well-off and everything we touch prospers – Cheap: scarcely better than believing success is the reward of virtue.”

“Only he deserves power who every day justifies it.”

“To preserve the silence within-amid all the noise. To remain open and quiet, a moist humus in the fertile darkness where the rain falls and the grain ripens-no matter how many tramp across the parade ground in whirling dust under an arid sky.”

“The style of conduct which carries weight calls for stubbornness even in an act of concession: you have to be severe with yourself in order to have the right to be gentle to others.”

“Do not seek death. Death will find you. But seek the road which makes death a fulfillment.”

“Forgiveness breaks the chain of causality because he who “forgives” you---out of love---takes upon himself the consequences of what you have done. Forgiveness, therefore, always entails a sacrifice.

“The price you must pay for your own liberation through another’s sacrifice is that you in turn must be willing to liberate in the same way, irrespective of the consequences to yourself.”

These comments offer, in my judgment, important insights into the character and persuasions of the man and inform us regarding the inner motivations that determined his actions.

Hammarskjold was born on July 29, 1905 in Jonkoping, Sweden. His father, Hajmar Hammarskjold, was involved in Swedish politics; he served as a delegate to the negotiations that led to the dissolution of the Swedish union with Norway. He was a severe man, fully entrenched in his principles. His father ultimately became Prime Minister in 1914. Over time, he became unpopular; his views were interpreted as essentially undemocratic and reactionary. During the First World War he proclaimed Sweden’s neutrality. In a joint note to both warring parties, Hajmar proposed that the Swedish government remain the guardian of international principles. He was chosen as chairman of the League of Nations Committee for the Codification of International Law and delegate to the Disarmament Conference. Hammarskjold felt that one of his father’s admirable qualities was that he believed in and actively sought justice. His mother, Agnes, was described as having clarity of mind and a radically democratic view of her fellow humans.

Hammarskjold was obviously influenced by both his parents. Given his upbringing, it is no surprise that he chose a life of public service. Those who knew him found him to have a quick and astute mind, a sense of humor, boundless curiosity and to be highly disciplined. These traits would serve him well as Secretary General of the UN.

At the time that Hammarskjold took over the Secretary General position at the UN, the international body was in disarray, especially in regards to its role in the Korean War in the midst of the Cold War. He realized that the UN needed reorganization; he set about this task with remarkable energy. The world community seemed to be pleased with his efforts and, more importantly, his results.

According to Brian Urquhart, author of Hammarskjold, “Hammarskjold saw as the primary function of the UN the day-to-day effort to control and moderate conflicts that were a threat to peace, through a system of mediation and conciliation developed on the basis of the sovereign equality of states. This primary function went hand in hand with a long-term effort to attain wider social justice and equality both for individuals and, in the political, economic and social senses, for nations. He believed that progress in this direction must be based on a growing respect for international law and on the emergence of a truly international civil service, free from all national pressure and influences and recognized as such by governments.”

He saw his role as Secretary General as a discreet, objective and relentless negotiator always acting with and through sovereign governments. He visualized his role as an embodiment of the hopes of mankind and for peace and justice. He felt that in this position, he should avoid pointing a finger of blame. It is a position that only assumes any semblance of authority when the situation becomes so tenuous and dangerous that the UN becomes the last hope for a peaceful resolution.

During his tenure as Secretary General, Hammarskjold had to employ his talents and abilities on numerous occasions. We will focus on one in particular regarding the issue of Palestine. With the collapse of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire during World War I, the colonial powers, especially Great Britain and France, filled the political vacuum left by the former empire. The post war arrangements that were a direct result of this shift in power and influence created the environment for future upheavals, especially the Arab-Israeli conflict that persists even to this day. When Hammarskjold arrived at the UN in 1953, an uneasy peace was maintained through armistice agreements and the Tripartite Declaration of France, Great Britain and the United States, signed in May 1950. Its purpose was to maintain the status quo and prevent aggression by any governments in the region against their neighbors. The inherent instability of the region came to a head in 1948 with the creation of the state of Israel. There were many factors that contributed to the de-facto end of the Tripartite Declaration including the growth of Arab nationalism, the increased influence of the Soviet Union in the region and the decline of influence of the waning powers of Great Britain and France. The failed Arab invasion of Palestine in 1948 exacerbated the underlying tensions.

To further exacerbate difficulties in the region, President Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt refused to allow ships to and from Israel to pass through the canal despite UN resolution issued in 1951 that called upon Egypt to allow all ships to pass through the canal. In spite of his intransigence, Great Britain and France pulled their troops out of the canal. The enmity between Israel and Egypt and other neighboring Arab states in the region quickly deteriorated. Skirmishes and reprisals soon began to spiral out of control. Israeli raids into Gaza and raids of Egyptian-trained Palestinian fedayeen became all too common place. During this time, Hammarskjold made it quite clear that he would not intervene in any way; until, he was asked to do so. It was not long before the situation became so grim that he was called upon to get the offending sides to negotiate with one another. Despite the intense enmity and hatred, Hammarskjold managed to get Nasser and David Ben-Gurion of Israel to sit down with one another; this represented a significant first step in the negotiation process. Eventually, all sides agreed upon a cease fire. This was a truly amazing accomplishment. In spite of this success, Hammarskjold was too much of a realist to believe the situation was resolved, for he knew only too well that he was but one man. In fact, in just a few years the Suez Canal crisis would erupt, and, once again, he would be called upon to employ his remarkable skills.

Dag Hammarskjold had an illustrious career; until, his untimely death in a plane crash while trying to help bring peace to the troubled African Congo. He was a person of great courage and inner strength, who believed strongly in the cause of peace and the rule of law. He was driven by a strong sense of purpose, and an indefatigable willingness to serve. He dedicated himself to a selfless life of service for what he understood to be the greater good.

Monday, May 16, 2022

There is a Giant Elephant in the Room

 





There is a giant elephant in the room. This creature moves about clumsily and with little fanfare. The weight of its presence is unmistakable, yet it seems to be relegated to the shadows. Its impact is ponderous and fully compatible with its enormous size and girth. Wherever it moves, it by necessity creates a wake that is capable of extremely disruptive power. Wherever it is, it produces consequences that are readily and immediately apparent, yet is never given the credit that it truly deserves. It is capable of disrupting gravity and, on account of its mass, drawing everything ineluctably within it sphere of influence. What is the real identity of this “mysterious” entity?

 This creature is the sterling product of the economy of greed.  This creature is a devotee of social imbalance and instability.  This creature has been spawned by an economic system gone amok.  It has sculptured a social order in which a massive share of the nation’s wealth has been funneled into the outstretched hands of the very few.  Much of this overblown wealth has been squirreled away into offshore accounts that most likely add up to trillions of dollars.  This enormous disparity has led to the creation of a ruling class that controls the purse strings of power that effectively corals the formulators of public policy to do its biding and puts enormous restraints upon effecting change for the common good.

 This creature has produced many offspring that have been disseminated throughout the world.  The object of their cooperative endeavor is to maintain the status quo at all costs.  This creature possesses no discernible moral compass – anything or any process that delivers profit is totally acceptable.  If this means adding poison into the air and water at increasing and often alarming rates, well that is no problem, for within its distorted vision of reality that never was a concern to begin with.  If this means mass producing weapons that can kill and maim with stunning precision and making enough of these so as to arm every man and woman throughout the globe well than that is the way of things and, therefore, as it should be.  If this means injecting flotillas of satellites into near-earth orbit for the sake of amassing wealth, well let it be even it should rob the night sky of its inherent beauty and threaten the very future of space exploration.

 This giant elephant in the room happily transcends logic and makes a mockery of reason as it distorts reality, endangers perception, and undermines truth.  However, not unlike the parasite that ultimately kills its host, this creature cannot survive in a desolate world that may well be the product of its own making.


Monday, March 14, 2022

Raif Badawi - Saudi Activist & Political Prisoner


Raif bin Muhammad Badawi gained notoriety when he was arrested in 2012 at the age of twenty-eight for the following crimes: "setting up a website that undermines general security", "ridiculing Islamic religious figures", and "going beyond the realm of obedience.” He was sentenced to seven years in prison. This sentence was increased to 10 years in 2014.


Badawi is a is a Saudi writer actively engaged in advocating for a more liberal social and political environment in his native Saudi Arabia. To expand his audience, he created a website – Free Saudi Liberals.

Badawi's blog had many members. It quickly became a forum for vigorous debate regarding Saudi politics. For this reason, he was arrested in late 2007. Although he was eventually released, he became the victim of constant harassment that eventually led to his subsequent arrest in 2012.

Raif Badawi was born on January 13, 1984, in Khobar, Saudi Arabia. His parents are Najwa, a Lebanese Christian, and Muhammad Badawi, a Saudi Muslim. At a young age, his Saudi grandmother explained to him that, “Saudi society historically was not as strict and men and women used to work together in the fields.”

Badawi's mother died young at an unknown age. He was raised by his father and grandmother in a household beset by economic difficulties. Badawi attended school until the age of thirteen when his father reported him for parental disobedience, a crime in Saudi Arabia, and spent six months in a teenage detention center.

Saudi Arabia is a theocratic monarchy whose laws and regulations follow the rulings and teaching of Islamic law. The legal system is based on sharia as interpreted by Sunni Islamic jurisprudence. The government is under the leadership of a king and prime minister. Furthermore, the royal family rules by fiat, and there is no Constitution.

Wahhabism is an Islamic revisionist theology that exerts a powerful influence in Saudi Arabian politics. It derived its name from the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhabi. Wahhabism is an extremely stringent and uncompromising from of Islam that insists on a purely literal interpretation of the Koran. Through this highly restrictive interpretation, those who do not practice this form of Islam are considered heathens and are dealt with harshly. In Saudi Arabia apostasy itself is considered a crime worthy of the death penalty.

Badawi was influenced by the writings of progressive Arab author, Abdullah al-Qasemi, and Turki al-Hamad, a noted journalist and thinker. He was particularly inspired by Mohammed Saeed Tayeb, a staunch believer in democracy who was also imprisoned.

Ultimately, he became so concerned about the oppressive and authoritarian nature of Saudi politics that he began to speak out openly in regard to these concerns. For this reason, Badawi’s activities were considered by the government as anathema and explains the severity of the punishment he has been forced to endure. Badawi’s courageous insistence on expressing his views has been regarded as a particular threat, for the government’s autocratic imposition of Islam on the lives of its people is especially vulnerable in the human world of the twenty-first century in which global communication is a predominant aspect of modern life.


He has been reported to be in poor health, and his general condition has noticeably worsened during his imprisonment and torture according to his wife, Ensaf Haidar, currently residing in Canada. She fled her native country convinced that her life would be endangered if she remained in Saudi Arabia.


The following interview with Ensaf Haidar was conducted by Jaafar Abdul Karim at Deutshe Welle (dw.com) in 2017.


Ensaf Haidar: The fact that my husband has been in jail for five years shows that there is no freedom of expression in Saudi Arabia.

Raif expressed his opinion in a friendly and peaceful manner, so there was no reason to be afraid. He had also written for Saudi newspapers, and that shows that he wasn't an enemy of the state. He even had the experience of traveling abroad.


So why are some states so afraid of these independent spirits?

Because of the different opinions. It's us they're afraid of, not the expression of opinion as such.


So they would prefer there to be only one opinion?

This is what their approach suggests. They want everyone to be of the same opinion. They're afraid of a wide range of opinions.


How is your husband doing at the moment?

After five years in captivity separated from his children and the outside world, he's naturally doing poorly physically and psychologically. He has been imprisoned for five years without having committed a crime.


Of course, the Saudi authorities see the situation differently. What do you tell your children? Do they understand what's going on?

They understand it and are proud of their father, though they miss him very much. They need him, especially at this age.


Do you stay in constant contact with Raif?

In the beginning he always called me for brief periods of time, but I haven't heard anything from him in over three weeks.

If we had press freedom, Raif would be free. He's been in jail for five years and he'll be there for five more. Along with that he's also been handed a 10-year travel ban, a fine of one million riyal ($266,654 USD) and 1,000 lashings by cane. Anyone who sees this sentence can decide if we have press freedom here or not.


How important then is freedom of expression?

There are people who say there is already too much division; there's terrorism and there's foreign interference, which undermine a country's sovereignty.

Those who speak peacefully and know the laws have the right to express themselves! That is a basic right of every person, whatever the subject.


Do you speak with your children about freedom of expression?

That is a social issue and not just a legal one. From society as well there is a partial rejection of freedom of expression…

Here in Canada it is, of course, completely different. It's a secular country, where you can express your opinion freely, directly in the press. When I tell my kids about their father, they don't understand what the problem is at all with someone having a blog. It's completely different here.


There is an international solidarity campaign for your husband. How does that make you feel?

I can only be thankful and hope that the initiators continue with it. However, so far it has had a psychological effect. It hasn't impacted the proceedings against Raif so far. But I hope that the solidarity continues nonetheless, because moral support is so important. That gives Raif and me hope and strength.


Do you personally hope that pressure from the campaign will help free Raif? It is now an international campaign.

I hope that the Saudi government one day recognizes that freedom of expression is every man's right. Raif always peacefully expressed himself and loved his country. In this way I hope that he soon comes free.


What is your appeal for World Press Freedom Day?

I hope that the whole world continues to stand by us. I call on the Saudi government to give every citizen a space for freedom of expression.


Badawi is currently represented by The Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights that acts as his international legal counsel. The mission statement of this organization is the following as presented on their website (raoulwallenbergcentre.org).


“The Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights is a unique international consortium of parliamentarians, scholars, jurists, human rights defenders, NGOs, and students united in the pursuit of justice, inspired by and anchored in Raoul Wallenberg’s humanitarian legacy – how

act can confront evil, prevail, and transform history.

“From mid-May to early July 1944, the Nazis deported 440,000 from Hungary to the Auschwitz Birkenau death camp – one of the most efficient, cruelest, and most horrific mass deportations in the Holocaust. Raoul Wallenberg arrived as a Swedish diplomat in the Swedish legation in Budapest in July 1944 and in six months saved 100,000 Jews.

“The Wallenberg Centre is organized around five pillars of pursuing justice, each of which reflects and represents Wallenberg’s humanitarian legacy. The Honorary Co-Chairs of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights are: Nobel Peace Laureate Elie Wiesel (U.S. – in memoriam); the Honorable Justice Rosalie Abella (Supreme Court of Canada); the Honourable Göran Persson (former Prime Minister of Sweden); and the Honourable Elyakim Rubinstein (Former Deputy President of the Israeli Supreme Court). The Centre’s Founder and International Chair is Professor Irwin Cotler and the Co-Chairs from countries of Wallenberg’s Honorary Citizenship include Jared Genser (US); Michael Danby (Australia); and Natan Sharansky (Israel).”


The goal of this organization is to use the global media as well as private diplomatic efforts to help secure Badawi's release from prison.

According to this organization, “Raif Badawi has been languishing in a Saudi prison since his arrest in 2012, and his subsequent sentencing in 2014 to 10 years imprisonment and 1000 lashes, itself constitutive of torture and a standing violation of International Human Rights Law. Badawi's "crime"? Establishing an online forum and exercising his right to freedom of expression. Despite Saudi Arabia expressing an interest in reforming and modernizing, Raif Badawi – an advocate of liberalism and tolerance, and the champion of these changes – remains imprisoned and separated from his wife and three children, now citizens of Canada.”


While his exact location is unknown, it has been reported that Badawi is currently imprisoned in Dhahban Central Prison.


Following the 2012 arrest, Amnesty International designated Badawi a prisoner of conscience. As reported on their website – amnestyusa.org,

“In May 2014, Raif Badawi was sentenced to 10 years behind bars, 1,000 lashes, a 10-year travel ban, and a lifetime ban from appearing in the media. He was convicted of violating Saudi Arabia's draconian information technology law and "insulting Islam." The conviction stems from number of articles Raif wrote and published on his site "Saudi Arabian Liberals," which he founded as a forum for social and political debate. Raif also refused to remove other Saudi writers' articles from the site.

"We want life for those who call for our death, and rationality for those who desire ignorance for us." -Raif Badawi


“The charges against Raif are related to articles he wrote criticizing religious authorities in Saudi Arabia, and pieces penned by others that Raif published on the Saudi Arabian Liberals' site. The prosecution had called for him to be tried for 'apostasy' or abandoning his religion, which carries the death penalty.

“Raif is one of many activists in Saudi Arabia persecuted for openly expressing their views online. Facebook and Twitter are incredibly popular in a country where people can't openly voice their opinions in public. The authorities have responded to this increase in online debate by monitoring social media sites and even trying to ban applications such as Skype and WhatsApp, further stifling free expression.”

Badawi’s unshakeable determination and remarkable courage as an advocate of human freedom and the right to express one’s views openly are of great value to us all, and a reminder of the inherent power of the human spirit.


Saturday, January 29, 2022

Why Moving Towards the Light is More Important than Ever

 This country, founded on a belief in human equality, the power of democracy and the rule of law, is in serious crisis and moving inexorably towards the darkness. After only 232 years since the birth of the Democratic Republic in 1789, the democratic system as outlined in the Constitution has been seriously threatened especially following an attempted coup by its former President on Jan 6 of the year 2021. The near successful attempt to undermine the peaceful transition of power by a mentally unbalanced demagogue and blatant white supremacist is troublesome in its own right.


However, it seems that a major political party not only has essentially refused to condemn this overt attempt to subvert the very basis of a democratically-aligned government but has made it clear through both rhetoric and actions its determination to undermine the electoral process. Through its unrelenting attacks on the truth; and through its violent and corrosive language in which the members of the opposing party – that clearly holds the majority – are labeled as the enemy, it has become quite evident that the democratic process is held in contempt.

These are indeed dark times when the forces of bigotry and repression, of ignorance and violence, of hatred and fear are encouraged and seen as values to be lauded. These are indeed dark times when white supremacy is regarded as a political philosophy to be embraced and emulated. These are indeed dark times when truth is supplanted with outrageous falsehoods and intellect and science are held suspect.

This nation has failed to come to terms with the violent reality of its past. Part of this violent heritage was the near genocide of the native peoples of North America for the primary purpose of uprooting them from their land and their way of life so as to make room for white settlers who wished to forcefully occupy all available land and exploit its vast and untapped resources. There has been and continues to be a refusal to acknowledge the great injustice of the enslavement of the peoples of Africa captured and forcefully exported from their land and their people so as to exploit their labor .and deprive them of their inherent humanity. This incomplete accounting does not include the totality of violent aggression directed at immigrant populations over the life of the nation.

A significant aspect of this past is the many wars of aggression fought around the world so as to impose and protect economic and political hegemony especially in regard to poorer nations. More often than not these conflicts left millions of needless and avoidable deaths and unimaginable destruction.

This unabashed history of intolerance, hatred and violence has left innumerable injuries that fester within the body politic and have seriously impacted the collective psyche of the American people. As a result, fear, uncertainty, insecurity, and suspicion have festered within the population making it susceptible to the vitriol and toxic polemics that reverberate throughout the culture. This has given rise to a crazed environment where hundreds of millions of guns and weaponry are now in the hands of the general public. A consideration of the inevitable outcome of this mass possession of instruments of death is difficult to contemplate.

We are a people in crisis. A route out of this path into the darkness is to turn towards the light. This shift in direction involves a number of key transformations. A first priority must be a return to the truth and the concomitant rejection of the lie in all its manifestations. Secondly, the reality that science has clearly demonstrated that needs to be fully embraced is the fact that all peoples of the world regardless of the color of their skin, place of origin, sexual orientation, gender, etc. are members of the same species – Homo sapiens – all worthy of the same rights and privileges and entitled to the same treatment under the law. A necessary corollary of this truth is the fact that race is an artificial construct that has no reality outside this mistaken perception. A true ascendence to this reality would deny bigotry, prejudice and feelings of racial superiority any standing.

One of the key components of such a shift in attitudes and general mindset is the necessity of discarding delusional thinking that has led to the acceptance of crazed philosophies and expectations that have no true relationship with reality. Freeing ourselves of the burden of this thinking would allow the nation to begin to confront real issues such as climate change, that in the absence of remedial action may eventually engulf us.

Finally and most importantly, we need to discard the blinders that have kept us trapped in a world of our own creation where we have come to believe that we as individuals are the center of existence and therefore fail to recognize and appreciate the wondrous diversity that surrounds us. We are, after all, a part of the fabric of existence; all of humanity and nature deserves to be heard, nurtured, supported and appreciated. This, to me, is the essence of love.

Recent Supreme Court Decisions and their Deleterious Impact Upon Democratic Institutions of Government

 With some few yet important exceptions – The Warren Court for example (1953 – 1969) - the decisions of the United States Supreme Court over the history of the Republic have echoed the demands of wealth and power and have been supportive of the status quo especially in regard to preserving the hegemony of the ruling class. A striking example of this was the Supreme Court decisions during the so-call Progressive era (1896 – 1916) that repeatedly undermined worker’s rights during a time when workers were terribly exploited as the nation was shifting from an agricultural-based society to an industrialized one. This period was noteworthy for widespread social activism and political reform.


Recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court especially by the Court’s composition with a majority of conservative right-wing appointed justices clearly show a disturbing trend towards a more repressive and decidedly less democratic republic.

The focus in this talk will be on decisions made by majority conservative justices regarding the issues of gun control, voting rights and campaign finance that have seriously jeopardized public safety, endangered equal access to all U.S. citizens to the polls, and ensured the unfettered and unregulated access of wealth and affluence to seats of government.

Gun Control

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the decision by the Court was narrow in its application by affirming an individual right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense. Justice Scalia, writing the majority opinion emphasized that, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” However, the fact that the Second Amendment to the Constitution was used to justify this decision, laid the groundwork for the decisions that were to follow.

In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), regarding handgun ownership the Supreme Court held, by a vote of 5–4 that the Second Amendment not only applied to federal jurisdiction as in D.C. but to state and local authorities as well.

The Second Amendment states that, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

It is hard to imagine that the framers of the Constitution ever intended this amendment to suggest that all private citizens have the constitutional right to be armed beyond the strict boundary of a “well-regulated militia.” This to me, exceeds the limits of common sense and reasonable thinking. As a nation, we have enough evidence to clearly see the real and horrific implications of having an unregulated dissemination of firearms with unimagined firepower to ordinary citizens. This problem has been further compounded by the reality that much of the armaments possessed by the general population are military-style weapons designed to kill with astounding accuracy and precision. Many of these weapons are also in the hands of self-styled personal militias holding extremist jingoist views in a highly polarized political atmosphere filled with outrageous views with little relationship to the truth. This overall situation does not bode well for the future. The Supreme Court rarely recognizes its responsibility regarding the impact of its decisions.



The Supreme Court seems oblivious to the fact that a majority of Americans would like to see further efforts to expand gun control. Yet, in spite of these realities, the Court continues to be willing to hear cases that may further erode the nation’s ability to control the tragic outcomes that are a direct result of the wholesale ownership of weapons.

Voting Rights

On June 25, 2013, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), the United States Supreme Court held that it is, “unconstitutional to use the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act to determine which jurisdictions are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.”

The tragic and immediate impact of this decision was to essentially neutralize the Voting Rights Act (1965). The rational of this court was that the social and political conditions that existed in 1965 were no longer extant and that the need for such provisions were no longer necessary. Almost immediately following this decision, many states under Republican Party control, especially in the South, began crafting legislation designed to limit access of minorities to the polls.

The issues presented before the Court in Brovich, Attorney General of Arizona v. Democratic National Committee (2021) were the voter-restriction laws passed by the State of Arizona. One banned the collection of absentee ballots by any person or group other than a relative or caregiver and the other law threw out ballots cast in the wrong precinct. A federal appeals court had thrown out these provisions on the basis that, ‘they had an unequal impact on minority voters and that there was no evidence of fraud that would have justified their use.” Also these were passed in Arizona under the false and misleading notion that the 2020 Presidential election was fraudulent and stolen. This widespread lie was never substantiated by any court of law in response to a literal flood of suits filed by ex-president Donald Trump in many judicial venues. In addition, election officials throughout the nation added testimony to the overwhelming conclusion that the election was fair and beyond reasonable reproach. It also should be remembered that Donald Trump won in 2016 despite the fact that he received a minority of popular votes - three million fewer votes than his opponent.

The 6-3 vote was consistent with the so-called “conservative” values of the majority in the Court. Justice Alito wrote the majority decision angering his “liberal” colleagues. The rationale for this decision was that the state laws should be reinstated in that the impact on minorities was, “relatively minor.”

In the majority decision Justice Alito wrote that, “Just because voting may be "inconvenient for some, doesn't mean that access to voting is unequal.” He also stipulated that the courts should consider what voting rules were like 1982, when the relevant provision of the law was enacted. He stated that, at that time almost all voting was in person and on Election Day, and "the mere fact that there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote."

Again, we have the Supreme Court disseminating judgments that apparently ignore the real political and social realities of the present and the conclusions drawn by the majority of the nation’s people. The Court demonstrates an apparent disregard for the essential aspects of a supposed democratic society and seems to possess no real desire or inclination to support the underlying and essential characteristic of any democracy – the unimpeded right of every citizen to vote. Without this right, the nation runs the risk of being subject to the tyranny of the minority – a minority that would not have access to the power of formulating national policy if the right to vote was equally enforced. The reemergence of Jim Crow is not in the nation’s best interests.

Campaign Finance

In Citizen’s United v. FEC (2010), The court held that “the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.”

This decision essentially swept away all the progress that had been made in regard to campaign finance reform that had been enshrined in laws and regulations. This spurious, ludicrous, and far-fetched application of the free speech amendment to the U.S. Constitution is difficult to fathom.

According the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This amendment clearly addresses the right to free speech. There is nothing in the body of this amendment that anyway refers to money or finance. This application of the free speech amendment to this decision effectively implies that wealthy individual, corporations, and institutions apparently have greater access to free speech than ordinary citizens. It also establishes, promotes, and encourages the effective control over the nation’s political infrastructure by the country’s monied interests.

As we all recognize within the current system, politicians and elected officials spend a vast portion of their time in government soliciting funds for their campaigns. They inevitably become beholding to wealth and power often at the expense of the common good. The evidence of this relationship is readily apparent. It also explains how legislation on many levels of government are crafted with the “assistance” of lobbyists who represent those who can enrich or impoverish politicians who do their bidding or who defy their interests.

In the examples set forth above, I have attempted to demonstrate how the Supreme Court has repeatedly made decisions that counter the very essence of a true democracy suggesting that the Court majority has very little interest in democracy and is far more vigilant and resourceful regarding the interests of wealth and power.

Thursday, January 27, 2022

The Plight of the Native American Peoples of the U.S.

 It is a disturbing and unavoidable reality that the westward expansion of the United States during the early stage of its development as a nation was accomplished at the expense of the native populations that occupied these coveted lands.  These native populations were conveniently viewed as less than human and treated accordingly, resulting in their near genocide.  As a result, they were violently displaced from the land they held as sacred for the sake of the unimpeded and ineluctable occupation by white settlers.

To this day, no substantive apologies have ever been offered and no attempt at restitution made to help ameliorate the suffering that has been imposed on these native peoples and their descendants.  The following is a description of the tragedy imposed upon Chief Joseph and his people - the Nez Perce.

Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce

 

was known to his people as "Thunder Traveling to the Loftier Mountain Heights."

The Nez Perce occupied an area of Oregon referred to as the Wallowa valley in Eastern Oregon. These people were first exposed to white settlers during the Lewis and Clark expedition (1804 – 1806). They were treated with kindness, consideration, and compassion. On this first encounter they were impressed by the technological advances and capabilities these strangers. To some members of the Nez Perce people, they were regarded as superior being whom they wanted to emulate. This embrace of these newcomers, however, would prove to be of relatively short duration.

It was not longer after this initial encounter, that the NEZ Perce was visited by Christian missionaries.  An exposure to the ways of the white man as exemplified by the lifestyle of these missionaries led many Nez Perce to convert to Christianity.

Joseph’s father, Tuekakas, as chief of the Nez Perce was a convert and as a consequence, Joseph was exposed at an early age to the ways of these foreigners.

Although the homeland of the Nez Perce was remote and hard to reach served as a significant barrier to encroachment by white settlers, this protection was disrupted by two significant events in the early history of the U.S. republic. One was the California Gold Rush of 1848 and the other was Homestead Act of 1862 that granted up to 160 acres of land to those who would establish residence and make the land productive. This act resulted in the settlement of about 1.6 million on land mostly West of the Mississippi.

Although many individuals migrated to California In search of gold, few became rich. When the dream of becoming rich weathered, many were attracted to the West as a place to settle. As a result, these miners began to encroach upon the land of the Nez Perce.

In addition, the push to settle in the vast lands of the West promoted by the Federal government through the enactment of the Homestead Act was thwarted by the presence of Native American populations that were already resident. In the fact of this reality, the government attempted to come to some kind of peaceful arrangement with these populations through the instrument of treaties. However, there was no real incentive to honor the provisions of these treaties, since the newly formed American nation possessed a superiority in numbers and military capability. The historic record is replete with examples of the abrogation of these treaty arrangements.

When Joseph became chief following the death of his father, he naively believed that the U.S. was sincere in its efforts to find peaceful arrangements and would be true to treaty obligations. It is important to understand that the Nez Perce had a strong body of spiritual beliefs in which the land and all that resided upon it were considered a sacred and sustaining aspect of existence and could not be owned, purchased, or exploited. In this light, the attitudes and politics of the white settlers and the US government were inexplicable.

The turning point came In 1877 as a result of the conference held between many of the indigenous tribal leaders and General Howard representing the US government. The meeting was held at Fort Lapwai. It was Howard’s intention to use this opportunity to issue an ultimatum to those Native American leaders invited that they must leave their land and move to designated reservations. They could do this freely or be forced to migrate. The outcome of this conference demonstrated once and for all the unwillingness of the US government to honor its treaty obligations when it was not in its interest to do so. The ultimate conclusion was that Howard issued his ultimatum that the Nez Perce must either move out of their homeland to a reservation defined by the US government within thirty days or be forcefully driven out. When Chief Joseph attempted to suggest that this abbreviated timeline was impossible to adhere to, his entreaties were ignored.

Rather than accept this ultimatum, Chief Joseph fled with his people – there goal was to travel to Canada and remove themselves entirely from jurisdiction of the US government. This represented a 1400-mile trek (see map below) while constantly being pursued by the US army. This was a brave yet futile effort that resulted in the death of many hundreds of his people. He ultimately surrendered in 1877.


 

Following the final defeat of the Nez Perce at the hands of the US army, Chief Joseph gave a very poignant and unforgettable speech on October 5, 1877, upon his surrender to General Howard who had been pursuing him and his people for many months in their vain attempt to flee to freedom in Canada. His speech is shown below.

"I am tired of fighting. Our chiefs are killed. Looking Glass is dead. Toohoolhoolzote is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say, 'Yes' or 'No.' He who led the young men [Olikut] is dead. It is cold, and we have no blankets. The little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are — perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children and see how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands I will fight no more forever."

It is a testament to his timeless courage and unshakeable conviction that there is a town in Oregon (Joseph, Oregon) near Wallowa Lake named after him and the Nez Perce Memorial National Park was created in the same region that is also the site where he is buried. Of course, whether or not the descendants of the Nez Perce will ever be justly compensated for the grave injustice perpetrated against their people is an open question.

The story of this remarkable human being is an extraordinary one.

Chief Raoni Metuktire

 


Chief Raoni Metuktire is the chief of the Kayapo people who populate a region of the Amazon forest.    It is this vast region in South America that represents a highly important resource that plays a central role in the stability of the global climate especially with the added threat of climate change that is a direct result of human activity.

The Amazon forest has been threatened for decades due to the unabated incursion of commercial development that has had a devastating impact on the the region – threatening the delicate ecological balance that sustains this natural system.  As a result, the livelihood, safety and security of the indigenous peoples that populate this region have been under continued assault.

Chief Raoni has been involved in the preservation of the remaining rain forest that is home to his people for decades and has repeatedly risked his own safety in the pursuit of this illusive goal.  Although there is no official record of his birth, it has been assumed that he was born around 1932 in a village called Krajmopyjakare, otherwise known as Kapot.  This village resides in the midst of he region referred to as the Mato Grosso in Brazil (see map below).

 


 The Kayapo are a nomadic people; as a child he lived in many locations.  At the age of 15, Raoni participated in the rites of initiation as a warrior and wore a labret – an ornamental disk in their lower lip that was gradually replaced by larger disks an ultimately reached the current size after four months.

In 1954, Raoni met the Villas Broas brothers – Orlando, Claudio and Leonardi were Brazilian activists that drew attention to the plight of the indigenous people of Brazil and ultimately succeeded in getting the upper Xingu legally protected.  He stayed with them for a year, learned Portuguese and was greatly influenced by them.

It was in 1973 that Chief Raoni began a friendship with noted French film maker, Jean Pierre Dutilleux, that ultimately led to the release of a documentary film entitled Raoni that was presented at the 1977 Cannes festival.  This gave the Chief Raoni and the plight of his people worldwide exposure.

He used this exposure as an opportunity to expose the threat the deforestation posed on the rain forest ecosystem and the plight this posed to the indigenous populations of this region.

In 1989, Chief Raoni, enlisted the help of Sting, a popular British rock band to broadcast his message.  It was the first time he ever traveled beyond his homeland of Brazil.  The resulting impact of all these events aroused enough global support that a vast tropical reservation was create in 1993 that encompassed the Mato Grosso and Para states in Brazil.  In addition, Chief Raoni won the support of such notable individuals as French President, Mitterrand and the former French President Chirac, The king of Spain, Juan Carlos and Pope John Paul II.

Chief Raoni Metuktire remains a charismatic and influential leader in support of the indigenous peoples of the rain forest and an outspoken proponent of a sustainable planet.

Gordon Hirabayashi

 


We have previously examined the life of Fred Korematsu, above, and have seen the degree of his courage in opposing the involuntary internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. There was yet another individual, Gordon Hirabayashi, who openly defied Order No. 9066 that forcefully relocated so many Japanese-Americans, brutally uprooted them from their lives and livelihoods and for many their property as well.

Hirabayashi was born on April 23, 1918, in Sandpoint, Washington to Shungo and Mitsuko Hirabayashi who emigrated from Nagano Prefecture, Japan – a farming community. Shungo came to the United States in 1907 and was later to marry Mitsuko in 1914. It was an arranged marriage that was not uncommon in that era. Both Shungo and Mitsuko had studied at the Kenshi Gijuku Academy in Japan where they had learned English and eventually converted to the Christian religion. Rather than joining a conventional Christian mainline church they became followers of Kanzo Uchimura (1861 – 1930) who was responsible for founding the Mukyokai movement in Japan. The emphasis of this mode of Christianity proposed a non-liturgical approach to religious practice. It became known for its non-church services.

In 1891, Uchimura gained notoriety when, as a teacher at the First Higher School in Tokyo, he refused to bow before the signature of the emperor affixed to a copy of the new Imperial Rescript on Education. He later changed his mind and from a sickbed sent a colleague to bow for him, but the affair effectually ended his educational career. The Mukoyokai movement was pacifist in its orientation and stressed that behavior should reflect belief. It was apparently this ideology that inspired Hirabyashi to act in a way that lived up to his beliefs.

Once in America, Hirabayashi’s parents were instrumental with others in forming the White River Garden Corporation. In order to accomplish this, the Japanese-American members had to use a white intermediary on account of the fact that the Washington State Constitution had incorporated an alien land law in its founding documents in 1889. In 1921, this law was amended to make it impossible for aliens ineligible for citizenship to hold major shares in a corporation, hold property or hold any major interest in lands delegated for agricultural use. Because of this legal stipulation, the White River Garden Corporation lost its case in the Washington State Supreme Court and the farmland was ceded to the State, but the families involved were allowed to stay on the land and rent it from the State.

Given his unique Christian upbringing, he began to take a pacifist stance in regard to the growing conflict that was embracing Europe and Asia. By 1939 following the German occupation of Poland, the United Kingdom had declared war on Germany. As a consequence of these events, Hirabayashi as a young man registered with the Selective Service as a conscientious objector and joined the Religious Society of Friends, the Quakers, known for their long-standing pacifist theology.

Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, it was becoming quite evident that the United States domestic policy had begun to focus on Japanese-Americans as possible being a potential threat to domestic security. Finally, with the promulgation of Executive Order 9066, the military was given the responsibility of implementing the forced migration of Japanese-Americans living on the West Coast to hastily constructed internment camps.

Realizing that his constitutionally mandated rights were being violated, he made the momentous and courageous decision to resist. When the time came requiring him to register for relocation, Hirabayashi turned himself in to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). His strategy was to create a test case as a way to challenge the underlying constitutionality of the federal mandate that ordered the forced incarceration of an entire group without due process of law. He had an underlying faith in the democratic system. He received a substantial amount of legal help and was eventually represented by Frank L. Waters. He was also supported by the American Friends Service Committee and Norman Thomas (1884 – 1968), the noted pacifist and leader of the Socialist Party of the United States for many years.

On May 13, 942, Hirabayashi wrote the following letter (see the image below) –




On May 28, 1942, Hirabayashi was indicted for violating Public Law 505 that made the violation of the mandated curfew imposed upon Japanese-Americans a federal crime. He was subsequently arraigned on June 1, 1942, at which time he pleaded not guilty based upon the legal argument that both the exclusion law and the curfew denied him basic constitutional rights as a citizen of the United States.

He ultimately lost this case and was sentenced to serve his allotted time in confinement at a road camp and ended up at a camp outside of Tacoma, Washington. When Hirabayashi’s legal team appealed this conviction to the Supreme Court, Hirabayashi v. United States, the justices by unanimous vote upheld his conviction on June 21, 1943.

He served his remaining time in a prison in Tucson, Arizona. There he met Hopi draft resistors and other pacifists like himself who refused military service on the grounds of being conscientious objectors. This experience reinforced his determination to resist.

Following his release from the federal prison in Tucson, he was faced with yet another challenge to his determination to resist what he believed were unconstitutional infringements on his personal liberty. He received a form from the Selective Service that came to be known as the “loyalty questionnaire (Form 304A). It was entitled, The Statement of United States Citizens of Japanese Ancestry

Since this form specifically singled out citizens of Japanese descent, he refused to fill it out and returned the blank form with a letter detailing his view regarding his view of the legitimacy of the questionnaire. His submission was ignored, and he was subsequently ordered to proceed to the CPS camp for induction. He refused induction. And was charged with Selective Service violations. In court, he represented himself, and was found guilty and was sentenced to one year at the McNeil Island Penitentiary.

After his release and following the end of the war, Hirabayashi completed his studies in sociology and with his advanced PhD degree, he taught abroad in Beirut, Lebanon, Cairo, Egypt, and Alberta Canada where he finally retired in 1983.



Ultimately, his wartime conviction was vacated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1987. This decision represented a repudiation of the extra-legal treatment of the Japanese-American population during the war.

In 1999, Hirabayashi was recognized for his courage and conviction in the face of the assault on his basic freedoms as a citizen of the United States by the renaming of the site of the Tucson Federal Prison in his honor to the Gordon Hirabayashi Recreation Site. In 2002, a kiosk was created that honored not only Hirabayashi, but also the forty-one Nisei draft resistors that were also sent to prison.

Hirabayashi died on January 2, 2012 and was subsequently posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Obama – a fitting acknowledgment to his contributions in living up to a central ideal of democracy – equal treatment of all under the law.