What the history of blasphemy laws and the fight for religious freedom can teach us

Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦 on Unsplash
person holding book while standing on field

The Conversation

November 13, 2024


Some 79 countries around the world continue to enforce blasphemy laws. And in places such as Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, violation of these measures can result in a death penalty.

While the U.S. is not among those countries, it also has a long history of blasphemy laws. Many of the U.S. colonies established blasphemy laws, which became state laws. The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule that blasphemy was a form of protected speech until 1952. Even then, it has not always been protected.

As a scholar of religious and political rhetoric, I believe the history of U.S. blasphemy laws reflects a complex fight for the freedom of religion and speech.
Early US blasphemy laws

U.S. colonies often developed legal protections for Christians to practice their religion. These safeguards often did not extend to non-Christians.

Maryland’s Toleration Act of 1649, for example, was the first Colonial act to refer to the “free exercise” of religion and was designed to protect Christians from religious persecution from state officials. It did not, however, extend that “free exercise” of religion to non-Christians, instead declaring that anyone who blasphemes against God by cursing him or denying the existence of Jesus can be punished by death or the forfeiture of their lands to the state.

In 1811, the U.S. witnessed one of its most infamous blasphemy trials, People v. Ruggles, at the New York Supreme Court. New York resident John Ruggles received a three-month prison sentence and a US$500 fine — about $12,000 in today’s money — for stating in public that “Jesus Christ was a bastard, and his mother must be a whore.”

Chief Justice James Kent argued that people have freedom of religious opinion, but opinions that were malicious toward the majority stance of Christianity were an abuse of that right. He claimed similar attacks on other religions, such as Islam and Buddhism, would not be punishable by law, because “we are a Christian people” whose country does not draw on the doctrines of “those imposters.”

Several years later, in 1824, a member of a debating society was convicted of blasphemy by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court after saying during a debate: “The Holy Scriptures were a mere fable, that they were a contradiction, and that although they contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies.” In this case — Updegraph v. Commonwealth — the court argued that it was a “vulgarly shocking and insulting” statement that reflected “the highest offence” against public morals and was a disturbance to “public peace.”

By the end of the 19th century, a prominent free thought movement that rejected religion as a guide for reason had begun to emerge. Movement leaders embraced the public critiquing of Christianity and challenged laws that favored Christians, such as blasphemy laws and mandatory Bible readings in public schools.

Unsurprisingly, as historian Leigh Eric Schmidt has noted, speakers and writers in the movement regularly faced threats of blasphemy charges.

By this time, however, even in cases where freethinkers were convicted of blasphemy, judges appeared to offer leniency.

In 1887, C.B. Reynolds, an ex-preacher who became a prominent free thought speaker, was convicted of blasphemy in New Jersey after he publicly doubted the existence of God. He faced a $200 fine and up to a year in prison. The judge, however, only fined Reynolds $25, plus court costs.

While it is unclear why Reynolds was offered leniency, historian Leonard Levy suggests that it may have been to avoid making Reynolds a martyr of the free thought movement by imprisoning him.

Protecting blaspheme as free speech

Growing calls for religious equality and freedom of speech increasingly swayed blasphemy cases in the 1900s.

In 1917, for example, Michael X. Mockus, who had previously been convicted of blasphemy in Connecticut for his free thought lectures, was acquitted in a similar case in Illinois.

While expressing dislike for blasphemy, Judge Perry L. Persons argued that the court’s job is not to determine which religion is right. He said “the Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Mahammedan, the Jew, the Freethinker, the Atheist” must “all stand equal before the law.”

Then, in 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson after New York rescinded the license for the film “The Miracle.” The film was deemed sacrilegious because of its supposed mockery of the Catholic faith.

The high court ruled that states could not ban sacrilegious films. That would be a violation of the separation of church and state, it ruled, and an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of religion and speech.

Even after the Supreme Court decision, Americans continued to occasionally face blasphemy charges. But courts shot the charges down.

In 1968, when Irving West, a 20-year-old veteran, told a policeman to “Get your goddam hands off me” after getting in a fight, he was charged with disorderly conduct and violating Maryland’s blasphemy law. When West appealed, a circuit court judge ruled the law was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.

Despite these rulings, in 1977, Pennsylvania enacted a blasphemy statute banning businesses from having blasphemous names after a local businessman tried to name his gun store “The God Damn Gun Shop.” It was not until 2010 that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court deemed this statute unconstitutional.

The decision followed a case in which the owner of a film production company sued the state after his request to register his company under the name “I Choose Hell Productions, LLC” was denied on the grounds that it was blasphemous. Citing the 1952 Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson case, the judge ruled that the statute was a violation of First Amendment rights.

A sign of democratic freedom

As historian David Sehat highlights in his book “The Myth of American Religious Freedom,” since America was founded there have been strong disagreements over what religious freedom should look like. Blasphemy laws have been a key part of this clash.

Historically, many Americans have viewed the laws as justifiable. Some believed Christianity deserved special protection and reverence. Others, including some Founding Fathers such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, have viewed the same laws as unconstitutional restrictions of free speech and religious expression.

There has recently been growing attention to the rise of Christian nationalism, the belief that the United States is or should be a Christian nation. Amid this rise, there have been attacks on free speech, such as the increase in book bans and restrictions on public protests. I believe it’s important that we, as Americans, learn from this history of the fight for the freedom of religion and speech.

Kristina M. Lee, Assistant Professor, University of South Dakota

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

This Is America: Turning Slander, Plunder, Sadism Into Honor

Harris supporters react to election results at Howard University.
(Photo by ANGELA WEISS / AFP via Getty Images)

Abby Zimet
Nov 12, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

Goddamn. This is a gutting one. Amidst our grief and shock at the ascendancy of a racist, vengeful, malevolent sociopath in cognitive decline who "represents everything we should aspire not to be" - but hey at least he's not a black woman - comes the awful realization, after years of telling ourselves as a country we were better than this, that we're not. We are tired, bitter, vanquished. But now that the country has failed us, say sages tougher than us, we cannot fail each other.

It's dumbfounding, of course. With eyes (if not minds) wide open, after years of seeing the cruelty, vulgarity, bullying, incompetence and mean-spirited braggadocio, a majority of the electorate decided to bring him back. There is no ignoring the result, that ghastly map of a blood-red sea with modest, hopeful pockets of blue. He won the Electoral College, the (rare) popular vote by several million, inexplicably more Latinos, Blacks, young people that anyone had envisioned. Despite his long history of carnage and neglect, his insane clown makeup, his terrible campaign of insults, fascism, misogyny, babbling, and Harris' admirable one of real plans, swing state focus, broad coalition from Beyonce to Cheneys - none of it mattered. People just didn't like her laugh. They didn't believe she worked at McDonalds. They thought butter was too expensive. They worried their gymnastic daughter would have to compete against boys - so unfair! And she's a woman of color (who probably slept her way to power), a bridge too far. Better to go with the wolf who straight-up asserts, "I'm going to eat you." Admiring sheep: "He tells it like it is."

"Who Are We?" asks a disconsolate Robert Reich. After years of saying "America is better than Trump, I'm no longer sure," he writes. But the roots of our failures go back far further than his sordid arrival: "This darkness has always been in us." Trump, the ugly consequence of racial, social and economic changes, has given us "an unsparing view of our country in our time" - one that reflects via our politics the deep flaws of our culture, and en route gives us the grotesque likes of Musk, Scott, Cruz, Bannon, Don and RFK Jr., and vomit-inducing headlines like, "J.D. Vance Congratulates Stephen Miller On Appointment to Top White House Job." Yes, it's part of an era of global and American anti-incumbency. Still, George Conway argues, most dispiritingly it's "what Americans chose for themselves," with the only possible saving grace Trump's incompetence. "The system was never perfect," he writes, "but it inched toward its own betterment, albeit in fits and starts. But in the end, the system the Framers set up - and indeed, all constitutional regimes, however well designed - cannot protect a free people from themselves.”

As a grim result, writes Charlie Pierce, the majority of our fellow-citizens (who voted) "will get exactly what they want." They will get attacks on women, trans kids, political dissent, a free press. They'll get a vicious attempt at mass deportation and chaos for millions of families, soaring inflation and national debt, global isolation, sixth-grade invective, 200% tariffs its author will still not understand, violent vengeance against opponents and dreaded "others," pardons for rioters, he end of accountability for felons and, possibly, Social Security. "We have decided that science and learning don’t count as much as misogyny and racism," Pierce adds. "We have traded engaging in the work of self-government for entertaining ourselves with a freak show." And all for a wannabe king who will - irony alert - giddily preside over the 250th anniversary of our toppling of a monarchy. A few years ago, Childish Gambino, aka Donald Glover, made a video for a song about the carnage caused by our guns; you can add to guns the symbolic ravages of our racism, imperialism, capitalism and their attendant brutality, and still, This Is America.

- YouTube

www.youtube.com


Meanwhile, notes Dem advisor Adam Parkhomenko after Monday's news Trump named Stephen Miller deputy chief of Nazi policy, "All the shit we warned everyone about is coming true, and it has not even been a week." In fact, within 24 hours of the win by a serial rapist and Jeffrey Epstein confidant, women were facing crass hate campaigns. Many echo the venom of white supremacist Nick Fuentes, who sneered, "Your body, my choice. Forever." Or thug Jon Miller, who scoffed, “Women threatening sex strikes like LMAO, as if you have a say." Outside Texas State University, triumphant MAGA fans toted signs that read, "Homo Sex Is Sin" and "Types of Property: Women, Slaves, Animals, Cars, Land." Trump lawyer Mike Davis, who's proposed throwing journalists in gulags and dragging dead political opponents through the streets, darkly warned New York A.G. Letitia James, who won a $454 million judgment against Trump for fraud, against "daring to continue your lawfare. "Listen here, sweetheart," he snarled. "We're not messing around this time, and we will put your fat ass in prison."

The next obvious targets, perhaps yet more vilely, are people of color, especially young vulnerable ones. In a text campaign and hate crime spewing from some 25 states, Black students from college age to middle school have received messages claiming they'd been chosen as "house slaves" and were due to appear at "plantations." "Greetings, Samuel. You have been selected to pick cotton at the nearest plantation," read one. "Be ready at 12 sharp...Our executive slaves will come get you in a brown van. You are in Plantation Group W." The recipients in at least 10 states and D.C. ranged from students at historically Black colleges to high-schoolers in New York and Massachusetts to middle schoolers in Pennsylvania. “This is mandatory,” the message read. “Sincerely, Trump Administration." Defending their "commonsense mandate for change," Trump officials say they had nothing to do with the racist attack. But the NAACP still called them on it. "The unfortunate reality of electing a President who historically has embraced and at times encouraged hate," they charged, " is unfolding before our eyes."

More well-publicized horrors await. Trump promised a blank check for rounding up millions of immigrants, even U.S.- born children who've never been to the ravaged countries their parents fled. To facilitate this atrocity, he's appointed dead-eyed ghoul, Project 2025 architect and "devil on earth" Tom Homan as Border Czar. "Is there a way to carry out mass deportation without separating families?" Homan's asked on 60 Minutes. "Of course there is," he responds with brutal alacrity. "Families can be deported together." A gleeful prison-industrial complex sees the upcoming carnage as "an unprecedented opportunity"; their stocks are soaring in anticipation of at least $400 million in tracking, transporting and detaining millions of new victims, and greedy kingpins like Musk Bezos have joined on bended knee. The rest of us, meanwhile, grieve. Choking back tears, Jimmy Kimmel declared the election "a terrible night" for pretty much everyone, even MAGA fans who don't know it yet: "I never thought leopards would eat MY face," sobs the guy who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party. Who knew?

The night was perhaps most painful for women - "It is an awful thing, how much this country hates women" - especially Black women for whom it "affirmed the worst of what many believed about their country": That America would rather elect a racist, rapist, liar, convicted felon, "the world's worst man," than let a woman lead. Hell, they don't even trust us with our own bodies: "This is, it turns out, who we are." "Our biggest mistake was to think we lived in a better country than we do," wrote Rebecca Solnit, "to think we could row this boat across the acid lake before the acid dissolved it." She cites MAGA's angry masculinity - cue ludicrous Trump-as-Rambo memes - a media that failed to explicate the climate crisis matters more than a trans girl playing softball, and a social media run by rich white men that "arose like a school of sharks" to spread hate and lies. All overseen by Dorothy Thompson's standard Nazi: "He is formless, almost faceless, a man whose countenance is a caricature...He is inconsequent and voluble, ill-poised, insecure. He is the very prototype of the Little Man." Whose devastation we now must grapple with, and endure.

We

We are feeling our way through the sadness and horror, seeking a way forward. We are weary, hopeless, soul-scorched. Everything sucks. We need time to process. But not, experts say, too much time. In his book On Tyranny, historian Timothy Snyder warns of the Russian strategy of “internal emigration," turning away from politics or resistance in powerless despair, leaving the vulnerable among us to suffer first and worst. His mantra: “Do not obey in advance.” Do what heals or feeds you. Consider Raymond Carver's "small good thing," and do it. Here in Maine, we've done a lot of walking and talking with friends in the woods or by the ocean, usually with dogs, who these days, as all days, seem much happier than the rest of us. Community is key; we are going to need each other. Michael Moore just emerged: "Silence. Thinking. Then acting. In that order." From one sage, "Remember that living your life with purpose in a country that wants you to fade away is a radical act." Also, remember that on Nov. 26, the president-elect is due to be sentenced in a New York courtroom on 34 felony counts. What a time to be alive..

"It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely required no character.” 

– Joseph Heller, Catch-22

SOCIETY: HOW TO KILL THE STAGED ENCOUNTER

PAKISTAN BLASPHEMY LAW

Mahar Murrawat Hussain 

Published November 3, 2024

DAWN

illustration by Sarah Durrani

The accused was killed [or injured] in a shoot-out with his accomplices who, after the incident, fled the scene, with teams dispatched to apprehend them.’ Without fail, we come across this police statement after almost every alleged shoot-out.

While circumstances may change and the area may differ, the official story remains the same. It is consistent in the sense that neither the wording nor the structure of the sentence is altered.

This template was also used in the recent killing of Dr Shahnawaz Kambhar, a blasphemy accused, with the police saying he was “killed by his own accomplices” during a shoot-out in Mirpurkhas, Sindh. However, once the incident came under media scrutiny, the police story was torn apart within a matter of hours. As word of the ‘staged encounter’ spread and condemnations began to pour in, the Sindh government swung into action.


What followed is already in the public domain, but one fact worth mentioning is that the inquiry, ordered by the Sindh home minister, revealed it was a staged encounter.

WHAT IS A STAGED ENCOUNTER?

Before going into the reasons and the modus operandi employed by the police to carry out such extrajudicial killings, we need to develop an understanding of what makes a police encounter a staged encounter.


Police in Pakistan follow a set template when it comes to staging fake ‘encounters’, as shown in the recent case of blasphemy accused Dr Shahnawaz Kumbhar. A serving policeman tries to explain what drives this practice, why ‘encounter specialists’ get away with what they do and how to change this pernicious culture…

A staged encounter is one in which law enforcement agencies, particularly police, orchestrate a scenario that appears to be a legitimate encounter or shoot-out, but is, in fact, pre-planned and undertaken to kill individuals without due process. In this premeditated act, an illusion of self-defence is set up to get through the ensuing legal challenges, such as invoking the police’s right-to-self-defence, as enshrined in the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.

The modus operandi employed by the police to carry out extrajudicial killings is usually the same everywhere. The victim is first arrested and kept in illegal detention for weeks. Then, in the middle of the night, he is transported to a deserted place — often deserted graveyards, agricultural fields or riverine areas — where a volley of bullets is discharged at him.

An official statement typically follows, containing the usual platitudes, claiming that ‘A’ was being taken for ‘recovery’ of weapons or other material when, en route, his accomplices attacked the police to secure his release; the police “retaliated”, but ‘A’ was “caught in the crossfire”, resulting in his death or injury, while the attackers fled under the “cover of darkness.”

Now, take any case of extrajudicial killing that ever took place in any province, region or district. You will find this same pattern — without even a single alteration of a word, full stop or comma. Troublingly, it seems to matter not one bit that the overuse of the current template has rendered it doubtful.

‘FULL FRY’ AND ‘HALF FRY’

The culture of staged encounters permeates the police forces across Pakistan. In fact, it is the shared belief and value amongst all ranks. There are a multitude of reasons for it being a ‘favourite sport’ of law-enforcers.

The phrase ‘favourite sport’ may sound insensitive to some, but this is how extrajudicial killings are viewed by members of the police force. Such is the height of insensitivity that the term “full fry” is used to refer to such killings internally, while “half fry” describes the act of shooting the victim in the kneecap, in one or both legs, so as to leave them crippled for the rest of their life.

Sometimes it can go wrong, too, as it did recently in Punjab. The police caught an alleged bandit and decided to ‘half fry’ him, but the task reportedly fell to a novice, who failed to hit the bullet at the intended part of the victim’s body. Instead, the bullet allegedly pierced through the lower belly, leaving the victim critically wounded, with blood flowing from the wound. Reportedly, he was not shifted to a hospital for quite some time and remained groaning and contorting until he breathed his last.

Such phoney encounters also allow the police to gloss over their own shortcomings. Poor investigations, coupled with equally poor prosecutions, result in a dismal conviction rate. But instead of focusing on their own investigative practices and procedures, the prevalent perception among police officers is that the judicial system is the reason for their failure to get a conviction.

This perception provides them with the justification to take on the role of judge, jury and executioner, and to instantly dispense ‘justice’ via ‘full fry’ or ‘half fry.’

THE DETERRENT THAT ISN’T
Adeela Suleman's art installation Killing Fields of Karachi, which was displayed at the Frere Hall in Karachi on October 27, 2019, commemorated the 444 victims of alleged extrajudicial killings by policeman Rao Anwar: despite the uproar, Anwar continues to get acquitted in cases and remains a free man | Nazish Brohi

There is a strong belief among the members of the police force that only violence can be an effective response to the violence. Staged encounters are one of the tools the police use to spread ‘official violence’ in an attempt to deter criminals and control the crime rate. Thus, we see the number of police shoot-outs remain consistently high.

According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), a staggering 3,296 police encounters occurred in Sindh alone in 2023 and a total of 618 people were mowed down in the country in police encounters in one year.

There were 2,544 police shootouts in Sindh during 2022, while this number rose to 3,296 the following year, indicating an uptick of 30 percent. It underscores the police’s ever-increasing proclivity towards violence. Ironically, as the HRCP report notes, despite the increase in encounters, the crime rate in Sindh also witnessed a rise in 2023, with street crime going up by 11 percent.

This debunks the myth about the efficacy of such killings in arresting the crime rate.

‘ENCOUNTER SPECIALISTS’

Cutting down people in a hail of bullets is considered a badge of honour for the perpetrators. Police officers, among themselves and in off-the-record conversations, often proudly recount such encounters and boast about the number of people they have gunned down.

The phrase ‘encounter specialist’ is used to refer to the men who have expertise in killing people in staged encounters. These so-called ‘encounter specialists’ are given lucrative postings and are granted carte blanche to kill people. Rao Anwar, a former senior superintendent of police, according to police records, was involved in ‘encounters’ that claimed the lives of 444 people.

I once had the opportunity to sit down with one such ‘encounter specialist.’ The man, twirling his moustache and wearing a smile on his face, admitted in no uncertain terms that he had sent at least 20 people to the hereafter in fake encounters. Upon my question about how he managed to get away with it each time, he smugly replied: “Killing people in fake encounters is an art, but covering up those killings by tampering records takes even more skill.”

Despite this grim reality, one struggles to find a single precedent where perpetrators of such staged encounters have been put in the dock. More often than not, such encounters hardly create any headlines. In situations where the matter does come into the limelight, cases are promptly registered and the accused are removed from their postings, but only temporarily, to placate the media.

Once the news fades from public view, not only are the accused given a free pass, thanks to the lopsided investigations in such cases conducted by their ‘uniform brothers’, but they also often get posted to more lucrative positions.

In some cases, where judicial enquiries are ordered, the police still manage to influence the outcome, either through record-tampering or by effecting a settlement with the heirs of the victims, either through coercion or inducement.

One legal avenue against this barbarity is the filing of a private complaint in a magistrate’s court, as laid down under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898. However, this process is often lengthy, costly and ineffective. Furthermore, even if the family of the victim daringly takes this route, the courts ironically seek reports in the matter from the same police force that is being put in the dock by the complainant.

Even more comical is the fact that courts tend to mechanically dispose of such complaints in light of the reports furnished by the police. Consequently, convictions in the cases of staged encounters are exceedingly rare.

The case of Rao Anwar serves as an example to show the impunity enjoyed by these ‘encounter specialists.’ He was able to walk free from the case of the cold-blooded murder of an innocent young man, Naqeebullah Mehsud, despite much uproar in the media and civil society.

INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION COMMISSIONS

So can anything be done to reform the situation?

The perpetrators of extrajudicial killings often get away with their crime because investigations into such cases are carried out by their colleagues in the police. This mechanism is inherently flawed and against the principles of natural justice. There needs to be an independent investigation commission to investigate every such act of killing, whether or not it is reported by the victim’s heirs.

We can draw lessons from South Africa, which has such a mechanism in place. It established the Independent Police Investigation Directorate (IPID) in 2011, through an act of parliament. The public can file complaints against transgressions committed by the officers of the South African police. In case of custodial torture, death in custody and extrajudicial killings, the station commander, an officer equivalent to the rank of assistant/deputy superintendent of police in Pakistan, is required to promptly report it to the commission.

If the investigation substantiates the allegations against any member of the force, the commission recommends action to the police leadership, which is under obligation to take action in accordance with its recommendations.

Such a mechanism is desperately needed in Pakistan to hold police officials accountable for human rights violations in general, and particularly for extrajudicial killings. There needs to be a commission in each province, comprising elected members of the provincial assembly concerned as well as members of civil society. Then, in every region, the commission can set up sub-committees to take up the matter of extrajudicial killings.

The commission so established should be empowered not only to conduct inquiries in such killings, but also to recommend both criminal and disciplinary proceedings against those found culpable.

REFINING INVESTIGATIONS, CHANGING MINDSETS

It is imperative for the police to move away from the typical investigation approach, which revolves around practices from the 19th century, as poor investigation inevitably leads to acquittals. As pointed out earlier, this is then used by the police to justify the alternatives to ‘make society crime-free’, resulting in fake encounters as a ‘policy prescription’ to circumvent due process.

To address this, upskilling of investigation officers is essential. Investigation officers should not only be equipped with modern investigation methods prevalent worldwide, such as forensic science, digital forensics and behaviour analysis, but also made well-versed in the use of technology. What is crucial is the provision of access to such modern facilities at the level of the police station. It is equally important for officers to understand data analytics to optimise the resources at their disposal.

In addition to these skills, investigation officers must have a solid understanding of substantive, procedural and evidentiary law, which a wide majority within the police currently lack. As a result, they struggle to grasp what evidence is admissible under the law, what it means to maintain the sanctity of the evidence, how to produce it in court and how to testify during trial. To this end, regular workshops for investigative officers can be arranged, engaging serving and retired judicial officers, prosecutors and eminent lawyers.

To rein in this killing spree, the police need to also undergo a thorough purge. Officers with dubious human rights records, particularly the ones who boldly and shamelessly take pride in being ‘encounter specialists’, should be shunted out of the department, or at least be sidelined forthwith. Field postings must not be assigned to them until they undergo targeted training and commit to upholding the inherent sanctity of human rights.

There is also a need to uproot the perception that these so-called ‘encounter specialists’ are in any way ‘brave’ or ‘special’, not only within the ranks of the police, but also in society. This term, which unfortunately commands a sense of vigilante machismo, needs to be made synonymous with an expletive; this perceived ‘badge of honour’ must systematically be turned into a ‘badge of shame.’

A TIME TO ACT

This is an opportune moment for policymakers to act, as the cold-blooded murder of Dr Kumbhar has resulted in a rallying cry, reminiscent of the outrage that followed the killing of Naqeebullah Mehsud in Karachi and the tragic slaying of a family in front of children in Sahiwal in 2019. The public’s support for such measures will be readily attainable.

This is the time to act; as a nation, we can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to these violations of basic human rights. We must confront the issues that have devastated countless families. The emotional pain and psychological trauma endured by these bereaved families cannot be adequately measured or articulated.

While we cannot bring back the loved ones lost to this ‘police mania’, we have the power to save many other sons, brothers and husbands. Let’s take action for the sake of humanity.

The writer is a sub-inspector in the police and is currently serving in a specialised unit. He has a law degree from the University of Punjab. He can be reached at maharmurrawat240@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, EOS, November 3rd, 2024

 

The Numbing Election

by Dan Lieberman / November 4th, 2024

Before radio waves vibrated in Calvin Coolidge’s 1924 campaign, voters had scarce knowledge of candidates in presidential elections. Despite the limited communications, only a few presidents of the United States (POTUS) were disasters and most were more acceptable. The rapid growth of communications brought the faces and words of candidates into everyone’s living rooms; it did not improve the selection of chief executives who moved into the White House living room. The assortment remained the same — a few great, most acceptable, and some sub-standard presidents.

Donald trump is the only elected president who never held public office or any office, including a military post, that served the American public. The only offices where Trump sat comfortably were in offices that served Donald Trump. Usually, if someone seeks guidance and authority, whether it is for medical, legal, educational, or money matters, the sought authority has experience, expertise, education, and works in the particular field. Because POTUS handles almost all our problems, it seems logical for the public to demand he/she has the background to guide us. Choosing someone with nil qualifications is dangerous, but not unique. Many people believe going to a doctor makes them sicker and putting life in the hands of a lawyer increases emptying the wallet and complicating legal problems. Evidently, a great portion of the American public neither trusts the education system that prepares graduates for government service nor the institutions in which they operate.

Trump’s lack of government service before seeking the highest position is an incomplete story. In fairness to Donald Trump, he has engaged in politics for decades, several times making official runs for the presidency, and has knowledge and opinions on domestic and foreign issues and policies. He has extensive experience and accomplishments in business, finance, legal issues, and entertainment; knows how to “wheel and deal,” how to “lead and bleed,” how to “hire and fire,” how to “lie and mystify,“ and how to “hustle and muscle,” all characteristics of a smooth politician. Trump is not smooth, his politics are described by one adjective, an overused word that has made headlines and may decide the election ─ garbage ─ Trump is a master of “garbage politics.”

It is a mystery how an inexperienced political person of Trump’s indecent, lying, demagogic, and contemptuous character could obtain the nomination over a host of dedicated, recognized and well-established Republicans. Could it be that Trump arrived upon the scene at an opportune moment? After the dismal performance and multitude of failures of the George W. Bush administration and the inability of conventional Republicans, John McCain and Mitt Romney, to regain the presidency, the Party faithful recognized that the Party that began with Abraham Lincoln, had faded with George W. Bush, and saw its last gasp with Mitt Romney. In 2016, their Republican Party could no longer win elections. Those who disdained the neoliberalism of the Democratic Party, those who saw godliness in the Democratic Party, those who felt the Democratic Party had pandered to non-white minorities and marginalized white majorities, and Republican leaders who believed, “winning was not everything, it was the only thing,” sought elsewhere. They scorned the leadership. Trump’s degradations, insults, and rants pleased them ─ the previous leaders had it coming.

Maybe winning the Republican nomination over disciplined, dedicated, accepted, and performing Republicans, who had recognition, such as John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, George Pataki, Mike Huckabee, and Bobby Jindall is explained by, “Failure has no redemption.” How did Trump then go on and win the election? He didn’t; Hillary Clinton ran an insulting and dismal campaign and lost an election most any recognized Democrat would have won.

By normal political measures, a healthy President Joe Biden could have easily defeated former President Donald Trump in the coming election. A healthy Biden already beat Trump in the previous election and had an administration featuring low unemployment, a decent economy, no catastrophes, and foreign policy initiatives, which may have disturbed a portion of the electorate but were acceptable to the masses. The inflation was a hand-me-down from the excessive spending and Federal Reserve easy money policies during Trump’s administration. Besides, the president has little control of inflation and reality is that it has subsided. Many positives and few negatives for a previously chosen Biden.

By normal political measures, Trump would have lost heavily to a healthy Biden. He had already lost once, had nothing new to show that improved his image, and had January 6, 2021 and a number of legal cases to dampen enthusiasm for him. His rhetoric has become more vile, more disturbing, and more mendacious. Continuous references to the “stolen election,” are effectively challenged, so why does Trump continue with the blasphemy? This author has previously shown that it is impossible to manipulate many votes in a national election. Can’t understand why the articulation of electoral security has never been used to stop Trump’s implausible claim of having won the election? Many negatives and no positives for a previously rejected Trump.

Historians have added an exclamation to a healthy Biden’s superiority to a disturbing Trump. In a survey of 154 members of the American Political Science Association, in which respondents graded U.S. presidents on 10 characteristics — administrative skills, moral authority, economic management, and others — President Joe Biden was ranked a high 14th, and former President Donald Trump was ranked 45th, placing him as the worst president in U.S. history. What more is needed to steer voters away from Trump? Aren’t historian opinions worth something in shaping minds and decisions?

Despite the large discrepancy between a successful Joe Biden and a failed Donald Trump, the ex-president managed to remain in contention, even when Biden still had his faculties. After Biden retired, Trump suffered a temporary setback to Kamala Harris, the new face on the block. A few days before election, “Harris and Trump are tied at 48% in the latest nationwide TIPP Tracking Poll.” How can this be? Kamala Harris may not be all the voters want as president, but she is heir to a successful presidency and has not exhibited any deep negatives. Two suggested reasons for this anomaly.

Harris has a nervous laugh and lacks charisma. Trump, with all his bloating and gloating, has charisma; the charisma of a demagogue. Americans are attracted to the sensational, to the charismatic, no matter the types of sensation and charisma. All publicity, good or bad, leads to product identification, and is helpful. Product Trump knows how to make the front page and generate publicity.

Elon Musk has been a crucial factor in reenergizing the Trump campaign. Musk has huge success, not only as a successful entrepreneur, but as a man of vision. He is admired by the American public. If he sees Trump as a viable candidate to whom he is willing to give his attachment, then Trump must have more to his persona than is apparent. If Elon Musk is going to be a part of a Trump administration, which does not seem possible when considering the magnitude of the efforts he must give to his precarious commercial endeavors, Trump deserves a vote.

As we enter the final days of a close presidential campaign, it is foolish to predict the outcome. Polls, pundits, and momentums indicate it will be tough sledding for Kamala Harris.

Dan Lieberman publishes commentaries on foreign policy, economics, and politics at substack.com.  He is author of the non-fiction books A Third Party Can Succeed in America, Not until They Were Gone, Think Tanks of DC, The Artistry of a Dog, and a novel: The Victory (under a pen name, David L. McWellan). Read other articles by Dan.

Kamala is the In-Girl

Everyone loves her

by B.R. Gowani / November 4th, 2024

IMAGE/Monthly Review

The criteria for winning a presidential debate is very simple: the candidate who fumbles less, makes less mistakes, avoids too many verbal gaffes, etc., who is able to present a rosy picture for the future, and, who believes in people’s “ambition, the aspirations, [and] the dreams,” is the winner — provided all bullshitting is done with a serious face.

However, it’s entirely a different matter whether that person has any genuine solutions to the problems majority of the people face.

Exactly eight years ago, first time in US history of 240 years, a woman had a chance to reach the highest office — Hillary Clinton won popular votes by almost 3 million votes, but that rare opportunity was snatched away by the Electoral College. The victory went to Donald Trump, a slowly evolving fascist. It is to be remembered that Clinton was not that woman progressives have been waiting for.

This time, another woman, Kamala Harris, is in the race for presidency. Her opponent is none other than Trump. Harris was not in the competition but got her opportunity when the Democratic establishment realized, after the Biden/Trump debate, that the horse they have been trying to steady for three and a half years cannot any more stand on its own, and could give up any moment.

Thus, Joe Biden was pushed aside with a tribute that he left the race for a second term out of patriotic duty. Everyone knows that almost no one gives up power, whether s/he is an authoritarian or a “democrat,” without a rough push.

Kamala is the in-girl

Kamala is the in-girl — so many love and support her, not only most of the Democrats but also some prominent Republicans! Within 36 hours of Biden’s decision not to run, and his nominating of Harris as his successor, Harris campaign raised $100 million that jumped to $310 in less than two weeks, with new donors contributing two-thirds of the amount. By September 6, the number had nearly doubled to $615 million. Andrew Byrnes, a tech policy strategist and Harris fundraiser, said the amount he raised for Kamala in one week was double the amount he raised for Biden in a whole year.

In two months, the amount rose to $1 billion. No other presidential candidate has accumulated such a huge amount in such a short period!

Trump is no match for Harris in fundraising despite the fact that his campaign received $100 million from Miriam Adelson who likes Trump so much that she said “Book of Trump”¹ should be added to the Bible, i.e. the Old Testament. Trump allied PAC also got $150 million from Timothy Mellon. Trump’s equally nasty buddy Elon Musk has contributed $76 million.

Trump is the best thing that has happened to the Democratic Party. Most Democrats never tire of ridiculing him. This enables them and the Democrat-leaning news media to keep their supporters busy in Trump’s antics and eccentricities and thus saves the party from answering hard questions.

MSNBC is also known as MSDNC or Democratic National Committee mouthpiece. MSNBC is a cheerleader for the Democrats. Biden and Harris regularly watch MSNBC’s Morning Joe with Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. “A Jacobin analysis of six months of its Gaza coverage reveals an unflagging role cheering on Israel’s genocide.”

Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn co-founder and billionaire, is backing Kamala because he wants to get rid of Lina Khan, chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Billionaire Mark Cuban endorsed Harris too for the same reason: dump Khan.

Sheryl Sandberg is “thrilled to support” Kamala,² because

She is an accomplished leader, a fierce advocate of abortion rights, and the strongest candidate to lead our country forward.

Ron Conway, a billionaire, has asked tech community to join hands to salvage “our democracy” by getting behind Kamala, whom he has known “for decades” to prevent Trump’s reentry into White House. Conway says she is an “advocate for the tech ecosystem since the day we met.”

Melinda French Gates ($13 million), Reed Hastings (Netflix), George Soros and Alex Soros, Vinod Khosla, Jeffrey Katzenberg (former president of Walt Disney Studios), Bill Gates ($50 million), and other billionaires numbering 81 (or more) have joined the Kamala bandwagon, whereas, Trump has 52 billionaires with him.

Billionaires’ bribes count. Harris, who was with Biden’s plan of raising capital gains tax from 23.8% to 44.6%, opted for 33%, instead.

More than 90 business leaders, including over a dozen billionaires, wrote and signed an endorsement letter to Harris.

“Her election is the best way to support the continued strength, security, and reliability of our democracy and economy. … [She] ensure[s] American businesses can compete and win in the global market. … she will strive to give every American the opportunity to pursue the American dream.”

These billionaire and multimillionaire business people have nothing to do with democracy. The main thrust of the letter is US “businesses can compete and win in the global market,” under Harris, that is, the US government either diplomatically or through military force opens up foreign markets for them like US Commodore Matthew Perry forced Japan to open up for business in 1853. The other fallacy is that Kamala will try to provide people with “the opportunity to pursue the American dream.”

A few corporations are controlling most businesses in US. People are free to dream but whose dreams get realized is decided by the people in power.

Many US presidents, have warned about the increasing corporate power and its harmful effect on country. Thomas Jefferson had hoped in 1816 to “crush” the corporate power which was challenging government and defying laws. Instead the corporations crushed the government power and as journalist and novelist Theodore Dreiser puts it, “the corporations are the government.” (China is a capitalist country but the government controls the capitalists; this is anathema to the US; it wants China to go the US way.)

Women are elated with Harris entering the race for two main reasons: one is that someone from their gender has a chance to win and the other is Harris’ support for abortion. Sadly, most of these women have no Palestinian and Lebanese women and children on their mind.

Porn actors, some of them, are spending over $100,000 in seven swing states in support of Harris because they fear Trump presidency and Project 2025 will ban the porn industry. Harris should thank them but should ask them to stop violence and degradation of women in many of their videos.

Jeff Bridges extended his support to Kamala who is “just so certainly our girl.” He proudly proclaimed: “I’m white, I’m a dude, and I’m for Harris.” Bridges was a part of White Dudes for Harris Zoom call; over 180,000 joined in and raised about $4 million for her campaign. The invitation to join in was based on: “Are you a white guy who believes in science, human rights, and democracy?”

There have been several similar events: such as Latinas for Harris; White Women: Answer the Call; the Black Women Zoom; Caribbean-Americans for Harris; South Asian Women for Harris; Disabled Voters for Harris; Black Men for Harris; Win With Black Women; and South Asian Men for Harris.

Salman Rushdie, an author, joined the South Asian Men for Harris virtual meet and declared he’s in for Harris “1,000 per cent.”³ One could understand Rushdie’s worry as a writer because if Trump wins and turns dictator, of which there are great chances, then he and his ministers, like Elon Musk, won’t tolerate any kind of criticism. The Kamala government would let them write in small publications and press which have limited reach and do not disturb or threaten the ruling class and the system.

Singer-songwriter Taylor Swift is for Kamala too because “She is a steady-handed, gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos.”

Billionaire Swift resides in her own bubble and is unaware that, until now the US has been led by calm leaders, but most people have achieved nothing but decline.

In 1982, when the Forbes 400 list was initiated, one could join the list with $100 million ($300 million in today’s money). There were only 13 billionaires then. Today, you need eleven times that amount or $3.3 billion to be one of 400 wealthy in US. So, 400 billionaires made it to the list but 415 individuals couldn’t make it, including Oprah Winfrey who has $3 billion, less than the required $3.3 billion.

What about the rest of the people? A whopping 37% of people in US have less than $400 in savings!

Singer-songwriter Beyonce joined Kamala at a rally in Houston to extend her support. Many celebrities including Leonardo DiCaprio, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Eminem, Bruce Springsteen, Patti LaBelle, Jennifer Lopez, Jamie Lee Curtis, George Clooney,⁴ and Sarah Jessica Parker (who is voting for Kamala for 31 things, including “For our military, past and currently serving” but not for peace or ceasefire in Gaza).

Dick Cheney, the Vice President in George W. Bush regime and one of the major architects of the Iraq War, a Republican, has also announced that he’ll vote for Kamala Harris.

“[There had] never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump”

“He [Trump] tried to steal the last election using lies and violence to keep himself in power after the voters had rejected him.” “He can never be trusted with power again.”

“As citizens, we each have a duty to put country above partisanship to defend our constitution.” “That is why I will be casting my vote for Vice-President Kamala Harris.”

Liz Cheney, a Republican and Dick Cheney’s daughter, supports Harris too, and joined her campaign events thrice in early October. Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , the progressive supporters and Democrats like Harris, are campaigning for her but have not been invited to appear with Harris, as yet.

Liz Cheney criticized Trump: “He is petty, he is vindictive, and he is cruel.” If she had not mentioned Trump’s name, one would have assumed she was talking about her dad Dick Cheney who is not any better, in any respect, but is worst than Trump –until now. Liz Cheney also added: “Violence does not and must never determine who rules us. Voters do.”

Trump called Dick Cheney (whose approval rating, when he left office, was mere 13%) a “King of Endless, Nonsensical Wars,” and blasted both father- daughter duo on his TruthSocial account.

“… Her father, Dick, was a leader of our ridiculous journey into the Middle East, where Trillions of Dollars were spent, millions of people were killed – and for what? NOTHING! Well, today, these two fools, because the Republican Party no longer wants them, endorsed the most Liberal Senator in U.S. Senate, further Left than even Pocahontas or Crazy Bernie Sanders – Lyin’ Kamala Harris. What a pathetic couple that is, both suffering gravely from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Good Luck to them both!!!”

Trump is correct about Dick Cheney. He was George H.W. Bush’s Defense Secretary when US went to war against Iraq and destroyed that country. Dick Cheney was Vice President of Bush Jr., when US devastated Afghanistan in 2001, and again went to war against Iraq, in 2003.

Trump lies a great deal but then every now and then he also shows a mirror of the US empire, and its imperialist crimes. Trump once told Bill O’Reilly, “We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think — our country’s so innocent?” Or just recently he said: Trillions of Dollars were spent, millions of people were killed. Now this kind of talk can’t be conducive to people running the empire because they suffer from spectrophobia.

238 staffers from four previous Republican governments and many more, including John Negroponte, one of the criminal minds of US imperialism, endorsed Kamala. Barbara Pierce Bush (daughter of former Republican president George W. Bush) is supporting Kamala with the hope the US moves “forward and protect women’s rights.”

Why so many wealthy and powerful people have gotten behind Kamala? The reasons, as we have seen vary, but the most important one is that Kamala will maintain the statue quo. She’s not going to make any drastic changes, but just the cosmetic type.

On the other hand, many rich, and not very rich, in the ruling class are scared of Trump’s unpredictable nature. The wealthy class may benefit much more under Trump than under Harris. In 2017, Trump lowered the corporate tax rate from (Obama government’s) 35% to 21% and corporations benefited a lot. (Biden raised it to 28% and not the 35% it used to be during his vice presidency.)

Trump may concentrate on domestic issues rather than waging foreign wars; but, then if something triggers him, or he is incited by his aides, or perceives a threat from foreign leader(s), then he may go unhinged.

Biden praised Liz Cheney’s “courage” to appear with Harris. “I admire her. Her dad and I worked together a long, long time.” Biden, like Cheneys, loves violence and war. Republicans and Democrats working together can screw the people within and without the US. It becomes so much easier to wage a war against “foreign enemy” when both parties are working together.

Trump will probably do within the US, what the US has been doing to the world for several decades. He will unleash the army on his opponents and critics. Here is Trump:

“The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave, than the threat from within, Despite the hatred and anger of the Radical Left Lunatics who want to destroy our Country, we will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”⁵

Irony

In 2021, Trump’s vice presidential candidate, J.D. Vance had portrayed Vice President Kamala Harris and other women Democrats as, “a bunch of childless cat ladies miserable at their own lives.”

During the presidential debate in September 2024, Trump falsely charged Haitians residing in Springfield, Ohio, of “eating the dogs … the cats … the pets of the people that live there.”

On October 31, Trump said “Well, I’m going to do it whether the women like it or not. I am going to protect them.”

On October 27, comedian Tony Hinchcliffe made racist fun of Latino people by saying “These Latinos, they love making babies,” he called Puerto Rico “a floating island of garbage,” and repeated the lie about Haitians eating pets.

Donald Trump and his team, it seems, is striving to lose the election. Despite that, the polls show a tight race between Trump and Harris.

On Harris’ side, she is careful but had to distance herself from Biden telling Latinos “The only garbage I see floating out there is his [Trump] supporters — his — his demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it’s un-American.” Harris has yet to comment on former president Bill Clinton‘s “racist Michigan speech” as Sanjana Karanth puts it. Bill Clinton said:

“I understand why young Palestinian and Arab Americans in Michigan think too many people have died — I get that, but…” “Hamas makes sure that they’re shielded by civilians, they’ll force you to kill civilians, if you want to defend yourself.”

Harris is very popular, was able to amass great amount of money, got lot of support but somehow the polls — which may be wrong , as often happens — are not favoring her. Who knows, as investigative reporter Dave Lindorff points out, Harris could win if she gets “secret women’s vote” in rural Pennsylvania similar to what happened in Kansas in 2022 regarding the banning of abortion referendum. Julia Roberts encouraged women to exercise their right to choose, within the privacy of the election booth:

This is an election where voters will decide between possible drastic changes that result in fascism, versus, maintaining the unjust pro-war inegalitarian status quo.

However, those who are fed up with the two main lesser and greater evils, there are two other candidates to choose from who are anti-war and pro-common people: Jill Stein of Green Party and Claudia De la Cruz of Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL).⁶

ENDNOTES:

• 1
  Miriam Adelson wrote in her paper Israel Hayom: “Would it be too much to pray for a day when the Bible gets a ‘Book of Trump,’ much like it has a ‘Book of Esther’ celebrating the deliverance of the Jews from ancient Persia? “Until that is decided, let us, at least, sit back and marvel at this time of miracles for Israel, for the United States, and for the whole world.”
• 2
  In June 2024, Kamala Harris joined by Sandberg screened Sandberg’s documentary Screams Before Silence at the White House. The film was about alleged rapes by Hamas members — a long debunked theory. See Briahna Joy Gray’s detailed expose about the entire issue.
• 3
  Once accepted by US mainstream, which Rushdie has been, he toned down or ignored the crimes of the US, and its ally, Israel. There was a time when Rushdie was for the Palestinian cause; he interviewed Professor Edward Said, the most prominent Palestinian in the Western world then. Last year, Rushdie repeated the Western line of argument labeling Hamas “as a “terrorist organization.” One should have asked Rushdie as to how the occupied people should fight their occupiers.
• 4
  In March 2012, George Clooney was arrested in Washington DC while protesting in front of Sudan’s embassy for violence in South Sudan. He then boasted: “We are the antigenocide paparazzi.” But nowadays Clooney is careful what he says: “I’m very careful not to use words like genocide, occupation, colonialism, open-air prisons — despite believing they do accurately describe what’s happening in Gaza. Those put a target on your back. I also don’t use the word unprovoked. A lot of people say October 7 was “unprovoked.” Well, it’s a massive chicken-and-egg situation, this back-and-forth. Also, I didn’t know the word cease-fire would be such a problem! I would hope we don’t want wars!”
• 5
  See “Making America Great, Again? Racism, Poverty, Violence…“
• 6
  See also “A Moral Imperative for the 2024 US Elections.”FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

B.R. Gowani can be reached at brgowani@hotmail.com. Read other articles by B.R.