"We have the right to make dumb jokes."

-- Tina Fey

I'm a free speech advocate. I've been arrested and I have served jail time for exercising my First Amendment rights. As a reporter, magazine editor and political cartoonist, I've received complaints (and a few rare death threats) for my work. So it goes without saying that I share the global outrage over the brutal murders of the cartoonists and staff at the French magazine Charlie Hebdo. It chills the blood to imagine any American cartoonist being placed in the crosshairs of a Kalashnikov. No matter your race, religion, history or lifestyle, murder is a heinous crime—far worse than even the most wounding insult.

But after dwelling on the causes and effects of this tragedy, I find that I have some qualms about the argument that there should be no limits to the exercise of free speech. 

My concerns begin with a question: "At what point does satire become bullying?" At what point does satire morph from a deftly wielded surgical tool into a blunt instrument of personal or cultural assault? As we have seen, a pen can draw a cartoon but a weaponized cartoon can draw blood. Does the cause of "free speech" bind us to defend slanders, lies and defamation? 

Many advocates of free speech make a point of defending uncensored and fearless public expression—but only so long as the speech does not veer into venomous and hateful rhetoric. When "free speech" devolves into racist or misogynistic invective, it can prove as devastating to public peace as yelling "Fire!" in the legendary "crowded auditorium." Such mean-spirited expressions are classified as "hate speech" and are characterized by content that "offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits." 

Unclothed Emperors Versus the Naked Masses 

Satire, as a form of mockery, reads entirely differently depending on where and how it is directed. Ridicule directed against the powerful—whether the target be a wealthy member of the elite or a multinational corporation—is most easily recognized as the proper use of the satiric tool. However, ridicule directed against the powerless, the disenfranchised, or the disabled can be seen as inappropriate and coldhearted bullying. 

Even hate speech can be nuanced by the interplay of social realities. It's one thing for the oppressed to call for the elimination of the ruling classes; it's another matter for the rulers to call for the elimination of masses. Regicide and genocide are both crimes but there is a vast difference in scale. 

Satire, as defined by Wikipedia, is "a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement." 

The rule here is simple: there must be some kind of perceived moral failure to draw satire's fire and the goal should be to "shame" the targeted parties into "improving" their behavior to reflect accepted (or idealized) societal norms. 

Satire Is a Tool, Not a Plaything 

I remember a conversation I once had while working at West Coast magazine. A fellow staffer had proposed a humorous article on Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich. The article was based on the premise that Ehrlich and his wife were beset by a house overrun by their 20 hyperactive children. 

"But that's something that would never happen, given the Ehrlich's beliefs and practices," I objected. 

"Don't worry," came the response. "It's satire!" 

But it did matter. You can't satirize someone for something they haven't done, aren't doing now or are unlike ever to do. Like the definition says, you first need a legitimate "vice" or a "foible." If you're mocking someone because they are conspicuous and "different"—say for simply wearing a turban or a sombrero—you aren't engaging in satire, you're just being insensitive and boorish. 

It is one thing to mock a celebrity millionaire known for dining on the flesh of an endangered species but it is an entirely different matter to make sport of a homeless person forced to feast on leftovers scrounged from a dumpster. 

In the case of the cartooned attacks on Islam's standard-bearer, the artists involved committed a double offense. First, they violated a cultural taboo against graphic depictions of Muhammad and, at the same time, used the caricatures to insinuate that the prophet (and, by implication, all Muslims) was an agent of mass murder. 

To update Tina Fey: We not only have a "right to tell dumb jokes." We also have a responsibility to tell "smart jokes." 

Why the Anger? 

Many members of the international Muslim community have reason to fear—and, yes, hate—the West. But this hostility is rooted in more in lived history than in any religions jihad or "clash of cultures." 

As PBS /Frontline columnist Muhammad Sahimi notes: "Since the end of the first Persian Gulf War in 1991…, the West has done nothing but [bring] misery, destruction and bloodshed to the region." 

Among the brief litany presented by Sahimi are the following statistics: 

By the United Nation's count, at least 576,000 Iraqi children died as a result of US economic sanctions imposed in the aftermath of the first Persian Gulf War. 

Between 500,000 and 1.6 million Iraqis were killed as a result of the US invasion. 

As many as 50,000 Libyans have been killed since the US attacks that lead to the overthrow of Libya's leader Muammar al-Qaddafi. 

More than 200,000 Syrians have been killed and as many as 10.6 million driven from their homes as a result of the US-backed proxy war against the government of Bashar Hafez al-Assad. 

Then there is the US drone war, which has managed to assassinate several dozen identified "terrorists" while murdering as many as 4,700 innocent people. 

Sahimi poses some uncomfortable rhetorical questions: "How many Americans shouted 'I am Iranian' after an Iranian passenger airliner was shot down over the Persian Gulf by the US Navy in 1988, killing 290 innocent people?" "How many declared 'I am a Palestinian child' after Israel's attacks on Gaza?" 

Attacks on the Press? The US Is Guilty, Too 

When it comes to attacks on the press, Noam Chomsky reminds us that Washington has racked up a greater body count than al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. On April 24, 1999, US bombs blew up Serbia's state television headquarters, killing 16 journalists and employees. NATO and the US defended the bombing, with Pentagon spokesperson Kenneth Bacon calling the attack on Serb TV a legitimate response to Yugoslavia President Slobodan Milosevic's "murder machine." 

No one held up a sign that read: "Je suis Slobodan Jontić." 

And in 2003, journalists worldwide protested a US missile attack on the Baghdad headquarters of Al Jazeera that killed three journalists. Two more reporters (one working for Reuters, the other for the Spanish network, Telecinco) were killed soon after when US artillery targeted their hotel rooms. 

No one held up a sign reading: "Je suis Tariq Ayoub." 

As Chomsky observes: "terrorism is not terrorism when a much more severe terrorist attack is carried out by those who are Righteous by virtue of their power. Similarly, there is no assault against freedom of speech when the Righteous destroy a TV channel supportive of a government they are attacking." 

Is Blasphemy a First Amendment Right? 

Author Salman Rushdie (targeted for death for his novel The Satanic Verses) has observed: "Religion deserves our fearless disrespect." Political comic commentator Bill Maher has been a similarly outspoken critic of religion. In his documentary, Religulous, Maher argues: "Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do." Maher warns that the "arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion" poses a dangerous trigger for conflict that could lead to global annihilation. Maher's prescription is blunt: "Grow up or die." 

Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies argues that, in the global defense of free speech, "'blasphemy' is its front line, in Paris and the world." Olson argues that the attack on Charlie means we have to defend "all who write, draw, type, and think—not just even when they deny the truth of a religion or poke fun at it, but especially then." Olson argues for Free Speech Absolutism: "There is no middle ground, no soft compromise available to keep everyone happy." In Olson's view, failure to put any limits on even the coarsest of public discourse would mean "liberty will endure only at the sufferance of fanatical Islamists." 

(One must assume that Olson is also critical of the "fanatical Islamists" ruling Saudi Arabia, where a blogger named Raif Badawi has been sentenced to ten years in prison and public floggings—50 lashings per week over a period of 20 weeks—for the crime of penning commentaries critical of the kingdom's ruling clerics. A Westerner might ponder whether Badawi's fate would have been different had he described his criticism as "satire.") 

Rushdie, Maher and Olson may be correct in their analysis that religions cause more grief than good, but their remedy seems both (excuse the word) preachy and parental. In essence, they seem to be demanding that their next-door neighbor's "children" put away their "bad" toys "for their own good." (How would that approach work in your neighborhood?) 

Freedom of Speech vs. Freedom of Religion 

In July 2011, the UN's Special Committee for Human Rights produced a 15-page report (prepared by 18 lawyers, four of whom were from Muslim countries). The report argued that, under the 1999 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, statements that criticized religion were a permissible exercise of free speech. But there were two critical exceptions enshrined in Article 20: "(1) Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law and (2) Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law." 

Clearly, the cruel mockery of the fundamental religious and spiritual beliefs of individuals (especially poorer, disenfranchised and set-upon people) does not meet the definition (nor does it accomplish the goals) of satire. Directed against fervently held beliefs—be they Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Shinto, Buddhist or Mormon—mockery can quickly be seen as a form of religious persecution. 

If some community's holy book stipulates that one "shall not take the Lord's name in vain" and a columnist, blogger, pundit or cartoonist makes light of what some see as a sacred commandment, the invocation of "free speech" will not grant immunity from the angry consequences such behavior is likely to provoke. 

If some community's holy book forbids the worshiping of graven images or other graphic representations of Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah or Mohammed, a claim of "free-speech" cannot absolve a wood-carver or a cartoonist of responsibility for inflicting an offense. 

There is no question that Islamic culture is under assault in Europe. France has passed laws preventing Muslim women from wearing the hijab in public (while Catholic nuns, Hassidic Jews and saffron-robed Buddhist monks remain free to wear their traditional garb unmolested.) 

A Dozen Cartoons Stoke Global Anger 

On September 30, 2005, the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten printed 12 political cartoons featuring Allah's prophet. One depicted Muhammad as a bomb-toting terrorist. One showed the Prophet with vampire teeth, drinking wine and smoking a cigar. Yet another showed the Prophet flashing a victory sign—with two extended fingers drawn to resemble the burning World Trade Towers. 

The publication of these cartoons prompted outraged complaints from the leaders of ten largely Muslim nations. Saudi Arabia and Libya went so far as to sever diplomatic relations with Denmark. 

Jyllands-Posten apologized and, in doing so, bought the promise of calm to the continent. But four months later, on February 1, 2006, newspapers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain reprinted the offensive cartoons. 

This triggered a new wave of protests across the Middle East. On February 4, 2006, the Danish and Norwegian embassies were attacked in Syria. On February 5, the Danish embassy in Lebanon was torched. And, on February 8, Charlie Hebdo reprinted the cartoons in an act the French President Jacques Chirac described as "an overt provocation." More massive demonstrations followed—from the Middle East to Malaysia. 

On February 13, an Iranian newspaper—in a cheeky attempt to test the limits of mainstream tolerance—invited readers to enter drawings in a "Holocaust cartoon contest." 

Roots of the Charlie Hebdo Tragedy 

In 2006, Flemming Rose, a former culture-page editor at the Jyllands Posten, defended the paper's publication of the 12 provocative cartoons as an essential part of confronting the threat of self-censorship imposed by the presence of radical Muslims. 

In a Washington Post article explaining "Why I Published Those Cartoons," Rose defended the paper's criticism of Muslims. Rose argued that the cartoons were not intended as a divisive blow but should have been seen as an egalitarian embrace: "[B]y treating Muslims in Denmark as equals [the cartoons] made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims." 

Rose went on to cite Karl Popper's book "The Open Society and Its Enemies," and its insistence that "one should not be tolerant with the intolerant." Rose then likened Denmark's Muslims to America's growing Latino population and accused Muslim leaders of engaging in "a politics of victimology" that ignored "relatively high crime rates." Rose also warned of "the coming Muslim demographic surge [a]fter decades of appeasement and political correctness…." 

Charlie Hebdo's 'Irresponsible' Cartoons 

Charlie Hebdo proudly proclaims its editorial mission is to be a journal irresponsable—an "irresponsible magazine." On one of its covers, Charlie portrayed itself as a caveman brandishing a torch in one hand and a coconut dripping with oil in the other. The message—that the practice of humor requires adding "fuel to the fire"—proposes an unusual (and inflammatory) definition of comedy. In most dictionary definitions, the art of comedy involves "making an audience laugh." Not winch. Not cringe. Not grow red-faced with anger. 

On November 2, 2011, Charlie's office was fire-bombed after publication of an issue that the staff claimed was "guest edited" by Muhammad himself. Charlie subsequently was hit with a lawsuit and France had to close embassies in 20 countries. Charlie's September 19, 2012 edition featured a cartoon of Mohammed on its cover. It was particularly striking because The Prophet was depicted naked. On January 2, 2013, Charlie published a 55-page "illustrated biography of Muhammad." Just over a year later, three gunmen broke into Charlie's office, killing staff cartoonists and several police. 

Kurt Westergaard was the Danish cartoonist who portrayed the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban. To underscore his target, the turban in Westergaard's drawing included the phrase: "There is Only One God and Muhammad Is His Prophet." After the cartoon was published, deadly riots erupted around the world and a fatwa was issued calling for Westergaard's death. In an April 3, 2011 interview with National Public Radio's Steve Paulson, Westergaard insisted he had done "nothing wrong." 

"I'm very sorry that people died," Westergaard said, but "I can take no responsibility for that. I have just defended a Danish tradition." He argued that the riots were a sham— "staged by regimes that could not fulfill their population's needs." But, Paulson asked, why risk provoking anger by branding the prophet as a terrorist? "Because part of Islam is, after my opinion, evil. It is intolerant," the cartoonist explained. "This branch of Islam produces those terrorists and their terrible and cruel acts." 

But the cartoon did not depict a "part" of Islam, Paulson persisted, it depicted the Prophet himself as a terrorist. 

Well, Westergaard replied: "Even if the cartoon was evil against the whole Islam, according to Danish tradition, I have the right to make such a cartoon.… If people want to live here with us," he added, "they have to accept our satirical traditions." 

In other words, Westergaard seems to be saying: Danish traditions trump Islamic traditions. 

The Prophet and Pornography 

While US newspapers and magazines have published cartoons that focus on Catholic priests engaging in pedophilia with young boys, the artwork is studiously GP-rated. It is quite another situation with the X-rated renderings of the Prophet that have appeared in the European press. Over the years, Charlie has salted cyberspace with a trove of near-pornographic cartoons aimed at Islam's Prophet. Many focus on Muhammad's nine-year-old wife, Aisha. Some of these cartoons show the Prophet nude, with the naked girl in his lap. Others depict Aisha accompanied by Muhammad, leering, with a drooling tongue dangling from his mouth or sporting an enormous erection. At least one cartoon shows Muhammad being sodomized. Some of these cartoons can be viewed online at http://iranpoliticsclub.net/cartoons/muhammad-aisha/index.htm. 

By contrast, a Google search for "pedophile priests" or "God raped Mary" does not produce any remotely similar images. In the latter case, there are mainly classical paintings of the Virgin Mary bearing the subtitle "God Raped Me" and a photos of T-shirts reading "God Raped Mary" but there are no salacious, X-rated cartoons showing a leering Creator sweating as he breaches the Holy Virgin's hymen. (The absence of child-molestation themes on the Judeo-Christian side of the scale is a particularly notable omission since Mary—as befitted Jewish tradition of the time—was reportedly betrothed to 31-year-old Joseph when she was just 12 years old.) 

There Are Laws Against Free Speech 

Anyone who claims the right to say anything they wish needs to understand that the claim of "free speech" does not grant the speaker immunity from the possible consequences of provocative speech. Nor does free speech exempt anyone from accountability for broadcasting outright lies. If your "free speech" involves slander, you can be brought before a judge. 

Sure, you are "free" to make jokes about bombs in airports, but you stand a good chance of getting detained and/or jailed if you do. 

Sure, you are "free" to call for the assassination of the president, but odds are the Secret Service will be on your tail (and your email) if you do. 

Sure, you are "free" to question the Nazi holocaust. Unless you live in Europe, where such speech is banned and such discussions could land you in prison. 

Sure, you are "free" to use the N-word at a meeting of the NAACP, but it would be ill-advised. 

Sure, you a "free" to write political tracts calling for regime change, but in some countries that will place you in chains. 

The fact is, speech can have consequences—even non-judicial consequences. 

Fox news commentator Elizabeth Lauten recently lost her job because she exercised her "free speech" right to criticize President Obama's teenage daughters for not being "good role models." "Try showing a little class," Lauten advised Sasha and Malia. 

On the other side of the political spectrum, comedian Bill Maher was booted from his ABC show, Politically Incorrect, after a guest characterized the 9-11 hijackers as "warriors" and Maher agreed, noting: "Lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly." 

The Bully Pulpit 

Faced with shouts of condemnation from letter-writers, bloggers and angry demonstrators, a besieged media's typical response is to double-down on the "free speech" defense—insisting on their right to do and say whatever they choose while criticizing their critics for trying to deny them their freedoms. Frequently, they then proceed to repeat the offense—or even add to the original offense—to show that they will not be "intimidated." But this doubling-down response fails to recognize that their critics are exercising their right to "free speech"—by responding with complaints and protests. So what results is an irresolvable, ever-escalating conflict. 

When an individual commits an act that others find offensive and then refuses to accept responsibility for causing outrage, what the individual is really demanding is not the ability to exercise "free speech" but the ability to say anything he or she wishes and to enjoy complete impunity. 

It is the mindset of a bully. "Don't tell me what I can or can't say. You have no right to complain. I'm just going to continue saying it, only this time I'll say it even louder!" 

This isn't defending "Free Speech." It's defending "Me Speech." 

Just as in international commerce, it's not enough to have "free trade": It is also important that we have "fair trade." Similarly, when it comes to public expression, we need to promote speech that is both free and fair. 

The "Free Speech" Dodge and The Interview  

Too often, the right to "free speech" is invoked as a means to grant impunity for acts of bigotry and intolerance. Or, as in the recent case of Sony's controversial film, The Interview, it provides a free pass for a muck-fest of raunchy, juvenile gross-outs involving sex, politics, and state-sponsored terrorism. Even before parties-still-unknown unleashed a massive cyber-prank that disabled Sony's corporate computers, the film company already had secured a special place in the annals of Hollywood history. Sony became the first studio to pioneer a new film genre: the "assassination comedy"—a Christmas holiday release that climaxed with the slow-motion detonation of the head of a living head-of-state. 

It was troubling to read—weeks after the initial expressions of outrage—that the US State Department had quietly "signed off" on Sony's script in June 2014. The act of green-lighting the cinematic demise of Kim Jong-un would seem to make the White House complicit in "executive-action"-advocacy-by-proxy. If true, this suggests the possibility that the entire kerfuffle might have been intentionally plotted by US interests who hoped to provoke North Korea into some act of retaliation that could provide a basis for increasing US financial and military pressure on Pyongyang. 

The Interview's murderous premise seems particularly shameless given the CIA's long history of political assassinations. (Also shameless: The Interview's cameo appearances by radical comedian Bill Maher and NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams.) 

According to William Blum's Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions since World War II, the US has made more than 50 attempts to assassinate foreign political leaders. The CIA's extensive "take-out list" includes: Guatemala's Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, Chile's Salvador Allende, Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi, Cuba's Fidel Castro, Indonesia's Achmad Sukarno, Congo's Patrice Lumumba, Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic and the Dominican Republic's Rafael Trujillo. 

President Obama characterized the attack as "cyber vandalism," but downplayed its importance as a national security issue. Throughout the debate, the White House ignored Washington's own devastating dabbling in cyber vandalism. This includes a 1982 cyber-attack that caused the massive explosion of a Russian natural gas pipeline in Siberia and the 2010 Stuxnet Virus attack on Iran's nuclear energy program. 

Interesting to note: Sony Pictures Entertainment is not exactly a US company. It is a subsidiary of Tokyo-based Sony Entertainment, Inc. Nonetheless, the president promised to retaliate against a foreign government on the suspicion that it was behind an industrial prank that targeted the assets of a Japanese-controlled entity. 

This is a troubling precedent. Where in the US Constitution is the president or Congress given the authority to threaten retaliation for an act of industrial espionage targeting a privately owned (let alone foreign-based) corporation? (Meanwhile, there is still reason to question whether the North Korean government was even involved in the cyber-hack.) 

Instead of directing the country's attention to America's own troubling history of targeted assassinations, the media brouhaha over The Interview became conflated with a jingoistic defense of "free speech." Even people who had no interest in watching a Seth Rogan feature put on their American flag beach-shorts, got in line and shelled out money for tickets. Why? Because, as more than one ticket-buyer explained: "It's important that we stand up for Free Speech and show we're not afraid!" 

Je suis James Franco. 

The Islamaphobia Factory 

Ironically, as Muhammad Sahimi has noted, Islam does not call on followers to attack those who insult the Prophet. Instead, the Quran teaches: "Do not conform to the caprices of the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and disregard their annoying words" (Surah al-Ahzab: 48). (It does seem strange that many Christians and Muslims are so quick to resort to war to "defend-the-faith" when their respective Gods are worshipped as "omnipotent." Gods, by definition, should be capable of defending themselves without human intervention.) 

Sahimi goes on to write: "Muslim extremists are aided by Western Islamaphobia, preached by right wings that have turned it into a highly profitable 'industry.'… And now, with the Paris crime, peddlers of Islamofascism in the West are having a field day, feeling righteous." 

Is there a double standard at work here? Many national leaders vigorously condemn anti-Semitism but are doing little to discourage the rise of Islamophobia. "The only cure for hate speech is more speech" it is said. But where is the counterbalance when Muslims (or any other group) are targeted simply because they are members of an identifiably "different" community? 

Al Qaeda's terrorist outrages are directed towards powerful global forces that have established a long history of invasions and occupations of foreign lands. While it is critically important to understand the motives of those we identify as "enemies," the West shows little tolerance for the free speech of "terrorists." Osama bin Laden was in the habit of recording "messages to the America people" in which he enumerated his complaints about US foreign policy. But the contents never seemed to make it into the pages of the New York Times nor were they ever aired and debated on Sunday morning's televised political roundtables. 

As Sahimi concludes: "So long as the abuses of the Western dominance of the Islamic world provides the fertile ground for extremist Muslim clerics and preachers to espouse their reactionary interpretations of Islam—a religion of peace and mercy—things will not get better." 

Where Do You Draw the Line? 

While absolute free speech is the democratic ideal, in practice, it becomes difficult to insist on the absolute right of all forms of speech. For instance, who wants to be the first to stage a rally in support the "free speech rights" of cyber-bullies, stalkers, haters and Internet trolls? 

Je suis Charlie, for sure. But je suis Muhammad et Jesus, aussi. Et je suis Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Malcolm X, Bill Maher et Jon Stewart.  

Mais je suis aussi Valerie Solanas, Ann Coulter, Russ Limbaugh, Marine Le Pen, Anwar al-Awlaki, David Duke, et Adolf Hitler? 

Everyone has the opportunity to pick up a pen and try to make a point. The question remains, for both cartoonists and free-speech advocates: "Where do you draw the line?" 

 

 

 

 

 

---

Gar Smith, an award-winning investigative reporter, is a veteran of UC Berkeley's Free Speech Movement and is the author of "Nuclear Roulette." 

 

 

 

 

 

On Sunday, at least 1500 people rallied in front of City Hall in San Francisco in remembrance of the victims of the terrorist attacks in France and in solidarity with the huge “marche républicaine” that took place in Paris and in other French cities earlier the same day. 

People began assembling at 2:00 p.m., occupying the steps of City Hall and spreading into Polk Street, which was blocked off by police. 

The event was publicized by a Nous Sommes Charlie (We Are Charlie) page on facebook hosted by Stéphane Rangaya. Before the event, some 1500 people said they would attend and by this observer’s guess, at least that many people were there. 

According to the Nous Sommes Charlie page, the rally was organized in partnership with the French Consulate General in San Francisco. It drew French people from throughout the Bay Area.  

French was the language of the day, spoken by a large majority of those present, and French surnames were predominant among those among those posting on Nous Sommes Charlie. 

As 2:30 approached, a collective “shhh” passed through the crowd. During the minute of silence that followed, participants held up pencils and pens.  

After the minute of silence, a man on City Hall steps, who was carrying a sign with the names of the 17 victims of the terrorist attacks, read the names one by one. As each name was read, it was repeated by the crowd. 

Applause followed and then everyone sang the Marseillaise, the French national anthem. After the Marseillaise, some of those assembled sang Douce France, a song written by Charles Trenet. 

When the singing stopped, someone in the crowd yelled out “Vive la liberté”, which was repeated by the crowd. This was followed by people calling out “Vive la démocratie”, “Vive la France”, “À bas l’obscurité” (Down with darkness), “Vive la tolerance” as well expressions of the rejection of fear. 

“Vive la liberté d’expression” and “Vive la laïcité” both drew enthusiastic responses. Laïcité (secularism) embodies the French idea of separation of church and state. 

There were no speeches, no leaflets. 

People brought their own signs. Je Suis Charlie was ubiquitous, but “Je suis juif” (I am Jewish), “Je suis Hyper Kacher”, “je suis policier” (policeman) and “je suis Ahmed” were also in evidence. Hyper Kacher is the name of the kosher grocery at the Porte de Vincennes where hostages were taken and four people were killed. Ahmed Merabet was one of the policemen murdered by the terrorists. 

Some people brought French flags. A couple of people held signs showing Charlie Hebdo covers. 

Five hundred “Je Suis Charlie” buttons were made for the event and distributed at a table on the sidewalk near the steps; the excess in donations for the buttons will be donated to Reporters Without Borders . 

When the buttons were all distributed, large blue, white and red sheets of paper were laid out on the table, on which people wrote brief comments. 

One of them reads: “Pour la liberté d’expression sous toutes ses formes y compris la caricature et la dérision”. (For freedom of expression in all its forms, including caricature and satire.) 

According to Libération, a left of center French newspaper, 1.2 to 1.6 million marched in Paris on Sunday. In France as whole, some 3.5 million joined in the rallies. Libération is providing space and support to the surviving staff of Charlie Hebdo, which will continue to publish. 

The Berkeley City Council will hold a special workshop meeting on Saturday on improving police and community relations following recent anti-police brutality protests. 

The council will not be able to take any action at the special meeting because it is listed as a workshop. 

Protests have taken place in Berkeley and in many other cities across the country in response to recent grand jury decisions in Missouri and New York to not charge police officers in the deaths of two unarmed black men, and to other officer-involved deaths.  

Because many people are expected to attend the special meeting, a follow-up to a Dec. 16 council meeting on the protests in Berkeley and the city's response to them, it won't be held at the council's chambers. Instead it will be held at the Ed Roberts Campus at 3075 Adeline St. beginning at 10 a.m. on Saturday.  

Berkeley officials said in a statement that the meeting "will consider how we can improve community and police relations, address our response to what occurred in Ferguson, Missouri, and beyond, and produce positive steps the city council can pursue." 

They said, "The agenda is designed to hear from a wide range of voices and move our community conversation forward." 

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson, Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, and Assemblyman Tony Thurmond, D-Richmond, have been invited to participate in the meeting but their attendance hasn't been confirmed. 

Among the other people who have been invited to participate are John Powell, a University of California at Berkeley law professor who is director of the Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society, Jack Glaser, a UC Berkeley professor who recently wrote a book on racial profiling, and Sheila Quintana, the principal of Berkeley Technology Academy, an alternative high school.

A coalition of clergy leaders staged a die-in and marched with university students through Berkeley today to respond to the deaths of unarmed black men at the hands of white police officers. 

The march, organized by the Way Christian Center in collaboration with more than a dozen other clergy organizations and houses of worship, corresponded with "Solidarity Sunday," a national call to action by clergy members to remember the lives of black residents who died from police violence, said Church Without Walls member Wendy Hu-Au.  

The Way Christian Center Pastor Michael McBride said the atmosphere today was sometimes festive and sometimes somber as several hundred people walked through the streets and listened to black students at the University of California at Berkeley.  

"We marched using the voices of Cal students," McBride said. "We used some of the chants from Ferguson and sang civil rights and church hymns."  

The demonstration started with an orientation for the community leaders at the Way Christian Center at 12:30 p.m., when participants were briefed on how to engage in non-violent civil disobedience. 

Church Without Walls administrator Kim Winkleman said McBride briefed the group on what to do if confronted by police and told them not to resist officers if arrested. 

McBride decried actions by anarchists and others who have infiltrated demonstrations against police brutality in the Bay Area and have smashed windows, lit fires, and vandalized businesses in the name of black lives. 

"If they're not willing to follow black leadership then they should find another cause," McBride said. "We will get our liberation and freedom by our own means and decisions and we ask them to respect that." 

The group met up with a march that was already planned at the First Congregational Church in Berkeley and then walked back towards the Way Christian Center on University Avenue at West Street. 

McBride said the group held a moment of silence for four and a half minutes to commemorate the four and a half hours that Michael Brown was laying in the street after being shot by Ferguson, Missouri, police Officer Darren Wilson. 

Then, the crowd staged a "die-in" for 11 minutes to represent the 11 times Eric Garner said "I can't breathe" as a New York police officer used a chokehold to restrain, and ultimately, kill him. 

The deaths of Brown and Garner, as well as two grand juries' decisions to not indict the officers who killed them, have been used as a rallying cry across the country for demonstrations against police brutality in recent weeks.  

McBride said it was important for clergy leaders to stand in solidarity with the young people who have been protesting in Ferguson, at Berkeley, and throughout the nation.  

"We all owe these young people a deep gratitude. They have 425 days plus of organized non-violence and peaceful resistance to the armored tanks and a militaristic police response," McBride said. 

McBride said he wanted to make sure young people felt supported by the institutions in their community and to also use the clergy leaders' collective voices to amplify their message. 

Rabbi Menachem Creditor of the Congregation Netivot Shalom in Berkeley said the demonstration coincides into the mission of many synagogues, churches or mosques. 

"People of faith have a lot to say about human dignity," Creditor said. "Both as an American citizen and a Jew, the image of God is one I'm compelled to protect." 

Winkleman said there was a tradition and history of clergy leading the civil rights movement. 

"Our black brothers and sisters, their lives are being treated as less than others and it breaks the heart of God and breaks our heart as well," Winkleman said.  

Creditor said the demonstration was very much led by black voices and UC Berkeley students in particular. 

"It felt really beautiful because on one hand, it fit into the pattern of demonstrations throughout the Bay Area but the voices leading it were black voices," Creditor said. "Those who were not were there to be supportive and to be allies but not to be out front." 

The action was specifically targeted at changing the culture of law enforcement in Berkeley, the state and the country and McBride said the demonstrators issued several specific demands. 

They want Berkeley and Alameda County to immediately put cameras on all police officers working in the community or schools, McBride said. 

They also want the government at local and federal levels to publish the number of officer-involved shootings in cases of excessive force. McBride said the group is asking that the list be made public as a form of accountability. 

The group wants to end the militarization of police agencies and do not want officers in Berkeley to ever use teargas as a means of dispersing crowds engaged in exercising their First Amendment rights, McBride said. 

The group wants the federal government to withhold grants to police departments that have a history of racial profiling or officer-involved shootings as another form of accountability. 

Lastly, McBride said they want to do away with grand juries or to appoint special prosecutors in all instances of officer-involved shootings.  

"We need law enforcement to deliver policing and public services that are not biased or fueled by irrational fear or irrational hatred of black men in our communities," McBride said. "We don't presume to say that every police officer has an irrational fear or irrational anger but there are a number of officers who are involved in a structure that does not reel them in."

Impacts of theater closure on local business should be carefully assessed.

The proposed Residences at Berkeley Plaza at 2201 Harold Way would be the city’s largest private residential development with 302 units. It would also be downtown’s tallest building with 18 stories, reaching 180 feet.

A mechanical penthouse will bring it up to 194 feet. Only the campanile (Sather Tower) on the UC Berkeley campus would be taller.

Larger projects like this one make possible the provision of significant community benefits, but can also have impacts that are detrimental.

The site, which formerly housed Hink’s department store, currently includes Landmark’s Shattuck Cinemas movie theatres and the Habitot Children’s Museum and has frontage on Kittredge, Harold Way and Allston Way.

The Habitot Museum, which would be displaced by the development, has asked the developers for $250,000 of the estimated $1,200,000 they will need to relocate elsewhere in Berkeley. Over 50 residents have so far e-mailed the Zoning Adustments Board in support of this request.

The Shattuck Cinemas would close during the demolition of existing buildings and construction of the new 18-story building.

Under the developers’ plan, the current ten theaters would be replaced by six theaters with about 665 seats. The new theaters would feature stadium seating.

City staff should assess the impact that the closure of the Shattuck Theaters would have on local businesses in Downtown, particularly restaurants. 

The developers’ October 20, 2014 Community Benefits submission states that “the cinema currently grosses approximately $3 million per year….” (Page 22, footnote 11).  

Based on that figure, one could estimate that they sell 200,000 to 250,000 tickets a year. (Tickets are currently $8.50 bargain and $11.00 full price and purchases at the concession stand are presumably also part of the estimated $3 million) 

Some moviegoers are getting something to eat or having a drink before or after the movie. If there are 250,000 moviegoers, they might collectively spend well over $1 million a year at downtown restaurants during their trips to downtown to see a movie. 

Staff should talk to moviegoers and to business owners near the theaters to get a better sense of how much moviegoer business could be lost during the extended demolition and construction period that a large scale project like this will require. 

Because the Shattuck Cinemas show a broad range of films including documentaries and “art” films, and not just Hollywood blockbusters, they draw viewers from a broader geographic area than just Berkeley. 

Kelly Hammargen, who is among those working to make sure that the theaters survive, has spent a lot of time talking to moviegoers at the Shattuck Cinemas. She estimates that about 60% come from outside Berkeley. 

Many of these people would probably not be in downtown Berkeley at all if the Shattuck theaters weren’t there. When they go to a movie downtown, they pass other businesses on the way that may also benefit from their patronage. 

Theaters contribute to downtown vitality 

In addition, since most people go to the movies at night and on weekends, moviegoers contribute to downtown’s nighttime vitality. 

Berkeley’s downtown is in much better shape than it was 30 years ago, and the Shattuck theaters, which opened in 1988, have contributed to the improved atmosphere and greater vitality. 

More people downtown also make the downtown safer at night. During the closure, there will be several hundred fewer people downtown on any weekend evening. 

The Shattuck Cinemas now provide fully half of the movies screens downtown; its closure means that downtown will offer a smaller range of choices for moviegoers, with fewer of the kind of films that aren’t shown elsewhere in the East Bay. 

Community Benefits are Required 

The City should be telling the developer what community benefits it wants; and should not be letting the developer define and determine what the community benefits will be. 

Given the proposed height of this project, and that it would be one of only 3 taller buildings permitted in downtown under the downtown plan, the developer is required by the Downtown Plan to provide “significant community benefits…beyond what would otherwise be required by the City.” 

What would otherwise be required includes provision of public open space, an impact fee for open space, AC Transit bus passes for residents, a LEED Gold construction rating, and 10% affordable units (or an in lieu payment). The “significant community benefits” are in addition to things that are already required. 

To assess what is possible, the City needs much more information about this proposed project than what is currently publicly available. The developers should provide a pro forma. 

The Developers have reportedly not decided whether the housing will be rental housing or condos. 2211 Harold would have 76 studios, 145 one-bedrooms, 75 two-bedrooms and 6 three-bedrooms. 

The developers should provide information about proposed rents or the asking prices if they choose to go with condos. The whole process needs to be transparent, with adequate information provided. 

Fewer Theaters, Higher Rent 

The developers are proposing to reduce the numbers of movie screens from 10 to 6 and to charge Landmark 150% more per square foot in rent ($3.50 vs. $2.00 according to the developers community benefits submittal). 

Despite the reduction and higher cost, the developers nonetheless think that retention of the theaters should count as one of the additional required significant community benefits. 

Will the theaters be able to generate enough additional business in the reduced number of theaters to cover the increased rent? Is new stadium seating going to make such a huge difference to moviegoers? 

Shouldn’t the higher rent be viewed as detrimental and a threat to the survival of the theaters, rather as a benefit? How is reducing the number of screens a benefit? 

Given the theaters’ importance to downtown economic vitality, it’s essential that any deal assure the long term viability of movie theaters at this location. 

Faux Open Space 

The developers are also making the rather absurd claim that a recessed entrance to their building at the corner of Harold and Kittredge amounts to creation of a significant “privately owned public open space” and should also count as a significant community benefit. 

Real Community Benefits 

What significant community benefits should the City seek from the developer? 

Why not contribute to the creation of some real public open space that would benefit downtown residents and visitors? 

The City should ask the developers to make a contribution to the Streets and Open Space Improvement (SOSIP) fund equal to half the cost of creating a pedestrian plaza on Center Street between Shattuck and Oxford 

This would mean a contribution beyond the $491,251 that is required prior to consideration of the additional community benefits related to the building’s exceptional height. 

Real Open Space: Pedestrian Plaza on Center Street 

In 2010, the City Council approved the creation of a plaza based on designs of landscape designer Walter Hood, former Chair of the Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning Department at UC Berkeley. 

Unfortunately, City staff have failed to come up with funding for the proposal to date, but with tall building projects planned downtown, the City now has a potential funding source that could help make the pedestrian plaza a reality. 

The City could ask the developer of the downtown hotel proposed for Center and Shattuck, which would also be an exceptionally tall building, to contribute the other half of the funds needed for the plaza. 

In the event that the hotel deal falls through, the contribution I am suggesting from 2211 Harold developers would fund at least a plaza in front of the UC art museum on the eastern end of the block. 

More Affordable Housing 

Last month, the city’s Housing Advisory Commission communicated to the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) that it thinks that new high rises built downtown “must also provide additional affordable housing benefits”. 

The developers are required to either include 27 affordable units, which would be only 8.9% of the proposed 302 units or make a one-time payment of $7.25 million, which won’t build many affordable units. 

In November, the developers indicated that they would opt to pay the fee. Paying more than this minimal fee would certainly be a significant community benefit. 

A $300 million project? 

The developer may claim that they can’t afford to contribute more to help create a plaza or more for affordable housing, but this not a small project. 

When completed, 2211 Harold Way could be worth $300 million dollars. If they opt to rent the housing, rather than selling it as condos, the annual rental income from the apartments, commercial space and parking could exceed $10 million. 

City staff should come up with independent estimates of the project’s value and potential income before final decisions are made about community benefits. 

The community as a whole, represented by the Council and its appointees, should decide what community benefits the developer should provide based on a realistic and independent assessment of what the developer can afford to pay. 

The developers will of course be able to make a lot more money than would have been possible before downtown zoning was changed to permit 18-story buildings. 

An Obsolete Building 

With respect to energy efficiency, the developers’ preliminary LEED targets suggest that they will barely meet the LEED Gold green building standard. (62 points when the LEED Gold range is 60-79.) 

Basically, they will be doing little more than meeting the state’s current standards for residential construction. State plans call for a net zero energy standard for residential construction in 2020. 

If construction were to begin next year, the project would probably be finished in 2019, not long before the new standards are supposed to take affect. With respect to energy, the building would be obsolete from the moment it’s built, if it’s only built to the proposed 62 point LEED Gold standard.  

Do we really want the largest new development in Berkeley in years to be built to meet standards that will soon be out of date, rather than to standards that will actually help the city meet its Climate Action Plan goals in a significant way? 

Building something that is significantly more energy-efficient and that includes some significant on-site energy generation would be another real example of a “significant community benefit”. 

3 Levels of Underground Parking 

If costs of building green are a concern for the developer, then why are they proposing to build three underground levels of parking instead of two, given that underground parking will substantially add to the project’s costs? 

Two levels would provide sufficient parking for the residents and the Downtown Plan even allows for reduction in required parking if a fee is paid. The developers have suggested that they might provide some parking for the Shattuck Hotel. There is nothing “green” about doing that. 

Currently the site has only one curb cut, a service entrance on Harold Way. The proposed project would put a curb cut on Kittredge across from the library where the entrance to the subterranean parking would be. The more parking levels the greater the traffic impact will be near the library. 

---

Rob Wrenn was a member of the Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee. 

After months of Kaiser Permanente’s refusal to address the growing erosion of patient care standards, Kaiser RNs will hold a two-day strike January 21 and 22, the California Nurses Association/National Nurses United announced late today. 

The walkout will involve 18,000 RNs and nurse practitioners at 86 Kaiser Permanente hospitals and clinics across Northern and Central California. Kaiser is both the largest hospital chain and health insurance company in California. 

Kaiser facilities will be affected in Antioch, Daly City, Fremont, Fresno, Manteca, Modesto, Oakland, Petaluma, Pleasanton, Redwood City, Richmond, Roseville, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Leandro, San Jose, San Rafael, Santa Clara, Santa Rosa, South Sacramento, South San Francisco, Stockton, Vacaville, Vallejo, and Walnut Creek. 

On patient care issues, Kaiser RNs have cited cuts in hospital services at a number of Kaiser hospitals, sharp restrictions on admitting patients for hospital care or early discharge of patients who still need hospitalization, and providing insufficient resources, equipment and training for care that nurses say puts patients and nurses alike at risk.  

Kaiser has made these cuts despite seeing record profits -- $3.1 billion in the first three quarters of 2014 alone, a 41 percent increase over the same period in 2013. 

Much of the profit is fueled by a huge jump in paid enrollees, 422,000 for the same period of 2014, patients who “are now being increasingly denied the very care they are paying for,” says Zenei Cortez, a Kaiser South San Francisco RN who chairs the Kaiser RN negotiating team and is also a CNA co-president.  

"We are striking because nurses deserve to have what we need to safely care for our patients at a time when Kaiser continues to hold patients in the ER who should be admitted, sending patients home early, and short staffing critical areas like labor and delivery,” said Cortez. “Nurses are standing up for our patients and their right to receive safe excellent care." 

"We are striking for our patients and community,” said Kaiser Oakland RN Katy Roemer. “We know that Kaiser has the resources to staff our hospitals and clinics safely and yet everyday we are working with fewer nurses than we need. Our patients deserve better." 

"Kaiser insists on investing in multi billion sports teams, instead of our patients. We as nurses know that it is wrong," said Deborah Burger, a Kaiser Santa Rosa RN and co-president of CNA. 

Strike locations. The walkouts begin at 7 a.m., Wednesday, January 21, with the strike ending at 7 a.m. on Friday, January 23 at 7 a.m..

A group of anonymous artists claimed responsibility for effigies of two black men and a woman hanging from nooses on the University of California at Berkeley campus on Saturday. 

Dr. Pablo Gonzalez, a visiting research fellow at UC Berkeley, posted a statement by the artists on Twitter today that he said had been placed on a campus bulletin board. 

The statement identified a "Bay Area collective of queer black and PoC artists" as responsible for the images of historic lynchings, which they said were displayed in both Berkeley and Oakland. "PoC" is commonly used to refer to "people (or person) of color." 

"These images connect past events to present ones -- referencing endemic faultlines of hatred and persecution that are and should be deeply unsettling to the American consciousness," the statement reads.  

UC Berkeley police initially responded to a report at 9:10 a.m. on Saturday of two effigies hanging from Sather Gate and quickly removed them. 

The department received a report of a third effigy on the campanile, the large tower on UC Berkeley's campus, but it was already gone by the time police arrived, said UC Berkeley police spokeswoman Claire Holmes. 

Each effigy had the words "can't breathe" written over life-sized photographs of black Americans hanging from nooses. Demonstrations against police brutality in the Bay Area and across the nation have used the last words of Eric Garner, "I can't breathe," as a rallying cry in recent weeks. 

Garner was killed in Staten Island in July when a police officer used a chokehold to restrain him. A New York grand jury declined in December to indict the officer involved in Garner's death. 

The anonymous group of artists said they "respectfully disagree" with people who think the images are no longer relevant to the reality of life for black Americans today. 

"Garner, Brown, and others are victims of systemic racism," the statement said, referencing Michael Brown, an unarmed black man killed by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, earlier this year.  

UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks and Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Claude Steele issued a statement today describing the effigies as "deeply disturbing" and urged those responsible to come forward and explain their intent. 

"The African American community has historically faced the terrorism of lynchings used in an attempt to suppress and control," the statement said. "While we do not know the intent of the effigies, the impact that it has had on our campus community is undeniable." 

The artists apologized to black Americans who may have felt attacked by the work and said they shared their pain and their history. They also urged viewers to research the lives and deaths of the individuals portrayed in the effigies. 

"For those under the mistaken assumption that the images themselves were intended as an act of racism -- we vehemently disagree and intended only the confrontation of historical context," the statement read. 

The statement said Laura Nelson, George Meadows, Michael Donald, Charlie Hale, Garfield Burley and Curtis Brown were each represented in the work.  

The artists declined to identify themselves because they said, "this is not about us as artists, but about the growing movement to address these pervasive wrongs."

Frieda died peacefully, just a few hours after a severe stroke, on Nov. 24, surrounded by a circle of friends. She was 75. She had been in the hospital for a week, and was recovering well from having a stent placed in the carotid artery. 

She was born in Garmisch, Germany in 1939. Her family moved to a remote mountain village during WWII, to be away from the bombing, and after the war, they lived in Munich. She and her two younger brothers were raised by a single mother. 

She came to the U.S. in the ‘60s to go to graduate school, married David Gordon, an American, and stayed. The marriage later ended amicably. Their daughter, Miriam, who had great enthusiasm for life, died of cystic fibrosis at the age of 14. Frieda always said that she “cherished every moment” of Miriam’s short life. 

Frieda tutored at the UC Berkeley Learning Center, and later, for many years, she worked as part of Berkeley’s renowned Cheese Board Collective, where you can still get unsurpassable Christmas stollen based on Frieda’s mother’s recipe, every holiday season. Frieda left the Cheese Board after more than 20 years and crafted a career for herself as a translator. 

Singing in the Berkeley Community Chorus was one of Frieda’s great passions. She was also an excellent cook, a serious reader, a passionate gardener, a fine (albeit undiscovered) memoirist, and a generous, loyal friend. 

Diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease about 4 years ago, Frieda found a new community with PD Active, a support group for people with Parkinson’s. During the last year of her life she served as president, a big responsibility. In spite of the Parkinson’s and other health problems, she remained independent, stalwart, and curious to the end. She was quick to help others, slow to ask for help. 

Frieda is survived by her brother Ruediger, her nieces Claudia and Leah, and the many close friends who formed her family in the U.S. 

Memorial service: January 18, 3–5 2-4 pm, Crowden School Auditorium, 1475 Rose St., Berkeley. Donations invited in Frieda’s name, to “PD Active” at https://pdactive.wordpress.com/.

L’affaire Charlie Hebdo has reached its denouement, leaving a score of people dead and many controversies in its wake. First, off the bat, let’s establish that we believe there should be no death penalty for expression of opinion, no matter how repellent. All too often in the news lately we’ve seen losers who have access to heavy weapons displaying their angst at the point of a gun with tragic consequences.

That said, other questions present themselves in the wake of this series of tragedies. The Planet’s Eclectic Rant columnist Ralph Stone, who is also an attorney, put it succinctly in this comment:

“The killing of 12 people at the French newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, is appalling. Hopefully the perpetrators will soon be caught and prosecuted. The fact that 12 people are dead over cartoons by white, male cartoonists is horrible. Free speech is an important part of our society and criticism of Charlie Hebdo cartoons is also speech. But no one should be killed over cartoons. However, the statement "JE SUIS CHARLIE" (I AM CHARLIE) ignores the magazine's history of xenophobia, racism, sexism, and homophobia. I sympathize with the victims' families and I defend Charlie Hebdo's right to publish hateful cartoons, but I will be damned if I will be Charlie.” 

Someone who blogs under the name of Winston Alpha points out that in 2008 Charlie Hebdo ” pulled (read: censored) a satirical piece about former President Sarkozy’s son. Philippe Val, the editor of Charlie Hebdo at the time, ‘agreed that the piece was offensive and told its author to apologise.’ “ 

Winston also notes that France has a law which prohibits denying that the Holocaust took place, not exactly consistent with U.S. standards of free speech. 

(I would ask for permission to reprint his whole post, which is pretty good, but we have a firm requirement that writers who appear in the Planet must attach their real names to their opinions. As a card-carrying literature major, I appreciate Winston’s homage to 1984 in his choice of pseudonyms, but my grandmother always said to consider the source before reacting to something someone says. If I don’t know who he is—he says he’s young , that’s all—I don’t know how to calibrate his ideas.) 

A key point in any discussion of free speech is to remember exactly what the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution says: 

“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.” 

The reference to Congress is usually interpreted to include the whole federal government, but note that the First Amendment refers only to government action. In other words, it’s about what the government says we may do, not what we should do. 

A French-American friend said that like many, he grew up with Charlie Hebdo, and that the killings there are like assassinating Jon Stewart would be in this country. Well, not exactly. 

Much of what the magazine publishes seems to go much farther over the imaginary line in the sand than the Daily Show ever has. Presumably there was never any Holocaust denial, or they would have been prosecuted, but they seem to have gored every other sacred cow. 

Winston says that “The same paper that was apparently more than content to ridicule Islam again and again, backed down and quickly censored a piece that featured a single joke about Jews.” I can’t independently confirm that, however. And the Jewish Daily Forward among others showed some of Charlie’s cartoons lampooning Jews. 

Another grandmotherly favorite was “sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you.” Many nonetheless do believe that the wrong words (or cartoons) will do harm. 

How much self-censoring should publications do? Obviously editing choices of all kinds must be made all the time, but it’s not all censorship—space and time, even on the internet, are limited. 

Our neighbors at Berkeleyside.com have been wrestling with the question of what kinds of reader comments should be published. I admire their generosity in devoting a lot of space to largely anonymous and often remarkably ill-informed reader musings, and I shudder to think what they must read only to reject, including presumably the kind of “xenophobia, racism, sexism, and homophobia” which Charlie Hebdo is criticized for running. 

I’m not so generous, so over the years I’ve saved myself a lot of trouble by not have an open comment feed. We only publish under our Public Comments heading pieces sent by email which are both signed and literate. This doesn’t solve every problem however—we got ourselves in a peck of trouble in 2006 by running a letter in our print paper from a literate English learner who signed his own name. Without a hint of satire he opined that some Jewish people had brought trouble on themselves, with examples from Israel and elsewhere, and many were offended, understandably. 

Even though it was difficult for us, and perhaps ultimately even caused the demise of the print Planet, I deeply appreciate the fact that for the most part words were the only weapons objectors used to attack us for this seeming transgression. I’m a charter subscriber to Justice Brandeis’s dictum that the remedy for speech you don’t like is more speech. 

With the exception of some graffiti, a few eggs thrown at our door, and one guy who proudly claimed that he’d urinated on our garage, we escaped physically unscathed. Those who were offended instead employed boycott (against our advertisers, urging others to do likewise), divestment (cancelling their own ads) and sanctions (ginning up nasty letters signed by rabbis and public officials from Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates up and down the ladder), but no one came into the newsroom with a machine gun. 

Lampooning religion instead of criticizing it in straightforward prose is either better or worse, I’m never sure which. I’ve long since given up going to church, and in fact am most of the time profoundly annoyed at all three desert religions, which are indistinguishable to the rational observer at more than forty paces, and yet I’m offended when I see a bunch of mostly old white guys in San Francisco dressing up like nuns in order to mock them. These are the women, after all, who educated other women as diverse and valuable as Nancy Pelosi, Fredericka Von Stade, Barbara Lee, Dianne Feinstein, Lady Gaga—and me—why should they be a target? It feels sexist, even though the guys in question happen to be gay. 

“Hate crime” law, more popular all the time in France and the rest of Europe, is a slippery slope. Banning expression of unpopular, wrong, downright crazy or even vicious ideas is like putting a tight lid on a boiling pot. Eventually with enough heat that lid will blow off—better to have a little vent to let out the steam, or you’re in for trouble. 

It’s easier to keep an eye on what the KKK is up to if you let them march through town instead of making them hide out in the woods. Sentiments like those expressed by our 2006 op-ed writer are much more common now than they were then, and the world needs to know that such ideas are abroad. 

But that doesn’t mean that we all need to imitate Charlie Hebdo by running insulting cartoons in order to denounce the murder of its staffers. Self-censorship has gotten a bad name, but there’s nothing wrong with using good judgment and perhaps some empathy for the feelings of those not like ourselves. I agree with the slogan mistakenly attributed to that sharp-tongued anti-Islam (and also anti-Christian and anti-Jewish) deist Voltaire by his biographer:"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I hope I won’t need to do that, however. 

Editorial pages for the next few days will be full of navel-gazing, especially in those publications who decided not to join the stampede to publish the drawings. Me, I think I’m one of those who can say with a clear conscience, in the French I learned from the nuns, je ne suis pas Charlie Hebdo. 

 

 

 

A cartoonist speaks out. (Thanks to Richard Brenneman for the link.)

As a Muslim I categorically condemn the Charlie Hebdo tragedy that killed 12 innocent civilians in the name of defending the honor of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be on him). Why am I condemning this crime? Because the Quran 5:32 clearly states that if a person killed one it is like if he killed the whole mankind. As a Muslim, I, too feel hurt when someone offends Prophet Muhammad. However, I feel more offended when those so-called Muslims respond violently to defend the honor of the man they greatly respect because Prophet Muhammad himself never retaliated against those who insulted him both by using abusive words and hurting him physically. 

Here is an example of how the Prophet Muhammad responded to being ridiculed. Once returning from an expedition, a hypocrite used abusive words insulting Prophet Muhammad. Responding to this, his companion was very upset and asked him if he could kill that hypocrite. Prophet Muhammad did not allow his companion to kill the man who insulted him. This incident clearly shows that even the Prophet himself did not avenge those who mocked him. 

Those who use free speech to ridicule religious figures like Prophet Muhammad are ignorant because they ignore the content of their message. Those Muslims who respond violently (which is also cowardly) or those Muslim clerics like Anjem Chaudry who believe in punishment for blasphemy are also ignorant because they do not consult the Quran as to how a Muslim should respond to such insults. The Quran (4:140) clearly states that when someone mocks Islam, prophets of God, or Muslims, a Muslim must not retaliate nor just remain silent. Instead, a Muslim must make a rebuttal to the opponents about the teachings of Islam, the character of Prophet Muhammad, and be a peaceful person to personify the meaning of Islam which means peace. 

Now, let’s pull out the red card. Free speech is not the problem. The problem is the content of the message behind that free speech or freedom of expression. As a Muslim I am fortunate because my religion values freedom of expression while it also teaches me to speak in decent manner and respect others’ sentiments. Likewise, Islam is not the problem in the case of the Charlie Hebdo attack. The problem is with the culprits who interpreted the Islamic teachings in their own way and forgot that even the Prophet Muhammad himself never retaliated when someone attacked him. 

As a member of the fastest growing Islamic sect, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, I am fortunate because the founder of my community, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, taught me to defend the honor of the Prophet Muhammad with patience, prayer and civilized dialogue. To me, anyone who insults others’ sentiments in the name freedom of expression is like a ‘virus’ in the society. So if one does not want to be infected with the ‘virus of ignorance’, one should find out more about the man whom Charlie Hebdo satirists made fun of—the Prophet Muhammad. After all which sane person equates freedom of speech or freedom of expression with hate and mockery? 

---

Khalida Jamilah is an undergraduate at UC Berkeley majoring in Peace and Conflict Studies and a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Women Writers Association

What more is there to add to the different reactions to Charlie Hebdo's satirical French magazine and the subsequent murders of the magazine's staff? From progressives the general response has been revulsion against the murders and strong support for freedom of the press, although many of us are very unhappy about the content that appeared in the cartoon magazine.

Still, I think there is something else worth adding. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the French magazine instead of lampooning Muslims publishes messages of respect? And how wonderful it would be if the French working class, encouraged by their unions, reach out to these immigrants. Instead, the reaction to Muslims tends to be xenophobic. Moreover, it has encouraged the growth of the right wing in France. 

Of course, the problem is not limited to France. To a considerable extent the mass media's selective reporting in the United States has labeled Muslims as dangerous. But Christianity is not bashed by the media when crimes are committed by those who happen to be Christians. 

You know—Muslims are human beings who want to be respected. They love their families and friends. They love their children. They value education. They want decent jobs to support their families. Indeed, they want to live in a society that provides them with economic and political security. They are not happy about being compelled to relocate to a country where so many citizens do not welcome them. 

So although we support the right of the media to poke fun at others, shouldn't we make reaching out to Muslims as well as other minorities a major priority? Actually, many are making such serious efforts. But many more need to transcend their xenophobia. This is necessary to achieve a humane society in which human rights—political+economic+social rights—are guaranteed to everybody. Indeed, we must do what we can to build not only a community among ourselves, but a human community that embraces us all.

The developers of the proposed mega-project at 2211 Harold Way have presented a list of “benefits” to the City, which included for example the rebuilding of sidewalks as a benefit and the recessed building entrance as “open space.” A recent commenter in the Planet has correctly noted that most of what the developers propose is simply what they would have to do anyway. He has suggested that the developers contribute to construction of a plaza on the stretch of Center Street between Shattuck and Oxford. While in no way disagreeing with the notion that the developers owe the city a great deal more than so far offered, I would like to take issue with the Center Street plaza. 

This idea has been burnished with an interesting design by the Berkeley professor and noted landscape architect Walter Hood, but it’s still a bad idea. Several years ago the City and the University worked together to construct a wide landscaped sidewalk on the south side of Center Street by eliminating curb parking. This made room for a series of cafes; it provided enough room for commuters walking to and from BART and the campus; and it demonstrated that once in a while the city and the university can cooperate successfully.  

All this happened while retaining the street as a street. It kept the street open for buses to access the many bus stops on Shattuck and for taxis from BART headed in the other direction to the campus. It provides Bank of America customers a way to get to its parking lot. If a hotel replaces the Bank of America, it will provide access for taxis, shuttle buses, and private cars.  

If it is approved, the 2211 Harold Way project should definitely create benefits for the city, but not at the expense of the streets. As an alternative, what about using “benefit” funds to extend the wide landscaped sidewalk on Center Street all the way to Milvia?  

West of Shattuck, Center Street is a kind of pedestrian purgatory with large parking structures on both sides. But it’s also the forecourt of Berkeley City College. Narrowing the width of Center Street in this block would make it a bit easier for BART passengers who can’t use the escalators to get to the elevator, which is on the north side of the street. It would provide a way to rationalize and improve the taxi queue on the south side of the street. It would give the students of Berkeley City College a mini-plaza with room for landscaping, benches, and tables. And all this would probably cost much less than digging up Center Street east of Shattuck.

This will be the biggest private sector building ever constructed in Berkeley—half a square block, 18 floors, 194 feet high—as well as the tallest Berkeley building ever (aside from the Campanile). The community benefits package should be proportionally outsized and permanently meaningful to the Berkeley public.  

Detriments of the project—including the loss of key businesses and community services, or their extended removal from the Downtown during construction—should also be figured into the benefits equation. Economic costs of detriments—such as the loss of sales to downtown businesses and taxes to the City during the period the Landmark Shattuck cinemas are not operating—should be calculated and detriment costs subtracted from the claimed positive benefits.  

Calculation of what constitutes substantial community benefits should be based on the value of the completed project to the owner(s), not on what is spent to construct the project. 302 condominium units would be worth at least $225,000,000 if placed on the market (assuming a very modest average selling price of $750,000 per unit. Remember that many of these units will be unique “view” condominiums rising 6 to 18 stories in the sky, and will probably sell for millions of dollars each).  

It is probable the whole building, combining the housing, rentable parking in three underground levels, and extensive commercial storefronts on four block faces, will be worth about $.3 billion ($300,000,000) or more when completed. That will most likely mean at least $150 million in profit for the owner, made possible by City zoning and approvals. A substantial percentage of that profit should go to the public as permanent community benefits.  

Claimed “community benefits” that actually primarily benefit the residents of the building and/or the owner should be excluded from the calculation. For example, the inclusion of “free” bicycle parking or transit passes or electric vehicle charging stations for residents are amenities that may result in higher rents, and will primarily benefit the people living in the building. These are not “community” benefits in any significant sense of the term. 

Claimed community benefits that largely benefit those outside of Berkeley (such as construction workers living elsewhere in Alameda County) should be excluded from the formal calculation. These are not benefits for the Berkeley community, where impacts are felt. 

A substantial portion of the benefits should be “permanent”—that is, they should be benefitting the community as long as the building stands, not ephemeral or short term. Examples might be funding a major streetscape improvement in the Downtown, or finishing the needed seismic upgrade of the Shattuck Hotel (wouldn’t it be a tragic irony if, after the next big earthquake, the landmark Shattuck Hotel is destroyed while the new building stands?).  

The benefits package should include a binding agreement that the building owner(s) will fully compensate the City for any loss of property taxes or other public revenue that would occur if any portions of the building are leased or sold to taxexempt entities such as the University of California. This provision should include any lost property taxes from renting storefront space to BART for the existing bicycle storage facility in a former storefront on Shattuck. 

The benefits package should identify a specific City office responsible for monitoring the benefits, with power to act directly if they are not provided. The monitoring process should be paid for annually by the building owner. Possibly this task could be attached to the office of the City Auditor as a formal annual responsibility. There should be a well‐publicized way for members of the community to address questions or complaints about the benefits package implementation. Monitoring reports should be made public. 

The building owners or their successors should be financially responsible for any loss of guaranteed community benefits that occurs in the long term. There must be a binding legal agreement on this.

The ZAB will consider the types and extent of community benefits being offered for this proposed project. Under current planning rules, extraordinary benefits are required for construction of a project of this size. The terms of those benefits will set the stage for future large buildings coming into the pipeline. Other than the benefit of insuring union labor of $10 million, a welcome recent change, the claimed benefits are either too small, appear to significantly overstate their value or do not further already established city priorities.

Some points to keep in mind: 

o The developer is only offering the minimum funding required in city statute to the City’s in-lieu affordable housing fund. That amount ($20,000 per unit) is vastly inadequate according to the prior nexus study. An updated nexus study is in process, with the in-lieu fee to be reset in April. At a minimum, the amount to be provided by the developer should be set at the amount determined by the revised nexus study. However, the city should go further and request funds above the final amount determined by the study. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors required the 8 Washington Project in San Francisco to provide $8 million in affordable housing funds above the required amount. 

o The transportation mitigation plan is limited to providing AC Transit passes to the building’s residents rather than providing improvements that could benefit the overall community (e.g., a downtown shuttle bus service). Moreover, it is unlikely that most of the residents will utilize AC Transit to, particularly because one of the unique features of the project is its proximity to BART. 

o Funds to mitigate the impact on community resources and services, including policing, have not been included. Provision of funds for already existing needs, such as social services, should also be part of the significant community benefit package. This is a typical community benefit provided for large projects. Given the pressing need for services in Berkeley, provision should be made for these benefits. 

o The value of the privately-developed public space is set at $7,381,560, a figure that appears inflated given the 500 square feet of the planned open space and which is of significant benefit to the project itself and likely to be recouped by the developer by higher unit rents. SOSIP recommended and the Council adopted a number of downtown open space improvements that would benefit the community as a whole, such as making Center Street a pedestrianized zone with a native habitat and creek restoration. Funds would be better provided for already-determined City priorities. 

o The value of the “rent subsidies” to Shattuck Cinemas is claimed at $24,747,000 but there is as of yet no binding agreement to maintain the theater’s lease in new building. Also, the “subsidy” is a reduction from a projected per foot rent increase. A substantive and appropriate benefit would also include subsidies during the construction phase. 

o Inadequate funds provided to Habitot for displacement. The museum will be required to solicit the community to raise nearly $1 million instead of the full amount being considered a required mitigation. 

Recent experiences of police behavior with respect to demonstrations, students, and people of color have called for city review of policing procedures. A special open session of the City Council will be held on Jan 17, to address the issue of police actions and misconduct (at a location to be announced). This proposal is submitted as part of the discussion at that special session. 

It is the purpose of this proposal to suggest that certain principles fundamental to justice and social order in this society need to be remembered, and re-established. And those principles cannot be remembered without considering the more general issue of the democratization of policing. 

Principles that must not be abandoned by police

1- No denial of due process  

Here are two examples of current routine violation of due process: 

Handcuffing anyone stopped, who questions or objects to this, amounts to denial of due process because it is an arbitrary deprivation of liberty. 

Asset forfeiture must be prohibited (including confiscating the belongings of homeless people), as a denial of due process. 

To grant due process means to grant both respect and space for dialogue. No demand for obedience in a public place should be made of civilians without allowing questioning and opposing views that should have equal weight with a police officer’s view. That is what due process means. 

2- No collective punishment  

If someone damages property during a demonstration, then it is the perpetrator who should be arrested, and not the demonstration collectively punished for the damage (by a dispersal order, e.g.). Dispersal orders, the use of general constraints (like kettling), or general retaliation against the group (e.g. with tear gas) for any vandalism committed by an individual should be prohibited. If there is damage to property, it is up to the police to find and arrest the individual who did it, and charge them properly under the law. 

Collective punishment is outlawed by the Nuremberg Decisions, and the treaty conditions that evolved from them. It therefore violates international law. 

3- Arbitrary commands, and insistence on obedience, are not law enforcement.  

Police impunity depends on victimless crime laws, which allow the police to dispense with a complainant. In the absence of a complainant, the police then substitute their own suspicion about a civilian’s wrong-doing. The requirement for absolute obedience to a police command transforms police suspicion into law. Impunity renders the police a law unto themselves, rather than agents of law enforcement. Police impunity has no place in a democratic society. 

4- Racial profiling must be ended.  

Racial profiling is the opposite of law enforcement. In law enforcement, when a crime is committed, the police look for a suspect to charge with that crime. In racial profiling, the police commit an act of suspicion, and then look for a crime to charge the person they suspect. 

Racial profiling has deep roots in the US. Born of an era of enslavement, and given social validation by an era of racial segregation, it is the child of the most egregious violation of fundamental democratic principles. To have maintained the reverberation of those violations even up to the present is to subvert all pretense to democracy. This society has the responsibility of stringently ending any vestige of those violations. 

It should be impermissible for the police to stop and question or detain or arrest people from different racialized groups in numbers different from the proportion of those racialized groups in the general population. To exceed that proportion with respect to any one group should mean a cessation of any action against members of that group until the proportions of such actions are equalized again. If African Americans are 15% of the population, then police actions against African Americans should not rise above 15% of their total. Careful records and tallies of such procedures should be kept and overseen by a civilian review board. 

The motivation for this proposed measure: the principle in this proposal is that, if the police wish to leave operational space for themselves to deal with real criminals who happen to be African American, they must cease harassing African Americans in their daily routines and social space. 

It is unfortunate that equality still has to be raised in this way, but until those who construct a white privilege for themselves through their racialization of others have stopped doing so, equality will have to be couched in racialized terms. 

5- All use of weapons to enforce obedience must be condemned and prohibited  

All use of weapons, whether beating a person, using any kind of gun, pepper spray or tear gas, or electronic forms of torture (tasers, for instance), to enforce obedience to an arbitrary police command should be prohibited. All use of instruments of torture, and use of any weapon as an instrument of torture, should be prohibited. All use of any weapons should be regulated and judged by a civilian review board. If arrest is warranted at any time, then arrest should occur. But violently enforcing obedience for its own sake through police commands on people not warranting arrest, or using police commands and possible disobedience as a reason to arrest, is not the function of policing. A police department that goes beyond policing is assuming a power of state that is not theirs. 

6- End vicarious responsibility  

The police cannot use a situation they have created in order to hold a civilian responsible for what the police do in the course of policing. The police should not be able to hold one civilian responsible for an act committed by another civilian. That is not justice, and though it is permitted by state law, it must be prohibited by any city that values justice. Example: collective punishment. 

7- The police should not be self-propagandizing, self-justifying, or self-enforcing.

The police should be barred from explaining in the media why they have committed a certain criminal action, such as kill a person, or beat or torture a person. If there are reports to be made public of an action hurtful to a civilian (such as choking, beating, or killing), they should only be from witnesses. If the police wish to make a statement justifying their action, they should only do so in a public meeting called for that purpose in which the public can question and argue with them, and present alternate testimony. Both officer and victim should be able to make their case in a public civilian review board hearing. But for police to be self-justifying in the media, without the public having equal time, is discriminatory. 

If police actions are within the law, then they need no self-justification. If police actions violate the law, then the perpetrators must be prosecuted. They should not have an opportunity to propagandize civil society about what they have done. 

Neither should the police be able to hide behind personal feelings or privileges (such as “feeling threatened”), nor peremptory departmental review (Police Bill of Rights). If anyone is injured or damaged or killed at their hands, it is up to civil society to investigate and rectify this malfeasance. For this, a strong civilian review board is needed. It is up to civil society to enforce the law on the police. 

Immediate steps the city can take

1- A psychological test should be given to present members of the police force to determine if they can be trusted to respect the citizen, to obey the law, and to handle weapons responsibly. Those that cannot be so trusted should be dismissed. 

2- Neighborhood meetings should be organized throughout the city to get suggestions for what policing should ideally be (and not be) in each local neighborhood. 

3- Conferences should be organized, constituted by representatives from neighborhood assemblies and associations, that would begin the process of rewriting rules and procedures for the police. 

4- A civilian review board with access to all personnel files and personal records of all members of the police department should be empanelled. All incidents in which a police officer uses a weapon shall be brought before this board. The board shall have the power to call witnesses, and to judge if the officer acted properly. If the officer acted improperly, or in violation of the law, s/he shall be dealt with in the same manner as a civilian who committed a similar offense. That is, the civilian review board should have the power to demote or to fire an officer, and to call for charges or indictment against the officer. 

 

Long range steps for democratizing the police department:

1- Hiring should be on the basis of a psychological examination in which each prospective employee scores high on respect for human beings and human concerns, with a willingness to enter into dialogue with any individual. They should also score high on psychological stability, intelligence, and willingness to abide by the Constitution, the Nuremberg decisions, and all treaties signed by the US. 

 

The primary principle of the Nuremberg Decision is that simply following orders, or following established routine, is no excuse for illegal behavior. If a officer is given an illegal command, it is that officer’s social responsibility to disobey (and similarly with civilians). 

2- Training procedures and internal rules of the department should all be made public and discussed, with possible modifications ratified by neighborhood assemblies. 

3- The Police Bill of Rights should be abandoned. This is inimical to police officers being public servants. If the police are public servants, then they must be known fully to the public. All that they do and are should be open to public scrutiny, and available for criticism, judgment, and correction by civil society and/or its appointed representatives. 

4- If the police are to carry firearms, then they must submit to extensive background checks by civil society (not by the police department itself) to make sure they are safe to carry such weapons – as a model for everyone else. 

5- All aspects of policing should ultimately be discussed, modified collectively, and ratified by all the communities in the city. 

 

 

 

 

Editor's Note: The latest issue of the Pepper Spray Times is now available.

You can view it absolutely free of charge by clicking here . You can print it out to give to your friends.

Grace Underpressure has been producing it for many years now, even before the Berkeley Daily Planet started distributing it, most of the time without being paid, and now we'd like you to show your appreciation by using the button below to send her money.  

This is a Very Good Deal. Go for it! 

Biting the hand that feeds them billions of dollars in military and economic aid, Jewish settlers attacked American consular officials who were investigating the destruction of Palestinian olive trees. International outrage followed Palestinian Authority minister, Ziad Abu Ein’s, death following a violent assault by Israeli forces. Tragically this state sponsored violence follows a familiar pattern.  

It is outrageous that we continue to divert critical resources from the American public to support the Israeli military machine which violates every norm of human decency and paradoxically the basic principles of Judaism. The Obama administration unleashed their usual arm twisting exercise and halted the United Nations Security Council’s resolution demanding an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Abandoned by much of the world, the Palestinians should now vigorously remedy decades of injustice by taking their case to the International Court at The Hague.

"We believe 'tear gas' is a misnomer for a group of poisonous gases which, far from being innocuous, have serious acute and longer-term adverse effects on the health of significant numbers of those exposed." 

Physicians for Human Rights wrote the above paragraph after studying the health effects of the chemical agents commonly known as tear gas on human health after the government of the Republic of Korea admitted to using 351,000 canisters against civilians in 1987. Physicians for Human Rights' work was an effort to "bring the skills and influence of the American medical community to the defense of international human rights." 

Under the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997, CS gas was banned from use as a method of warfare because it is capable of causing long-term incapacitation and even death, but it continues to be used by law enforcement for riot control, as Berkeley residents witnessed recently. 

It is early in the analysis of the use of toxic chemical here in town, but there is no controversy about some of the facts: the police claim the use of chemical agents was necessary because of projectiles thrown at them, if press reports are accurate. 

The hurling of rocks and bottles at anyone is an outrage, to be sure. It is also a criminal act. No crowd commits such a criminal act; most of us have seen that an extremely small group of two or three individuals uses the cover of a larger crowd to throw things. The larger, peaceful crowd is as much at risk as the police officers. 

Responding with CS gas which blinds, terrorizes, and in some cases incapacitates the entire crowd rather than the individuals responsible for throwing objects is an absurd, logic-free police response. The object-throwing individuals are usually furthest away, least liable to be affected by the chemical agents, and the haze in the street further obscures their movements and identities. The peaceful crowd is liable to get hurt trying to find a way out of the toxic air. 

Our community has work to do to ensure that we as a community can safely express our outrage at the injustice of racism, which falls primarily on people of color. We need to demand that our police force be required to respect those rights, which are precious.

As the Republican-controlled 114th Congress convenes, the GOP will unveil their program for the next two years. Republicans claim most of their initiatives will create jobs, but this is far from the truth. When the GOP trumpets “new jobs,” it’s typically a ploy to divert gullible Americans from the true Republican agenda: lining the pockets of the rich. 

The new Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, promised the first Republican initiative would force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. Republican Senator John Barrasso claimed construction of the controversial pipeline would create “42,000 new jobs.” However, The Washington Post noted: 

Using the State Department math, it’s safe to say nearly 4,000 construction jobs will be created, at least temporarily. One could even say that 16,000 jobs would be or have been supported from direct spending on the project, such as those of pipe makers in Arkansas. But “42,000 new jobs” is going too far. Most of those jobs are far from the construction site, and it’s hard to argue they are new. Moreover, under State’s accounting, they only last for a year.

To put the “42,000 new jobs” in perspective, the US added 321,000 permanent full-time jobs in November and 252,000 in December. (That’s 58 straight months of job growth under the Obama Administration – more than 10 million jobs.) 

 

Since 2009, Democrats have argued that a relatively modest investment in infrastructure spending would boost GDP and employ millions of Americans. Nonetheless, Republicans blocked all Democratic efforts to pass infrastructure funding. Later this month, Independent Senator Bernie Sanders will introduce a jobs bill that would employ 13 million Americans rebuilding America’s infrastructure. 

Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner claims to have prepared several ”job-creation bills” . However, five economists, commissioned by The Huffington Post, examined these bills: “Almost none of those measures… are likely to have the measurable, immediate impact on job growth that Boehner claimed his party would have delivered. Instead, the bills would serve more to promote other parts of the Republicans' agenda -- and, in most cases, aid large corporations.” 

Republicans are wedded to a failed ideology, Reaganomics. The Republican ideology argues, “Pursue free market policies that are the surest way to boost employment and create job growth and economic prosperity for all.” Thus, Republicans in the 114th Congress will continue the same “trickle-down” logic first advocated by Ronald Reagan. The same philosophy was promoted by Mitt Romney in his failed 2012 presidential campaign : “As President… I will cut marginal tax rates across the board for individuals and corporations... I will repeal burdensome regulations, and prevent the bureaucracy from writing new ones… Instead of growing the federal government, I will shrink it.” 

Unfortunately, the GOP’s “trickle down” philosophy doesn’t create jobs. Over the past three decades, many economists have derided Reaganomics. The most recent was Thomas Piketty in his book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.” Piketty concluded: “200-plus years of income and wealth data… demonstrates that returns on capital… significantly outstrip growth in the real economy…, which relentlessly drives up inequality.” Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren observed: “[Piketty’s book] says over and over… The rich get richer.” 

Republicans in the 114th Congress may trumpet “new jobs” but their true objective is to protect the interests of their moneyed benefactors. Regarding the GOP initiative to force approval of Keystone XL pipeline, The Center for American Progress observed: 

With Congress largely deadlocked since 2013, oil, gas, and coal interests have increasingly focused their resources on putting industry-friendly politicians in charge of both chambers and laying the groundwork for the new Congress to advance special-interest priorities... According to a Center for American Progress report released in December 2014, the fossil-fuel industry directly invested $721 million… in order to set up the agenda of the new Congress.

 

During the time Present Obama has been in office, the economy has created 10.9 million jobs. That‘s more than those created by George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush combined. 

So the next time you hear Republicans touting their job-creation bills, take it with a grain of salt. Take a hard look at their proposed legislation and ask yourself, which rich Republican constituency will this benefit? It won’t be the middle class. 

Most economists agree the key to a healthy US economy is a vibrant middle class. Joseph Stiglitz observed: 

One of the popular misconceptions is that those at the top are the job creators; and giving more money to them will thus create more jobs… What creates jobs is demand: when there is [middle class] demand, America’s firms… will create the jobs to satisfy that demand. And unfortunately, given our distorted tax system, for too many at the top, there are incentives to destroy jobs... This growing inequality is in fact weakening demand.

 

Republicans aren’t interested in creating jobs. Their objective is to protect the one percent. 

---

Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer. He can be reached at bburnett@sonic.net

Patrice Émery Lumumba, wife Pauline Opango Lumumba, died in her sleep on December 23, 2014. She was 78. Her death is almost 54 years after Lumumba’s death on January 17, 1961.  

Lumumba was a Congolese independence leader and the first legally elected Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo or DR Congo after he helped win its independence from Belgium in June 1960. Ten weeks later, the United States helped orchestrate a coup of Lumumba's government. Lumumba was then imprisoned and murdered. 

In our various trips through a number of African countries, we now better understand the terrible legacy of Western colonialism. In 2002, we saw the docudrama “Lumumba” in Cape Town, South Africa. The docudrama is an excellent depiction of this interference. Fittingly, at the same time the movie was showing to large crowds, South Africa was attempting to mediate the internecine dispute between the Congolese government and rebel factions.  

Lumumba was elected prime minister of a coalition-government of the Congo. It was the first democratic national election the territory had ever had. Lumumba believed that political independence was not enough to free Africa from its colonial past; it had to cease being an economic colony of Europe. His fiery speeches immediately alarmed the West. Why? Because Belgium, British, and American corporations had vast investments in the Congo, which was rich in copper, cobalt, diamonds, gold, tin, manganese, and zinc. An inspired orator, his message was being heard beyond Congo's borders. Western governments feared his message would become contagious to other African countries. And Lumumba could not be bought. Finding no allies in the West, he sought assistance from the Soviet Union. Thus, his days became numbered. 

Less than two months after his election as prime minister, a U.S. National Security Council subcommittee on covert operations, which included CIA chief Allen Dulles, authorized his assassination. Richard Bissell, CIA operations chief at the time, later said, "The President [Dwight D. Eisenhower] would have preferred to have him taken care of some way other than by assassination, but he regarded Lumumba as I did and a lot of other people did: as a mad dog . . . and he wanted the problem dealt with." 

Alternatives were debated for dealing with "the problem," among them poison (a supply of which was sent to the CIA station chief in Leopoldville), a high-powered rifle, and free-lance hit men. But it was hard to get close enough to Lumumba to use these, so, instead, the CIA supported anti-Lumumba elements within the factionalized Congo government, confident that before long they would do the job. They did. After being arrested and suffering a series of beatings, the prime minister was secretly shot in Elizabethville in January 1961. A CIA agent ended up driving around the city with Lumumba's body in his car's trunk, trying to find a place to dispose of it.  

Lumumba was hastily buried after his killing. But Belgian policemen later dug up the corpse, dissolved it in acid and crushed the remaining bones to avoid turning the grave into a pilgrimage site. 

Mobutu Sese Seko, then chief of staff of the army and a former NCO in the old colonial Force Publique, was the key figure in the Congolese forces that arranged Lumumba's murder. The Western powers had spotted Mobutu as someone who would look out for their interests. He had received cash payments from the local CIA man and Western military attaches while Lumumba's murder was being planned. He later met President Kennedy at the White House in 1963. Kennedy gave him an airplane for his personal use -- and a U.S. Air Force crew to fly it for him. With United States encouragement, Mobutu staged a coup in 1965 that made him the country's dictator. 

Mobutu's 31-year reign ended with the Congolese Civil Wars, which began in 1996. Since 1998, the civil wars resulted in the deaths of 5.4 million mostly from malaria, diarrhea, pneumonia, and malnutrition, aggravated by displacement and unsanitary and over-crowded living conditions. Nearly half of the victims were children under five. As of 2013, according to the Human Development Index, DR Congo has a low level of human development, ranking 186 out of 187 countries. 

Although the DR Congo is extremely rich in natural resources, political instability, a lack of infrastructure and a culture of corruption have limited development, extraction and exploitation of these resources.  

Lumumba’s hopes and fears for the Congo are set forth in his 1960 letter to his wife. We will never know if he had lived whether his hopes would have been realized. But the United States saw to it that he never had a chance. Instead, he ended up in an unmarked grave. 

How many times before and since Lumumba's assassination has the United States interfered in the affairs of other countries? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya are some of the recent examples. In fact, the unintended consequence of the U.S. Iraq war, the so-called Arab Spring, and the Syrian conflict has given rise to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham or ISIS. 

---

Adam Hochschild's, King Leopold's Ghost, at pp.301-302 (Houghton Mifflin Co. 1988), and Wikipedia, are the sources of this brief summary of of Lumumba's assassination and DR Congo’s brief history since the assassination. I also recommend Barbara Kingsolver's “Poisonwood Bible,” a novel set against the Congo's fight for independence from Belgium, the murder of Lumumba, and the CIA-backed coup to install his replacement, 

Housing is a human right, declared labor and senior-rights advocate Helen Corbin Lima (1917-2005). Five years ago, when she died, she was 88 years old, a resident of a Strawberry Creek Lodge (SCL) senior housing, which continues but is different.  

Housing problems especially for low-income and disabled seniors have been in the news. At Strawberry Creek Lodge (1320 Addison) and Redwood Gardens (2951 Derby), for example. 

(Read December 19, 2014 Planet “Troubles in Berkeley's Redwood Gardens.”) 

In 1991, when Helen moved into a tiny SCL studio, her only income was Social Security. She applied for Section 8 housing, and a whole new realm of political activity opened up for her. From then until her death, she was active in the fight for affordable housing and to save Section 8. Senior citizens and disabled persons are Section 8 eligible. Until her deteriorating health made it no longer possible, she was also actively involved in the SCL Tenants Association. 

Low-income seniors were finding their subsidized housing "under attack" by federal funding cuts. In 1997 she founded Save Section 8, a nonprofit self-help, grass-roots effort in behalf of American seniors who need rent-subsidized apartments. No admission or membership fees were charged. Income source was voluntary contributions. Activities included picketing, petitions, meetings, newspaper publicity, proposal of a Berkeley ordinance to protect then-current tenants, publications, presence at California’s annual senior rally, counseling individuals and providing speakers. She was responsible for the production of a video, Housing is a Human Right: Seniors and Section 8. The Santa Clara City Library had it in its collection. (It appears no longer to be in libraries, possibly attributable to public libraries discarding their VHS’s in favor of DVD’s. (I have a copy, and film director Anahita Forati may have copies.)  

Rent was and is charged for non-senior related events that are held in senior center rooms. Save Section 8 meetings in the large meeting room of the North Berkeley Senior Center were not always viewed by the City fathers as senior events. I corresponded with the City Manager’s office about this perception and we were ultimately able to hold a more or less monthly meeting without paying rent. Center Rules prohibit soliciting; collecting contributions within the senior center towards Save Section 8 expenses was thusly prohibited. Some gutsy seniors resorted to standing outside on the corner with tin cans.  

There are several detailed biographies on the Internet; I’ll mention just a few details of Helen Corbin Lima’s life. She and her twin brother were born in 1917 in China, where their father was a Congregationalist missionary. She declared herself an atheist. She moved to the United States in 1928 and began her union affiliation in 1939, as a secretary for the fishermen's union Local 38 in Eureka. She soon became an organizer. She joined the Communist Party and, in 1940, married local party leader Albert J."Mackie" Lima. The Limas later moved to San Francisco. In 1957, she joined the kitchen staff at Herrick Hospital in Berkeley and became a strike captain and union organizer for the Service Employees International Union Local 250, with which she worked for 21 years. After her husband's death in 1989, she moved into SCL.  

SCL, referred to locally as The Lodge or Strawberry, was built in 1962 in Berkeley, California. Its purpose was affordable rental housing for lower to middle income senior citizens. Three adjoining buildings in a park-like setting provided 150 units—most were studios, some one-bedroom apartments, each with a bathroom and kitchenette. An elective, not-free evening meal was introduced when there no longer was a supermarket was no longer within walking distance.  

It was generally agreed that the SCL buildings were in poor shape when, in August 2009, it received a 66.69 inspection score, which was 23.2% worse than the average HUD inspection score (100=best) for all Section 8. 

By 2012, the Lodge was a not-for-profit complex governed by a Board of Trustees whose meetings were attended by a Tenants Association representative. SCL was managed by Church Homes of Northern California (CCH). Income was derived from residents’ rents and HUD subsidies under Section 8. Tenants were thinking about staging a protest outside the Board’s meeting in November.  

Most recently, Satellite Affordable Housing Associates – SAHA – “acquired SCL and is partnering with Strawberry Creek Lodge Foundation to refinance and remodel the Lodge including seismic and building upgrades. SAHA will also provide property management services, as well as provide on-site service coordination.” [Internet] 

xxxx 

The Berkeley Commission on Aging will meet on Wednesday, January 21, 2014 at 1:30 P.M. at the North Berkeley Senior Center (corner Hearst and MLK). This commission’s mission is “To enhance the quality of life for people 55 years and older in the Berkeley Community, and to increase public awareness of their contributions and needs by actively promoting their health, safety, independence and participation in our community.” 

Reminder: "Older people urged to get high-dose vaccines against flu this season," by Cynthia H. Craft (Sacramento Bee, December 28, 2014). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quite a few years back, I wanted to go off of Zyprexa because I feared that it was giving me diabetes. I asked my psychiatrist to take me off Zyprexa, and he went along with it while prescribing other medications.  

My wife describes the ensuing months in terms of me becoming psychotic and she being afraid of me. I was beginning to speak in hostile and aggressive tones, and I was starting to do things that didn't make sense. I was also becoming increasingly paranoid. The antipsychotic meds that I had switched to apparently were not sufficient.  

I don't have a good memory of that time period, and in fact much of this memory is blacked-out. At some point, my wife made the connection that I had, not long before, gone off Zyprexa. And she realized that it was probably the reason why my behavior had gotten so bad. She told me I ought to take Zyprexa and said that I was getting psychotic. Apparently, I narrowly avoided another trip to the hospital.  

A few weeks after I went back on Zyprexa, I felt better, and my wife said I was acting a lot better toward her. She later told me that she had been on the verge of packing up and leaving. 

The above paragraphs are an example of "navigation" of my mental health, to avert relapses. In this instance a family member helped. Yet it was still an example of correcting course to avert a mishap.  

Concerning the Zyprexa-induced diabetes, I was eventually able to get my blood sugar down to a normal level (at least in one blood test) through using diet to compensate. I had to cut out most of the refined sugar in my diet and had to eat less food in general. Getting my blood sugar under control took about a year and a half.  

The above diet compensation is an example of navigation concerning my health. This is an instance where I may have stopped myself from going down the diabetes path. Once a person gets too far into Type II Diabetes, it is much harder to get this illness to reverse. (While taking Zyprexa is definitely a risk factor for diabetes and obesity, these diseases can sometimes be delayed or staved-off with control of diet.)  

Navigating life entails that you know where you want to go, take the steps needed, attempt to anticipate pitfalls, and in general, that you operate at a high level of awareness. There is the navigation of one's life path. This involves making plans that are probably realistic, and also making backup plans in case something doesn't work as expected.  

It can also be helpful to think in terms of priorities. If you spend all of your time and energy doing tasks that someone else wants you to do, it could leave you exhausted and unable to pursue your own personal goals. Yet, if you do not have any goals to begin with, you are at the mercy of other people's wishes, or perhaps you drift randomly.  

Navigating with respect to treatment is important. When slipping back toward psychosis, it can be a lifesaver to have systems in place to warn you of where you are headed and to redirect your course. The example of my wife taking care of me is a scenario in which I had something set up (namely, the help of another person) that warned me before things got too out of hand. If foresight is used and not just hindsight, a person with mental illness could go much longer between relapses.  

(It is okay to accept some amount of supervision from mental health caregivers. Or if you don't like the word "supervision," you could call it "getting suggestions.") 

The point of this week's column: If you consciously navigate your paths, both the path your mind is taking and the path of where you are going in life, you have a much better chance of getting what you want, whatever that may be.  

(While by some definitions I am not the embodiment of success, since I am broke and living on the generosity of the government, at least I have stopped going back to the hospital, am meeting most of my basic needs and I do not need constant supervision or extreme measures of care. The writing efforts also do a lot to keep me out of trouble.)  

When you take an approach to life that you are going to use organized thinking rather than doing things haphazardly, the results will usually be much better. It becomes easier to make plans and follow them when one has more years of recovery under one's belt.

—Berkeley Chamber Performances will present the San Francisco Chamber Players—violinists Dan Carlson & Nancy Severance, cellist Peter Wyrick (all three of the San Francisco Symphony) & pianist June Choi Oh (of the SF Conservatory)—at 8 p. m. this Tuesday, January 13, in the ballroom at the Berkeley City Club, 2315 Durant Avenue, in a program of Telemann's Quartet in D minor, Beethoven's Piano Quartet in E flat major Opus 16, two movements from contemporary Northern California composer David Smith's 1913 Street Scene (At the Fountain in the Plaza & At a Busy Intersection)—& Piano Quartet in D major Opus 23 by Dvorak. The audience is invited to a complimentary wine & cheese reception following the concert, with opportunity to meet the musicians. Tickets: $25; high school students free; post-high school students, $12.50. 525-5211; berkeleychamberperform.org 

—Berkeley Symphony—which premiered the concert version of Thomas Adès' opera Powder Her Face in 1997 before it was staged (in New York, Chicago, London)—will give a rare performance of Adès' Asyla, Opus 17, a four-movement piece for large orchestra—sometimes described as a symphony, with the third movement, influenced by techno music and compared rhythmically to The Rite of Spring, as its scherzo—and Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6, the "Pathétique," conducted by music director Joana Carneiro as the second program of the season, "Sanctuary" (one of the translations of Asyla—the other being "madhouse") at 8 p. m., Thursday, January 15 in Zellerbach Hall, UC campus. Tickets: $15-$74. 841-2800 x 1; berkeleysymphony.org

—'Grapes of Wrath' chronicled those who left the Dust Bowl during the Depression; 'Panhandle' shows the ones that stayed on. Actors Ensemble of Berkeley presents a musical drama by Emmy winner Walter Halsey Davis, with music by Marc Ream & Jeremy Sullivan, directed by Michael R. Cohen. opens this Friday, January 9 at 8, reception following, & runs Fridays & Saturdays till January 31, with 2 p. m. Sunday matinees on January 18th & 25th. Preview at: http://vimeo.com/115046736 $15-$20. LiveOak Theatre in Live Oak Park, Shattuck at Berryman. 649-5999; aeofberkeley.org 

—Susannah Martin's unusual and acclaimed staging of Berkeley High alum Thornton Wilder's classic 'Our Town' for Shotgun Players at Ashby Stage, 1901 Ashby at MLK, has been held over through January 25. Wednesdays-Thursdays at 7, Fridays & Saturdays at 8 & Sundays at 5--except at closing on the 25th, at 2 p. m. $20-$30. MAD Tickets for 25 & younger--$5. Advance reservations advised. 841-6500; shotgunplayers.org

Marion Fay's unusual Theater Explorations & Music Appreciation classes have just started up for this year. Theater Explorations meets either Monday, 1-3 p. m. for 9 more sessions & four plays, featuring post-performance discussions with guest speakers, including actress Janet Keller. Plays include Stoppard's Indian Ink at ACT (on February 2, 2 p. m.--bring $27 to class for mezzanine seat, $44 for orchestra seat), Molière's Tartuffe at Berkeley Rep & plays at the Aurora & SF Playhouse. $85, discounted theater tickets additional. 

Music Appreciation class--8 more weeks, Thursday mornings, 10-noon--features composers, conductors & musicians associated with San Francisco, Berkeley & Oakland Symphonies, as well as other music professionals speaking, in discussion & performing in class, including a cello/piano duo, a program of French Horn & the Trouve Piano Trio. $80. Discount tickets additional. No background in music necessary. 

All classes for both Theater Explorations & Music Appreciation held at Northbrae Community Church, 941 The Alameda, Berkeley. marionf5@earthlink.net

Killing Trayvons: An Anthology of American Violence is a new collection of essays, poetry and documents relating to the death of Trayvon Martin and the acquittal of his killer George Zimmerman. Edited by journalist and CounterPunch editor Jeffrey St. Clair; CounterPunch, The Nation and Harper's contributor JoAnn Wypijewski; and veteran civil rights activist Kevin Alexander Gray, the book looks at the Martin case as an example of an ongoing pattern of police, and wanna be police, killing of African-American youth. In the editors' words, the book “tracks the case and explores why Trayvon’s name and George Zimmerman’s not guilty verdict symbolized all the grieving, the injustice, the profiling and free passes based on white privilege and police power: the long list of Trayvons known and unknown.” 

This book’s strength is partly in the range of voices it presents, and the different angles the authors take on the tragedies in question. Not all of the writers are in agreement on questions raised by Trayvon’s death; as the editors note in their introduction, “… no neat tie-up would bring comfort, or that insipid concept closure, or let Trayvon live again.” 

The book includes material on “Stand Your Ground” gun laws, which The Progressive publisher Matthew Rothschild argues “legalize and immunize vigilantism.” Rothschild points out that these laws, under which lethal force is permitted if there is fear of bodily harm, were initiated with the backing of both the NRA and the shadowy collection of corporations and right-wing legislators called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). In 2005, Florida, where George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, was the first state to pass a Stand Your Ground law. By 2009, two fatal shootings a week were treated as justifiable under the new law. The NRA is committed to bringing a version of this chilling legislation to every state in the U.S. 

For those inclined to a forensic level of examination, there are extracts from the testimony of Trayvon’s mother Sybrina Fulton and the closing arguments of Zimmerman’s lawyer Mark O’Mara, not to mention the medical examiner’s report on Trayvon’s death and other relevant documentation. 

The analysis of the case is also broadened to tie in American foreign policy. In Amy Goodman’s wide-ranging interview with Cornell West, West pulls no punches in his condemnation of Washington’s targeting of brown people for drone assassination, calling President Obama “a global George Zimmerman.” 

Trayvon Martin was demonized in death for being nabbed with at least trace amounts of pot in his possession. For anyone who has wasted time staring at a ceiling under the influence of weed, the idea that cannabis leads to physical violence is beyond ridiculous, but such an association, at least for poor non-white youth, has been cultivated for decades. In a piece called “Marijuana’s ‘Dark Side’: Drugs, Race and the Criminalization of Trayvon Martin,” Alexander Tepperman expertly examines the drug war against poor, mostly black and brown, youth. Tepperman describes the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 as “[giving] birth to prosecutorial policies and police practices that, through their selective targeting and draconian scope, devastated urban inner-city neighborhoods.” This was followed by Ronald Reagan’s 1982 declaration of war on the evil menace of illicit drugs. Tepperman notes that this cynical campaign “sent legions of young, disproportionately black men to prison for drug trafficking and possession”; focusing on inner city neighborhoods “created and perpetuated a cycle of racial profiling that ultimately bloated US prisons with record numbers of African-Americans.” 

Given the uprisings in Ferguson, Missouri and elsewhere in response to white cop Darren Wilson's not guilty verdict in the killing of Michael Brown, the book could hardly be more timely. 

Since the Michael Brown case, another white cop was set free for the killing of a black man. But that case sparked a national uprising of protests, since the fatal strangulation of Eric Garner by police officer Daniel Pantaleo was filmed on a cell phone and widely circulated. 

In conversations about the horrific killing of Garner, the names of other recent black victims of police violence pop up: Tamir Rice, Timothy Russell, Malissa Williams, Akai Gurley, Renisha McBride ... it's useless to try to keep up with them all. The list just goes on and on. Indeed, as pointed out in Killing Trayvons, the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement estimates that every thirty-six hours another black woman, man, or child is killed by police, security guards or vigilantes. 

Many of the pieces in this book originally appeared on CounterPunch, which has been diligently covering this crisis for years. The essays form a searing indictment of a status quo that has accepted brutalization of communities of color and the premature termination of black lives since the era of widespread lynchings. As activist Mike King writes in his contribution to this collection, “A key difference between yesterday's weekly lynching and today's six killings a week lies in the visibility and the conscious complicity of white America. While the white terrorism that was lynching drew out many in their Sunday best to actively participate and revel in, the sanitized modern equivalent is something that white America prefers to ignore, something it doesn't publicly celebrate but shows little sign of wanting to change, either.” King concludes, “Today, racist violence is a practice many white people would rather not have to think about, not see and not feel moral complicity in.” 

Killing Trayvons is packed with useful perspectives and powerful writing. It should be widely read for use in struggles for justice in the U.S. 

is a new collection of essays, poetry and documents relating to the death of Trayvon Martin and the acquittal of his killer George Zimmerman. Edited by journalist and CounterPunch editor Jeffrey St. Clair; CounterPunch, The Nation and Harper's contributor JoAnn Wypijewski; and veteran civil rights activist Kevin Alexander Gray, the book looks at the Martin case as an example of an ongoing pattern of police, and wanna be police, killing of African-American youth. In the editors' words, the book “tracks the case and explores why Trayvon’s name and George Zimmerman’s not guilty verdict symbolized all the grieving, the injustice, the profiling and free passes based on white privilege and police power: the long list of Trayvons known and unknown.” 

This book’s strength is partly in the range of voices it presents, and the different angles the authors take on the tragedies in question. Not all of the writers are in agreement on questions raised by Trayvon’s death; as the editors note in their introduction, “… no neat tie-up would bring comfort, or that insipid concept closure, or let Trayvon live again.” 

The book includes material on “Stand Your Ground” gun laws, which The Progressive publisher Matthew Rothschild argues “legalize and immunize vigilantism.” Rothschild points out that these laws, under which lethal force is permitted if there is fear of bodily harm, were initiated with the backing of both the NRA and the shadowy collection of corporations and right-wing legislators called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). In 2005, Florida, where George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, was the first state to pass a Stand Your Ground law. By 2009, two fatal shootings a week were treated as justifiable under the new law. The NRA is committed to bringing a version of this chilling legislation to every state in the U.S. 

For those inclined to a forensic level of examination, there are extracts from the testimony of Trayvon’s mother Sybrina Fulton and the closing arguments of Zimmerman’s lawyer Mark O’Mara, not to mention the medical examiner’s report on Trayvon’s death and other relevant documentation. 

The analysis of the case is also broadened to tie in American foreign policy. In Amy Goodman’s wide-ranging interview with Cornell West, West pulls no punches in his condemnation of Washington’s targeting of brown people for drone assassination, calling President Obama “a global George Zimmerman.” 

Trayvon Martin was demonized in death for being nabbed with at least trace amounts of pot in his possession. For anyone who has wasted time staring at a ceiling under the influence of weed, the idea that cannabis leads to physical violence is beyond ridiculous, but such an association, at least for poor non-white youth, has been cultivated for decades. In a piece called “Marijuana’s ‘Dark Side’: Drugs, Race and the Criminalization of Trayvon Martin,” Alexander Tepperman expertly examines the drug war against poor, mostly black and brown, youth. Tepperman describes the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 as “[giving] birth to prosecutorial policies and police practices that, through their selective targeting and draconian scope, devastated urban inner-city neighborhoods.” This was followed by Ronald Reagan’s 1982 declaration of war on the evil menace of illicit drugs. Tepperman notes that this cynical campaign “sent legions of young, disproportionately black men to prison for drug trafficking and possession”; focusing on inner city neighborhoods “created and perpetuated a cycle of racial profiling that ultimately bloated US prisons with record numbers of African-Americans.” 

Given the uprisings in Ferguson, Missouri and elsewhere in response to white cop Darren Wilson's not guilty verdict in the killing of Michael Brown, the book could hardly be more timely. 

Since the Michael Brown case, another white cop was set free for the killing of a black man. But that case sparked a national uprising of protests, since the fatal strangulation of Eric Garner by police officer Daniel Pantaleo was filmed on a cell phone and widely circulated. 

In conversations about the horrific killing of Garner, the names of other recent black victims of police violence pop up: Tamir Rice, Timothy Russell, Malissa Williams, Akai Gurley, Renisha McBride ... it's useless to try to keep up with them all. The list just goes on and on. Indeed, as pointed out in Killing Trayvons, the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement estimates that every thirty-six hours another black woman, man, or child is killed by police, security guards or vigilantes. 

Many of the pieces in this book originally appeared on CounterPunch, which has been diligently covering this crisis for years. The essays form a searing indictment of a status quo that has accepted brutalization of communities of color and the premature termination of black lives since the era of widespread lynchings. As activist Mike King writes in his contribution to this collection, “A key difference between yesterday's weekly lynching and today's six killings a week lies in the visibility and the conscious complicity of white America. While the white terrorism that was lynching drew out many in their Sunday best to actively participate and revel in, the sanitized modern equivalent is something that white America prefers to ignore, something it doesn't publicly celebrate but shows little sign of wanting to change, either.” King concludes, “Today, racist violence is a practice many white people would rather not have to think about, not see and not feel moral complicity in.” 

Killing Trayvons is packed with useful perspectives and powerful writing. It should be widely read for use in struggles for justice in the U.S.