JFK Assassination Dealey Plaza 2002 Interview With Witness Linda Willis
I hope you read Kat's "The assassinations of JFK and RFK" already. She is discussing the assassinations with C.I. and I would recommend the post even if I did not get a shout out in it. :D
DeShawn noted the video above. If you are new to my site, I try to note the assassination of President John F. Kennedy regularly -- at least once a week when I am on my game. I was a college freshman when President Kennedy was murdered. It was a major event in my life and in the life of our country. We still do not have all the facts all these years later.
Thursday, July 6, 2024. Human Rights Watch notes trouble in the KRG,
RFK Junior blew the hope so many had in him, and much more.
News
out of Iraq? If you're a community member and have heard of it, you
already know what my take's going to be. If you're a drive-by reader,
you may get offended. I say it all the time, people need to take
accountability for their actions. We have advocated on behalf of, for
example, journalists kidnapped in Iraq. Especially if they were
American, we have called for the US government to get to work. We
certainly did that with Jill Carroll. Unlike her news outlet (THE
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR), we did not attempt to infantilize her. The
kidnapping was bad enough, the humiliation of TCSM's post-kidnapping
coverage goes a long way towards explaining why Jill left journalism and
became a fire fighter.
We'll call for the
release of the still-imprisoned Robert Pether. He did nothing wrong.
He was conducting business and the Iraqi government had invited him back
in. Turns out, they wanted to use him as a bargaining chip to strike a
better deal with the company he works for. So they've tossed him in a
prison and refuse to let him out. We defend Julian Assange who is
persecuted for the crime of journalism. We'd noted Wynter Cole-Smith.
And sadly, she's now been discovered and she is dead.
That is very sad about Wynter.
But
not everyone's Wynter or Julian or Robert or Jill. There are people
who bring on their own problems. There were the three stupid 'hikers'
(CIA on at least one of them) who got lost they insisted while trying to
hike in Iraq.
We didn't rush to their defense
or do non-stop coverage. It was very clear that the actual goal was to
create and international incident.
That appears to be the current goal.
It has been two years since CME Consulting employees, Robert Pether and Khalid Radwan, were lured to #Iraq, unlawfully arrested and sentenced to five years in #prison on fabricated charges. Here’s the truth about their arrest ⬇️https://t.co/twN50tRF06
Do you know how many times a friend with the US State Dept has called me about Robert Pether?
Zero.
B-b-b-but he's not an American citizen!
No,
he's not. But neither is the woman we're about to discuss. Didn't
stop two friends with the State Dept from calling me last night. It's
just so awful, it's just so . . .
Press orchestrated?
I'm not Judith Miller and I don't fall for government nonsense.
Her name is Elizabeth Tsurkov.
"I'm sure you're going to write about it," one State Dept friend said over the phone. I replied, "Why would I?"
Nobody
needs to be kidnapped. But apparently it took place four months ago. I
would assume if she's still alive that she'll remain alive.
I don't have time for stupid.
The
press reports -- and both friends at the State Dept -- insist that her
family didn't want to go public. Okay, be stupid. It's not my life.
But anyone with a brain who knows anything about Iraq knows you should
be talking to the press (and to the kidnappers via the press). We've
advised that from day one. We noted it with the British hostages.
So that was stupid on the family's part if it were indeed their decision.
Why the need to to public now?
I have no idea but it feels like people are trying to shape an international incident.
If indeed that's the case, let Israel and Russia deal with it.
Elizabeth Tsurkov is not an American citizen.
B-b-but she went to Princeton!
If Princeton sent to her Iraq, I hope her parents sue the university.
But
in the end, it's her own damn fault. Elizabeth Tsurkov is in the
doctorate program so she has education and presumably a brain. Did she
not use that brain?
An Israeli in Iraq? You're
begging to be kidnapped. There's not a week that goes by that some
Iraqi leader isn't calling for the demise of Israel (this week is Amar
al-Hakeem). So she was a deeply stupid woman to go to Iraq.
Supposedly, her kidnappers knew she was Israeli. More stupidity on her
part.
At best, she's Penelope Pitstop,
creating her own wacky adventures. At worst, this is being dramatized
now to create an international incident.
"It's the Iranians! She's kidnapped by an Iraqi militia linked to Iran!"
Really/
That's interesting. Usually, you have to some sort of evidence to make
claims like that. Now when you're trying to create an international
incident with a willing press, proof isn't necessary. Just conjecture.
Is
publicizing the kidnapping now -- four months after she was kidnapped
-- supposed to change the narrative for Israel? Take the attention off
the attack on the Jenin refugee camp? Could be.
Iraq
is a failed state. Corruption and violence. There was no reason for
someone like her to go there. "She was researching terrorism!" Well, I
guess she's going to get some big credit for that assignment.
If
she were my daughter, I'd be doing anything I could. But you better
believe when she made it home safely, I'd tell her she was a damn fool.
Again, she never should have gone to Iraq.
She
has created her own problem. She has dual citizenship -- Israel and
Russia. Those countries can address this. It's not the US' problem and
we don't to hand wring in the US over this.
People need to take accountability for their actions.
She is a thirty-six year-old woman. That's old enough to take responsibility.
Let's
turn to politics. In the US, the next presidential election will be in
November of 2024. Currently, a number of people are running for the
presidential nominations of various political parties. The Democratic
Party has President Joe Biden, Marianne Williamson and Robert F. Kennedy
Jr vying for the nomination. Before we get into the crazy, let's note
Marianne.
So that's some serious discussion about foreign policy. Now let's move to the crazy.
Is
Marjorie Taylor Greene getting fatter or has she just lost all tone in
her upper arms? She's looking like the stereotypical lunch lady. Her
mind is apparently as flabby as her body. She took a break from
attacking a trans woman -- who wasn't a trans woman -- and insisting
that transgender is the cause of mass shootings (again, the police have
stated the shooter was not transgender) to share more ignorance. LGBTQ NATiON notes she continues her attacks on Pride. They also quote her stating that the rainbow belongs to God.
Does no one else have a problem with that?
I
have no idea what the Nazi-like Christian Nationalists believe but most
US denominations of Christianity -- not all -- believe that the rainbow
was a sign of God's compact with Noah that the people would never again
be threatened with extinction by flood.
So
it's not God's rainbow. It's a rainbow that shared with the people
around the world, that's a symbol to them of a promise made.
Now
we can argue whether that's reality or not. But my point here is:
Marjorie is deeply stupid and should not open her mouth in public. She
never knows what she's talking about and all that stumbles is filth and
ignorance.
You'd think she'd hang her head in shame but she's too stupid to realize that the laughter she hears is laughter at her.
With Robert F. Kennedy Jr having announced that he'd be
thrilled to have Hate Merchant Tulsi Gabbard in his presidential
cabinet, it's time to ponder what Junior's administration would look
like?
Vice President: Lindsey Graham -- he was hoping for First Lady but he'll take whatever crumbs he can get (always).
Chief
of Staff: Dennis Kucinich -- finally being the Donald Rumsfeld he
always wanted to be -- maybe his wife won't leave him after all
Secretary of State: Tulsi Gabbard -- she already has close relations with Bashar al-Asad.
Secretary of Treasury: Alex Jones -- he worships money
Secretary
of Defense: Donald Trump Jr. -- appointed so that in Cabinet meetings,
DJ's the one who'll be called "Junior" and not Robert
Attorney General: Donald Trump -- who knows more about the law -- the breaking of it aspect?
Secretary
of the Interior: Tucker Carlson -- lives in his lonely closet -- does it
get more interior than that? -- he's all that and a bow tie.
Secretary of Agriculture: John Stauber -- because he knows how to shovel it
Secretary
of Commerce: Matt Taibbi -- professional grifter who has taken an
embarrassing body of work and made himself infamous for it
Secretary
of Health and Human Services: Naomi Wolf -- she thinks she's a medical
expert -- just don't call her before 10:30 am so she can get over her
morning hang over.
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: Kelly Slater -- early in his career, he had to couch surf which leads him to believe he can handle transportation
Secretary
of Transportation: William Hepburn Russell --
apparently one of those dead people that Junior claims to speak to --
as long as he avoids John Floyd Buchanan (one-time Secretary of War), he
should sail right through the confirmation hearing.
Secretary of Energy: Steve Bannon -- talk about energy, the Rona Barrett of the 21st century zooms around like he's on crack
Secretary of the Education: Scott Ritter -- the registered sex offender just wants to get into girls' locker rooms.
Secretary of Veterans Affairs: Elon Musk -- his work has been a service to the country, at least in his own eyes.
Secretary of Homeland Security: Marjorie Taylor Greene -- she plans to make Jack Teixeira her executive assistant.
The Great Glenneth Greenwald Tweeted about his man crush Junior yesterday:
These
labels have become empty parodies. They meaning increasingly little:
just weapons.
RFK Jr. has a panoply of long-time left-liberal views. Here he is
denouncing censorship by the US Security State. Yet the Atlantic
christens him a "MAGA Democrat."
You
aren't the left. No one cares what you think of him. For several
years, with your tired roll dog, you lied and pretended to be left. But
you never were. FIREDOGLAKE may have loved you but no one gave a damn
about her and no one gives a damn about you. You don't even
live in the United States, do you? Your thoughts on Junior and how left
he is?
Who cares what a hagged out harridan like yourself thinks. Close your
housecoat and go back inside, Widow Miranda, before the world starts
noticing that the children you have -- the ones you told that you didn't
want -- aren't being taken to these events you keep showing up for to
honor David at. And you had the nerve, at the shelter, to type that "it
was so gratifying to be with David's mother and family," uh, what about
his two sons? Your ego knows no bounds.
But,
repeating, in the United States of America, we don't need to hear from
your Brazilian rear about what you think the US left should think. You're an
idiot. You were always an idiot. That's why you struggle for money today. A
real attorney would have seen what THE INTERCEPT did and realized it
was "breach of contract" and immediately launched a law suit. That's
why we have contracts. But I guess some people pay attention to the law
in class and others are just drifting through class.
While we're dealing with Glenneth and his stupid, he also Tweeted this:
Just amazing, and shows who changed, and...who didn't.
In 2005, the NYT won a Pulitzer for exposing this illegal Bush/Cheney domestic spying. I wrote my first book on it.
Now, the NYT claims only the "hard-right" wants reforms, and heralds the program as vital to Our Safety™.
What
the hell are you trying to say, you idiot? Again, close your housecoat,
Glenneth. I don't know what you think you're saying but I do know what
happened. The domestic spying was known in 2004. THE NEW YORK TIMES
elected to hide the story and refused to report on it because The White
House asked them not to and because NYT was fine with tossing the election to Bully Boy Bush.
So
what changed? The "hard-right" seems to
indicate that you see NYT as left. Again, they sat on the story of
Bully Boy Bush's illegal spying to toss the election to Bush. How is
that left? It's a corporatist paper and it's
carried out a war on labor, science and so much more. So back off the
notion that it's left. Remember, like you, it supported the Iraq War.
Like you, it lied to cheer on the Iraq War. Like you, it tries to
rewrite its history with regards to the Iraq War.
Poor Glenneth, if he couldn't create straw men, he'd spend every night lonely and alone.
Yair
gets some things wrong. The title says there's no such thing as a
Junior voter. Yes, there is. At this point, it's an increasingly
smaller group of people. He is not increasing or building and, sadly, he
hasn't flat lined. That would mean support was steady. No, he's begun to slip.
That's
because the family name isn't all that. It comes with baggage.
Marilyn Monroe -- mistreated and passed around between JFK and RFK. RFK
having all the photos of Marilyn and JFK removed from wire files in the
immediate aftermath of her death/suicide/murder. William Kennedy Smith
-- his rape trial and later the multiple sexual harassment complaints
that he had to pay off to go away. Chappaquiddick. The mistreatment
of Joan Kennedy.
There are glories to the name as well. But Junior made his announcement with big fan fair and then . . . nothing.
He's
failed to satisfy the people who would have voted for his uncle or
father. He's not decrying the targeting and scapegoating of
immigrants. To do so would send his MAGA supporters running. And
that's a direct-line betrayal of his father. Then there are the other
issues he's betraying the family name on such as running around with
homophobes and transphobes. His father, after he ceased to be Attorney
General, was actually interested in defending those who were persecuted
-- it's what he and Marilyn bonded over.
Junior's
always been a question mark -- even for those who know him.
[I'm
pulling two paragraphs before this post. I had the initials of a
person in it. The person was in LA in 1968 when RFK visited on his
campaign. Photos were taken. Pierre Salinger saw the photos after te
assassination and told the person to burn the photos for their own
safety and thought the person did. The person did not. The person
planned to hand them over to Junior after he went public with the doubts
regarding the official story. Not after this campaign, the person said
Junior can't be trusted. A shame because supposedly they'd back up
some of this statements seen as 'wild' regarding the murders of his
father and uncle. I've never seen the photos myself. Learned of them
in the 90s when I met ______ and verified them with Pierre who was so
upset to learn that they still existed that he spent the rest of the
night getting drunk.]
That tells you how far from the legacy Junior has fallen.
Junior
stands for nothing and that's why he's not increasing his support.
He's far too busy reaching out to the most pathetic of panhandlers --
Glenneth, Matt Taibbi, Tulsi Gabbard, Bari Weiss, serial plagiarist Chris Hedges, Col Douglas Macgregor, Joe Rogan. Jordan Peterson, et al.
He should have known that he'd be judged by the company he keeps. And
that we would notice how he apparently doesn't know a single person of
color. It's a monochromatic world for Junior.
THE
ATLANTIC author tries to make this about right and left and political
posture and cites a story regarding mythical RFK supporters switching
over to support George Wallace. Let's quote it because it doesn't read
right:
He
then offered a telling anecdote about what this meant. Kennedy recalled
how he’d accompanied his father’s body by train from New York to
Washington, D.C., after his assassination, and was met on the tracks by
thousands of supporters—Black Americans in cities such as Trenton and
Baltimore, and white Americans in the countryside. “There were hippies,
there were people in uniform, there were Boy Scouts,” Kennedy recounted.
“Many people, white men and women, holding signs that said Goodbye,
Bobby, holding American flags, holding up children.”
But
four years later, the younger Kennedy had a rude awakening about these
same people. Examining demographic data from the 1972 presidential
campaign, he discovered that “the predominant numbers of white people”
who had supported his father had not voted for George McGovern, “who was
aligned with my father on almost every issue,” but rather “ended up
supporting George Wallace, who was antithetical to my father in every
way—he was a fierce, rampant segregationist and racist.”
In
the interview, Kennedy casts this about-face as an illustration of how
populist energy can be channeled for good or ill. But he can’t quite
bring himself to acknowledge the obvious implication: For backers of
Kennedy Sr., as for those of Kennedy Jr., the choice was never about
policies but about a posture, which is why the same voters were willing
to support outsider candidates with seemingly opposite ideals.
Do
they mean 1968? I've heard Junior tell that story and point to 1968 --
that RFK voters, after RFK was assassinated, switched their support to
George Wallace. Did the dates get mixed up by either Junior or the
reporter for THE ATLANTIC?
I
don't know. But it's a spurious claim regardless. The train carrying
RFK's corpse did not go through the deep south -- that was the
stronghold for Wallace.
As
a poli sci major -- undergrad and graduate -- I reject the claim.
There is no data that demonstrates this. From time to time, you'll see
trotted out an argument that some 1964 voters for Wallace supported
RFK. There is strong evidence for this. It's not a large number of
people but it does exist.
So
the point being any number that switched over in 1968 (which is what I
believe Junior is attempting to say) were actually Wallace supporters
already who had supported him in '64 and who went back to him after RFK was
murdered. And that would be true if Junior did indeed mean 1972.
Usually,
it's a centrist think tank that tries to make the argument that
Junior's making. They make it insisting that we can't be too far to the
left and use this as an example.
Even
if you accept that -- and that's a whole two week debate if we were all
poli sci majors -- there's still the reality that this isn't what
Junior has done.
Junior is not bridging a gap between middle class and poor nor between Whites and African-Americans.
Junior's in bed with racists. Maybe he expects non-racists to just trust him but why should they?
His
father, as a candidate in 1968, did not bridge the gap by glorifying
racists. Nor did he just pose with and visit White people.
The
Kennedy image is supposed to be about uplift. It's Eunice starting The
Special Olympics, for example. It's Caroline leaving private life to
become a US ambassador. It's not Teddy drunk in his 80s feeling up an
actress (true story, by the way) during a public dinner. It's not acting like a frat boy
(William Kennedy Smith, Junior and so many more examples).
The
Kennedy luster has been squandered by Junior. People wanted to be
inspired. They wanted to right a wrong (the assassinations of JFK and
RFK). They want to believe -- as so many films and novels tell them --
that the child emerges as an adult to right the wrongs done to the
family. Instead, he became a boring frat boy, hanging out with every
extremist White person he could, refusing to speak to people of color --
as a general rule, if you're trying to reach out to people of color you
don't make White bread Dennis Kucinich your campaign manager.
He
failed to inspire. He instead came off like so many others born with
every opportunity who only identifies with those just like him.
That
image could be turned around but the campaign doesn't appear to have a
clue and has instead focused on the low hanging and rotten fruit like
Moms For Liberty. You can believe that no other Kennedy, past or
present, would have been stupid enough to get entangled with them or any
other identified hate group.
THE
ATLANTIC never understands the support that immediately went to
Junior. The writer probably doesn't want to admit just how strongly so
many Americans feel that JFK and RFK were murdered with the
participation of the US government. The media has worked overtime to
deny that. It's why they dogpiled on Oliver Stone before JFK was even
filmed. Just the notion of the movie about to be made was enough to
have them screaming.
It's all in the scene from Robert Altman's NASHVILLE, as Opal (Geraldine Chaplin) interviews Lady Pearl (Barbara Baxley):
It's
John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Well, he, he took the whole South except for
Tennessee, Florida, Kentucky. And there's a reason he didn't take
Tennessee but he got 481,453 votes and the asshole got 556,577 votes. [.
. .] Now the problem
we got here is anti-Catholicism. These dumb-heads around here - they're
all Baptists and whatever, I don't know. Even to teach 'em to make
change over at the bar, you gotta crack their skulls, let alone to teach
'em to vote for the Catholic just because he happens to be the better
man. [. . .] All I remember, the next few days was us just
lookin' at that TV set and seein' that great fat-bellied sheriff sayin'
'Ruby, you son of a bitch.' And Oswald. And her in her little pink suit.
[. . .] And then
comes Bobby. Oh, I worked for him. I worked here, I worked all over the
country, I worked out in California, out in Stockton. Well, Bobby came
here and spoke and he went down to Memphis and then he even went out to
Stockton California and spoke off the Santa Fe train at the old Santa Fe
depot. Oh, he was a beautiful man. He was not much like John, you know.
He was more puny-like. But all the time I was workin' for him, I was
just so scared -- inside, you know, just scared.
Not intending to take anything away from Joan Tewkesbury but
Barbara Baxley was said to have improvised the above (Joan wrote the
plot and the loose framework of a script for NASHVILLE). Anyway, that's
the goodwill that Junior threw away in the weeks after his April 19th
campaign announcement.
AMYGOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
And we’re going to turn right now to another Supreme Court decision.
In another setback for equal rights, the conservative-majority Supreme
Court also ruled 6 to 3 Friday in favor of a Christian Colorado web
designer who refused to create websites for same-sex couples even though
the state, Colorado, bans such discrimination. Justice Sonia Sotomayor
wrote in the dissent decision that the decision was “heartbreaking” and a
“reactionary exclusion.”
Democracy Now!spoke to The New Republic
reporter Melissa Gira Grant Friday, who reported that part of the
lawsuit that the Alliance Defending Freedom filed on behalf of Lorie
Smith of Colorado was fake.
MELISSAGIRAGRANT:
So, in 2016, this website designer named Lorie Smith, whose business is
called 303 Creative, she believed that a Colorado anti-discrimination
ordinance that protects people from discrimination — among other things,
from discrimination based on sexual orientation — she believed that
that precluded her from entering into the wedding website business. Now,
she has never created a wedding website for anybody, and including a
same-sex couple.
So, in the course of making this argument, she claimed two things:
one, that this law meant that she couldn’t post an announcement on her
website saying that she wouldn’t make these websites for any couple that
wasn’t in a biblical marriage that she approved of, and, additionally,
in a later filing in the original case in 2016, she claimed that an
actual same-sex couple sought to have her build a website for them, that
an inquiry — it doesn’t seem that it was a legitimate inquiry, but it
remained in the case. It came up in the district court ruling that ruled
against her. It came up in their appeal. It’s even been included in
filings to the Supreme Court and was referenced by her attorneys,
Alliance Defending Freedom, who are a Christian nationalist law project.
They said, “Hey, she’s had an actual inquiry, so this is a case that,
you know, has some relevance.”
But before this inquiry became a subject of debate — it hadn’t really
been reported out until I was able to reach the person who allegedly
made the inquiry.
AMYGOODMAN: To see our full interview with Melissa Gira Grant, go to democracynow.org.
We’re joined right now by Reverend Paul Brandeis Raushenbush. He’s president and CEO
of Interfaith Alliance, which, along with 30 other faith-based and
civil rights groups, filed an amicus brief in Supreme Court case, 303 v. Elenis.
Reverend Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, thanks so much for being with us.
Can you talk about what this means? If a private company can
discriminate against, oh, the LGBTQ community,
can they put a sign in a window of a store that says, “We don’t serve
gays”? Can they put a sign in the window of a store, “We don’t serve
Jews. We don’t serve Blacks. We don’t serve Latinos”? What does this
decision mean?
REV. PAULBRANDEISRAUSHENBUSH: Well, thank you for having me on. I’m delighted, and frustrated that this is the reason we’re talking.
We’re entering into a terrible moment where a Pandora’s box has been
opened, and we’re not sure exactly what it means. But what it does mean
for sure is that permission has been granted to use religion as a way to
discriminate against your fellow people, and we’re going to see how
this happens. It’s not in a vacuum. This is happening already, when LGBTQ people are under attack with religion as a pretext. And this gives permission for a lot of bad behavior.
And what we have to just say is we are in a situation which — where
what is legal cannot be considered moral, and what the law is cannot be
considered just. And so, you know, we have a Supreme Court that has
basically put down an adverse decision, which is bad for religion, and
it’s also bad for discriminated areas. Like, it could be race. It could
be other protected groups. And we just have to see how this plays out.
But it’s bad news for America.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And,
Reverend, could you talk about the Alliance Defending Freedom that
backed this suit? What do we know about it? And how was it able to get
this case all the way up to the Supreme Court?
REV. PAULBRANDEISRAUSHENBUSH:
Well, this is, essentially, a group that works with Christians using
Christianity as a bludgeon to discriminate. They use religious freedom
in a way that it was never intended. And, you know, they have had other
cases that they have brought, and they have been successful. And so,
we’re in a moment where they saw the Supreme Court opportunity, and they
took it all the way up.
And, you know, unfortunately, there was very little that the
dissenting justices could do, aside from pointing out the obvious, that
we are now in a moment — I’ll quote Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said,
“Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business
open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a
protected class.” I mean, that’s what this law group has done, and
that’s what the Supreme Court went along with.
AMYGOODMAN:
So, Reverend Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, you are a gay Baptist minister.
Talk about the religious community’s response. And also, you supported
the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act. How does this decision
affect that?
REV. PAULBRANDEISRAUSHENBUSH:
Well, I think this shows why the Respect for Marriage Act was so
important, is that it codifies the ability for families like my own to
be protected against discrimination and that our marriages are not to be
dissolved. By the way, the Respect for Marriage Act protects also
interracial marriages, which this photographer, with her fake case,
could also say, “I don’t to photograph interracial marriages.”
So, you know, for me, this hits me on a lot of levels. One, it hits
me as a gay man with a husband and two children, who, of course, we
— you know, this now opens up the possibility that we could go into an
establishment, and they can say, “Oh, well, we don’t want to do your
portrait.” You know, who knows to what extent people will be able to
discriminate against my family?
But it’s also really bad for religion. I have to say that, because
people might think, “Oh, this is a victory for freedom of religion.”
Actually, you know, one of the main — I’ll put on my pastor hat here
— like, one of the main reasons that people are leaving the church,
especially young people, they cite the antagonism that they perceive the
church has against LGBTQ people. And this is
just — you know, this is just going to make more and more people say,
“Ech, who wants to have anything to do with religion or Christianity?”
And that’s — you know, I think, for me, that’s terrible, because it’s a
terrible understanding of what Christianity is and who Jesus was.
It also just does not reflect the fact that the majority of religious people in America support anti-discrimination laws for LGBTQ
people. That’s the fact. They don’t want — this is not just the
American people at large, but also the majority of almost every
religious community rejects the idea that there should be discrimination
against LGBTQ people in just such a way as
the court has decided. And so, basically, the court is representing a
very small and diminishing part of the public in this decision. And it’s
just bad for religion, it’s bad for freedom, and it’s bad for America.
It’s bad for the fabric of America. It disintegrates the fabric of
America.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And,
Reverend, we just have about 20 seconds left, but what should faith
groups that are opposed to this decision — what recourse, what next
steps would you recommend?
REV. PAULBRANDEISRAUSHENBUSH:
Well, you know, we need to be rallying all over the country, and we
need to be standing up, and we need to be very loud to insist that
religion should be a cause for celebration, not discrimination, a cause
for liberation, not subjugation, a cause for a bridge, not a bludgeon.
And we have to say that just because this law is now the — is the law
doesn’t mean it’s moral. And we have to stand up and say, “If you’re
doing this, you are not representing a good religion. You’re
representing bad religion.” It’s very important that everyone stand up
and be very clear about where they stand on this law.
AMYGOODMAN: Reverend Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, we thank you so much for being with us, joining us from Massachusetts, president and CEO
of Interfaith Alliance. And that does it for our show. I’m Amy Goodman,
with Juan González. Our website is democracynow.org. Thanks so much for
joining us.
A court in the Kurdistan region of Iraq dealt independent civil society a blow on May 31, 2023, by ordering the closure of Rasan Organization
over “its activities in the field of homosexuality,” Human Rights Watch
said today. Rasan is the only human rights organization willing to
vocally support lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in
the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI), in addition to its work on women’s
rights and domestic violence.
“Shuttering Rasan is not only an attack on civil society in Kurdistan
but is also a direct threat to the lives and wellbeing of the
vulnerable people they support,” said Adam Coogle,
deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “By closing Rasan,
the government has sent a clear message that it does not respect freedom
of association.”
Tanya Kamal Darwish, CEO of Rasan Organization, told Human Rights
Watch that the purported reason for closing the group down was not
because of its activities, but because the judge took issue with its logo,
which contains the colors of the rainbow. The court order states that
“the expert committee confirmed that the logo of the organization is a
complete expression of its activities in the field of homosexuality.”
Rasan has appealed but is unable to continue operating while the appeal is pending.
The closure of Rasan is part of a broader pattern of oppression and
targeting of LGBT people and activists by local Kurdish authorities in
recent years. Human Rights Watch has previously documented the targeting of LGBT people online and violence against LGBT people by armed groups in Iraq, including the regional government.
The closure is the result of a lawsuit
filed against Rasan in February 2021 by Omar Kolbi, a member of the
Kurdistan Parliament, who accused Rasan of “promoting homosexuality,”
and “engaging in activities that defy social norms, traditions, and
public morality.” Kolbi also submitted a complaint to Barzan Akram
Mantiq, the head of the Kurdistan Regional Government’s Department of Non-Governmental Organizations, an official body responsible for registering, organizing, and monitoring all nongovernmental organizations in the region.
After the suit was filed, local police issued arrest warrants
for 11 LGBT rights activists who were either current or former
employees at Rasan based on article 401 of the penal code, which
criminalizes “public indecency.”
“The Department of Non-Governmental Organizations is supporting MP
Kolbi’s complaint against us, but that is backward,” Darwish said. “The
department should have been supporting us, not standing against us.”
Darwish said that the trial, which took place last year, focused on
the activities of Rasan and never mentioned any issues with the group’s
logo. “They were asking about our activities, and we told them what we
do,” Darwish said. “We focus on human rights. Anyone who comes to us
with a problem we help without any discrimination.”
Rasan found out about the issue with the logo only when the court
decision was published. “We weren't expecting them to take any action
against us, since we weren't doing anything illegal. They used the logo
as an excuse because they couldn't find anything illegal in our
activities,” Darwish said.
Rasan, which has operated in Sulaimaniya, a city in the Kurdistan region, for nearly two decades, has faced increasing threats
and official retaliation for its activism and work. The group provides
legal, psychological, and social support for women and LGBT clients,
raises awareness of LGBT and women’s rights, and collects and compiles
data relevant to LGBT people and gender-based violence.
In September 2022, members of the Kurdistan Regional Parliament introduced
the “Bill on the Prohibition of Promoting Homosexuality,” which would
punish any individual or group that advocates for the rights of LGBT
people. Under the bill, the vague provision against “promoting
homosexuality” would be a crime punishable by imprisonment for up to one
year and a fine of up to five million dinars (US$3,430). The bill would
also suspend, for up to one month, the licenses of media companies and
civil society organizations that “promote homosexuality.”
Momentum for adopting the bill appears to have stalled, but in the
context of repeated targeting of LGBT people, local LGBT rights
activists fear it could be quickly revived and passed at the whim of
local authorities.
“By going after Rasan, authorities are effectively scapegoating
activists working to protect among the most vulnerable members of
society, who should not fear reprisals for speaking up about abuses,”
Coogle said. “The Kurdistan Regional Government should take immediate
steps to ensure that organizations like Rasan are permitted to operate
freely and cease harassment and targeting of LGBT advocates.”
