Pressured, the Southern Poverty Law Center Admits It Was Wrong

By Douglas Murray

Monday, June 18, 2018

Any free society must expect that a certain number of chancers, hucksters, and shake-down artists will prosper among them. But rarely have they come in so grossly endowed and shameless a guise as the “Southern Poverty Law Center.”

The SPLC was founded in the 1970s, and back then it did some respectable campaigning work to target and shut down — through legal means — actually racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan. All well and good, and the SPLC can still be applauded for this work. And yet students of non-profits and charities worldwide will be familiar with a certain tendency in this field, which is that such organizations rarely shut themselves down. Or, to put it another way, a charity set up to cure a disease may find a cure for that disease and yet strangely also find some reasons to continue. For of course salaries and pensions are at stake. Comfortable halos have been created. Who would want to divest themselves of the gold and glory that comes from such a sinecure? And so the charity will become, for instance, a charity to help people who once suffered from the disease that has now been cured.

So it is — though in far worse form — with the KKK and the SPLC. Of course as the KKK dwindled to an all but negligible fringe, the SPLC could not afford to bask in its victories. There was still cash to collect. Indeed more cash than ever. And who but a fool, or an honest man, would leave tens of millions of dollars on the table? So it is that in recent years the SPLC reoriented itself. It became an organization that looked into all those things that were not racist but that might be deemed right of center. It decided to look into not terrorism and racism but “extremism.” It decided, in particular, that it should become the self-appointed arbiter of what is acceptable in American life and what is unacceptable. For years the mainstream press, lazy on its memories of the SPLC’s past manifestation, indulged it in its new self-definition. Indeed for a few years the words “whom the SPLC has described as” wormed their way into some of America’s — and the world’s — most otherwise respectable and usually fact-reliant publications.

Yet the SPLC has repeatedly shown itself to be woefully unfit to perform its self-assigned task. For instance in 2015 it “designated” (as though this should have had any standing anywhere other than in the minds of the SPLC’s employees) Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson as an “extremist.” So within the space of only a few decades the SPLC moved from targeting the KKK to targeting a black conservative. Elsewhere it has attempted to anathematize multiple mainstream scholars of a conservative persuasion, including Charles Murray (no relation). About the radical Left it has shown a strange lack of interest.

Like many other organizations, the SPLC has spent recent years attempting to make any links it can between any conservative who says anything and any terrorist who does anything. So it was almost moving to observe their own standards come back to bite them in 2012 when a gunman walked into the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., intent on killing its staff. The gunman on that occasion admitted that he had chosen his target because the SPLC had listed it as a “hate group” on its website.

So it has consequences, this sinister and spendthrift game that the SPLC has been playing. In any other context the SPLC might be regarded as participating in a game of exceptionally dangerous target selection. But somehow the organization has clung on to its halo, even as it has time and again shown itself to be a dangerously ill-informed group that has turned from anti-racism to incitement within a generation.

Which brings us to today. For as of today it seems possible that the SPLC’s position may finally be taken back down to the position it should have been reduced to years ago. Perhaps after today those donors who still give money to the SPLC will realize that they are backing a disgraced and disgraceful organization, if any were unaware of and unbothered about this before.

For today it has been announced that the SPLC has been forced to pay $3.375 million to the British Muslim reformist and anti-extremism campaigner Maajid Nawaz.

Two years ago the SPLC published one of its typically poorly put-together hack jobs. It described this one grandiloquently as a “Field guide to anti-Muslim extremists.” Like their opposite numbers in the U.K. (the incorrectly titled “Hope Not Hate”), the SPLC has decided in recent years that it has the ability to judge not merely what is a correct interpretation of Islam and what is an incorrect interpretation of Islam, but also (mirabile dictu) who may criticize Islam with some legitimacy and who may not. In both cases the general sense is given off that in fact nobody can criticize any aspect of Islam legitimately without being named in a “field guide” put together by a gaggle of people who are overfunded and underinformed.

Even by its own standards the SPLC’s 2016 report was more than usually sloppy. For among the many other people they incorrectly labeled “anti-Muslim extremists,” the SPLC listed Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Which, given that Ayaan was born a Muslim and Maajid still is a Muslim, is really the sort of thing would give any sensible person pause. Or, to put it another way, how many more black people do the white far-leftists at the SPLC have to target before having to put themselves on one of their piss-poor “field guides”?

Anyhow — Nawaz very sensibly sued. Not just to clear his name, but also to make up for the fact that in the wake of the SPLC’s designation, Nawaz’s think tank (the counter-extremism organization Quilliam) found its fundraising efforts to be seriously affected. Of course they would be. Because even two years ago there were still people who took the views of the SPLC seriously. A “designation” by the SPLC that a Muslim reformer is in fact, secretly or otherwise, an “anti-Muslim extremist” is the sort of thing that might scare away all but the most robust and rigorous foundations and individuals from supporting said outfit. The SPLC’s actions were also a serious warning note sounded against any other Muslims keen to get into the realm of counter-extremism. After all, now they must know that if they do dedicate their lives and careers to the cause of battling the extremists in their faith, then they not only face the potential retributions of the jihadists — as Nawaz has done — but the anathematizing and target-selection practices of the SPLC.

Anyhow — Quilliam has released the news of Nawaz’s stunning victory just this afternoon. Every person who wishes for a cleaner debate on the issues around Islamic extremism (issues that the SPLC has again shown itself wholly uninterested in exploring) will welcome the news. Everybody who has seen through the baleful effect that the SPLC has had on public life will rejoice with Nawaz and Quilliam in their victory over an entity many hundreds of times better endowed than them. And every person who wants politics to breathe that little bit cleaner may well be mulling over the same thought that I am having.

What if everybody whom the SPLC has erroneously smeared over recent years — the individuals, the groups, the scholars and activists — took this precedent to launch legal actions of their own? The SPLC has a vast endowment of tens of millions of dollars. But going by this precedent, if everybody decided to correct the lies that the SPLC has taken upon itself to spread over recent years, then the SPLC, which failed to shut itself down when its work was done, could be shut down by the very people it has spent recent years trying to shut up. Which would not just be poetic, but justice too.

The Pirates of Somalia

We have the weapons to defeat them. All we lack is the will.

Clifford D. May
Thursday, March 03, 2011

Not long after achieving independence, the United States faced its first foreign threat: pirates off the coast of Africa seizing American merchant ships. As Michael Oren recounts in Power, Faith and Fantasy, his sweeping history of America’s involvement in the Middle East, American vessels were abducted beginning in 1784, their crews enslaved and held for ransom. One local despot, Hassan Dey, paraded his American captives “past jeering crowds” and “spat at them, ‘Now I have got you, you Christian dogs, you shall eat stones.’”

This crisis, Oren writes, “raised fundamental questions about the nature, identity, and viability of the United States. . . . Would Americans imitate Europe and bribe the pirates, or would they create a revolutionary precedent and fight them?” George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both believed it was right and necessary to use military force. But not until 1794 would Congress vote to create a navy. And not until 1805 would U.S. Marines fight on the “shores of Tripoli.”

Today, American ships are again under siege by pirates off the African coast. This time, however, the buccaneers are setting sail from Somalia rather than from the territories that are now Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco. Today, the U.S. has the greatest navy the world has ever seen. But the debate is exactly what it was more than 200 years ago: Do we have the will to fight? Or would we prefer to submit to blackmail — to pay tribute to sea dogs?

Just last week, Somali pirates seized a vessel that was being sailed around the world by two American couples who were stopping along the way to donate Bibles to far-flung churches and schools. As American naval officials attempted to negotiate their release, all four were murdered.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded by saying the Obama administration was “deeply saddened and very upset . . . ” She called the murders a “deplorable act” that underscored the need for increased international cooperation. “We’ve got to have a more effective approach to maintaining security on the seas, in the ocean lanes, that are so essential to commerce and travel.” Ya think?

At this moment, Somali pirates are holding more than 30 vessels and more than 600 hostages. They have been collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in ransom — the figure has been growing year after year. As Tara Helfman and Dan O’Shea report in the February issue of Commentary, these pirates are not “merry bands of lucky amateurs. They are organized militias with informants in foreign ports, and networks of ransom negotiators, money launderers, and arms runners abroad. Moreover there is mounting evidence of collaboration between militant Islamists and pirate militias.”

The “international community” has taken no serious actions to curb these international outlaws. Helfman and O’Shea write: “Whereas the Romans used to crucify pirates and the Carthaginians used to flay them alive, the UN Security Council’s crowning achievement in its campaign against piracy is a recent report detailing the successful ‘business model’ adopted by Somali pirates (or, as the report termed them, ‘shareholders’).”

Such dithering is emboldening the pirates. Last week, one of their spokesmen — yes, they are media savvy — issued new threats specifically against Americans in reaction to a New York court sentencing Somali pirate Abdiwali Abdiqadir Muse to 33 years in prison for the 2009 hijacking of the Maersk Alabama.

Maj. Gen. Tom Wilkerson, USMC (ret.), is CEO of the U.S. Naval Institute. He told me he believes it is high time for a new approach. The U.S., along with a coalition of the willing, he says, could and should increase the risks of piracy and lower the rewards. That means taking the offensive: killing pirates at sea, in the harbors where they dock their vessels (and those they seize), and in what are now their safe havens and homes in the coastal areas of the northern Somali province of Puntland.

“Anytime you give your enemies places where they can rest and regroup, where they can’t be attacked, you cede the initiative to them,” Wilkerson said. “This doesn’t require putting boots on the ground. We have demonstrated that we have the technology” for both surveillance and remote attacks.

Would taking the war to the pirates be a violation of international law, as some proponents of inaction and appeasement claim? Wilkerson said it would not: “Two UN resolutions, 1851 and 1897, allow hot pursuit” at sea, into port, and onto land.

Other measures could be implemented as well. There could be expanded and coordinated naval patrols in the area, drawing from all nations whose ships, cargoes, and crews are threatened. Under current law, insurance companies are actually incentivized to pay ransom. New legislation could be introduced to encourage shipping companies to defend their vessels and crews with less fear of being sued for “violating the rights” of brigands. An international tribunal could be set up to prosecute captured pirates. Somali nationals could be trained as a constabulary force to prevent piracy, once suppressed, from being reestablished.

“The point is you have to decide on a goal and a strategy to achieve it,” Wilkerson argues. “But if we don’t do something there will be more opportunities for innocent deaths like we saw last week.”

Helfman and O’Shea add: “Seen from the perspective of an Islamic world that is testing the will of the democratic West to prevail over terrorism, the spectacle of captured pirates being allowed to slip through the cracks of international law is proof that Islamists are poised to prevail.”

We know what Washington and Jefferson would do. The question now: What will Obama and Clinton do?

Obama The European vs Sarko The American

Rachel Marsden
Monday, April 20, 2009

This week, the London Times exposed French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s frustration with Barack Obama and the media drooling surrounding him. The two have very different leadership styles: Sarkozy actually does something, publicizes it like crazy, then watches as he gets ripped to shreds in France’s overwhelmingly far-left media. Sounds about right for a guy nicknamed “Sarko the American” trying to get something done in Europe. By contrast, Obama says he is going to do something, then watches as the media speculates on how incredibly awesome it will be.

With Obama, any action that doesn’t involve the implementation of socialism usually isn’t quite as earth-shattering as the media makes it out to be.

For example, while it’s true that President and Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama was in charge when the Navy Seals rescued an American boat crew from Islamic terrorists – referred to by the media as “pirates” while at sea - the French and Germans have been cannonballing into those waters for awhile, making it safe for Obama to dip his Messianic toe. One would expect that anyone short of Jimmy Carter, when granted access to the Defense Department’s toybox, would take on a bunch of thugs in boat.

The Germans nabbed a pirate last month named Ali Mohamed. Naturally, he’s now suing them for inhumanity. And French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been racking up these Pirates of the Caribbean understudies like he’s the franchise’s casting agent. Eleven captured this week, and 70 over the past year, according to the BBC.

Obama really isn’t doing anything new here. He’s just finally catching up to Sarkozy and Europe’s terrorism tolerance level. The idea of Europeans taking down swashbuckling Muslims on the high seas is so old that I was thinking maybe the real catalyst for Obama’s sudden interest in the issue was Sarkozy’s high profile failure in tackling of pirates in French parliament last week. Pirates of the music kind! No one showed up to vote on the music piracy law, except for a few Socialists who apparently weren’t busy ripping music off the Internet. But since Sarkozy lost, it was huge news everywhere – unlike his ongoing takedown of Muslim terrorists playing Popeye.

And the pirate situation is just one recent high-profile case. According to the London Times this week, Sarkozy also had to prod Obama into supporting various initiatives at the recent G20 meeting, including persuading China to clamp down on tax havens. Naturally, the media gave Obama all the credit for the initiative, which apparently annoyed Sarkozy.

An issue that hasn’t received much attention in the American media is the fact that Obama used his European visit to throw open the EU borders – a move that Sarkozy has been fighting for years. Presumably, the issue was overshadowed here at home by his pitch for opening America’s borders with talk of legalizing illegal aliens.

Sarkozy said on Charlie Rose’s PBS program a couple of years ago that he’s against including Turkey – one the world’s largest Muslim countries – in the EU because they’re already having enough trouble integrating Europe without including Asia Minor. It would be like erasing the border completely between the USA and Mexico, giving everyone the same passport, and telling them they can all legally work, live, and travel anywhere.

Then something wonderful happened for humanity: Barack Obama was elected President of the World, and erased all cultural and geographic boundaries between Turkey and Europe: “Turkey is bound to Europe by more than bridges over the Bosporus. Centuries of shared history, culture and commerce bring you together. And Turkish membership would broaden and strengthen Europe's foundation once more."

It’s like Obama’s speechwriter mated Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall, Gorby!” speech with JFK’s “Eich Bin Ein Berliner”, and came up with, “Hey, You’re All Turks, Man, So What’s The Deal With Borders?” Obama ought to know better, if he was dealing in substance. He was just at the NATO meeting in Strasbourg where the Turks nearly scuttled the nomination of a new Secretary General from Denmark because a few years ago some cartoonist over there drew a depiction of prophet Mohammed that launched the usual response of Islamic performance art involving fire and rage. As far as countries go, Turkey seems pretty high maintenance.

And Sarkozy isn’t alone in his frustrations. Bavarian EU Parliament member, Bernd Posselt, told Germany’s Der Spiegel, “The EU is not Obama's plaything…He should accept Turkey as America's 51st state instead.”

Even Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who took over the rotating EU presidency from Sarkozy in recent months, is calling Obama’s policies “socialist”. He told Agence France Presse this week: “The same chimera of equality, which we rejected with the fall of communism, is taking hold again.”

For anyone thinking that governments don’t always represent the level of support among their people – Klaus enjoys a 58% (and rising) popularity rating according to a poll released this week. And while Sarkozy’s numbers remain steady, largely due to a strategic mix of bone-tossing symbolic leftism on things like “climate change” and meaningful right-wing reforms, France still largely supports his views vis-à-vis Turkey’s inclusion in the EU.

Congratulations, America. You now have a leader who’s officially more European than what even Europe will tolerate.

How to Solve the Pirate Problem

Jonah Goldberg
Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Well, that was simple. Shoot the pirates, problem solved.

OK, not the problem of piracy per se. But the problem of these specific pirates off the coast of Somalia: taken care of. And, if more pirates were shot, there would be fewer pirates. Unlike, say, jihadist terrorists, pirates are in it for the money. Raise the cost of being a pirate -- in denominations of pirate blood -- and you'll lower the supply of pirates. That's how governments -- good and bad -- have dealt with piracy for thousands of years.

President Obama didn't personally order the Navy SEALs to take out the Somali pirates holding Capt. Richard Phillips hostage. He left the decision up to the commanders on the scene, who made the right call. Obama should be congratulated for that, just as surely as he would have been criticized if things had gone south.

For those of us who see the resurrection of Jimmy Carter in Barack Obama, this was a nice surprise. People forget how reluctant the Carterites were to use force. Carter agonized over whether to rescue American hostages in Tehran. According to Charlie Beckwith, the commander of Delta Force in charge of the mission, he informed Carter's point man, Warren Christopher, that in the rescue effort, "anyone who is holding a hostage, we intend to shoot him, and shoot him right between the eyes. We intend to shoot him twice." Christopher was stunned, according to Beckwith. "Would you consider shooting them in the leg, or in the ankle or the shoulder?"

So this, as they say, is progress.

But only if you look at things along a timeline beginning a mere 30 years ago. Looked at from 200 years ago -- the last time an American-flagged ship and crew were seized by pirates -- we've fallen terribly behind.

Why has this become so complicated? I don't mean finding and shooting pirates, which can be quite difficult, according to experts. I mean the issue of piracy, which has been around since the 13th century B.C. And it hasn't gotten any more complex.

Several answers come to mind. For starters, the culture has become more pro-pirate. Although everyone hoped for the safe return of Phillips, it was clear the media and public thought there was something charmingly exotic about all this pirate talk. Avast, mateys, and all that.

Of course, tales of Blackbeard and the like have always fascinated, but in recent years pirates have joined ninjas, mafiosos, drug dealers and even serial killers as pop-culture heroes. If we can make cannibals and psychopaths -- albeit fictional ones -- like Hannibal Lecter and Showtime's "Dexter" into sympathetic figures, it's no wonder we can take a profession historically associated with murder, rape, pillaging and torture and turn it into a Disney franchise.

Then, of course, there's the fact that the pirates today aren't flamboyantly dressed, gold-bling-sporting white guys better suited for "Project Runway," but very poor Muslim Africans from a failed state. Generations of "don't blame the victim" talk have made us sympathetic to criminals, particularly Third World ones.

Indeed, the British, who once hastened human progress by hunting and hanging pirates, are now afraid to allow the Royal Navy to even arrest them for fear that under the 1998 British Human Rights Act, the captured pirates might demand asylum in Britain. After all, you can't send pirates back to their home country, where they might be mistreated.

And that raises the primary reason this all seemed so complicated. Lawyers. Layers and layers of lawyers. Bret Stephens asked in a prescient Wall Street Journal essay last November, "Why Don't We Hang Pirates Anymore?" And the answer, he discovered, is that "there is no controlling legal authority." A combination of international and domestic law has made dealing with what Cicero dubbed "hostis humani generis" -- enemies of the human race -- just too darn complicated.

Add to this the fact that trial lawyers, bureaucrats and accountants for too long have conspired with corporate honchos to make paying ransoms the least costly option. Shipping companies don't want their crews armed to defend themselves.

Piracy is still a small problem in the scheme of things, but that makes things easier. Cannibalistic serial killers are relatively rare, too. That hardly means there's a great mystery about what should be done with them.

What remains to be seen is whether this problem was solved despite Obama's instincts or because of them. The SEALs solved a hostage crisis by shooting three pirates. The question is whether Obama will prevent a pirate crisis from emerging by making it easier to shoot even more pirates.