Principles are easy to maintain when we feel safe and secure, but they mean nothing when we cast them aside the moment some aspect of them makes us uncomfortable.
The American Civil Liberties Union is often misunderstood because of the odd bedfellows it has kept. When some people learn how the ACLU has stood up for the rights of NAMBLA and Neo-Nazis, they just don't get it. How could an organization that claims to be "our nation's guardian of liberty" champion such horrible people? Why should anyone even care about the civil rights of pedophiles and hatemongers? Should people like that even be entitled to civil rights?
Some people criticize the ACLU's neutral stance with regard to our Second Amendment. They say that since the ACLU aims to conserve America's original civic values, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the organization should protect and defend all of them.
While that position is somewhat difficult to defend in principle, it makes sense in actual practice, because there exists a rather large and powerful group devoted to the protection and defense of our Second Amendment rights. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and its lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) are "committed to preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution."
Since the NRA, whose membership of 4 million is 10 times larger than the ACLU's, exclusively defends our right to keep and bear arms, there is no need for the ACLU to take on that fight too. That there could be a tacit agreement between those two organizations is not beyond the pale of reasonable speculation — not only within the realm of the loathsome practice of partisanship, but as a matter of pragmatism as well.
Article Author: Margaret Romao Toigo
Margaret Romao Toigo is a retired stripper, beauty school dropout, and wannabe intellectual who dabbles in a wide variety of fleeting endeavors and life-long obsessions. Although Ms. Toigo is not a real writer, she nonetheless has her very own web …
Visit Margaret Romao Toigo's author page — Margaret Romao Toigo's Blog
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Alethinos
Good post!
Alethinos
2 - Bennett
Fantastic Margaret! It's good to see you weighing in once again, with eloquence and sanity, on the issues of the day.
Cheers!
3 - Anthony Grande
"Some people simply do not have the stomach for those tests because they are, quite understandably, afraid of the possible negative effects that "too much" freedom"
No, what I can't stomach is the lack of freedom. When the ACLU says that I can't put too many American flags in my yard, when they say that the cross that I have loved be since a was five to be taken down from the hill, when they say that the cops don't have the right to arrest a know gang member and other things they are taken away certain freedoms and liberties.
As for pedophile, they should have ANY rights protected because they should be in jail for life. Why should we live amongst the people that will most likely harm us?
4 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Thank you, Alethinos and Bennett, it is good to be back.
What specific freedom do you lack, Mr. Grande? And since when does the ACLU make our laws?
FWIW, however, I do agree that child molesters should, upon conviction via due process, be locked away for life as their sickness is incurable.
5 - Anthony Grande
"FWIW, however, I do agree that child molesters should, upon conviction via due process, be locked away for life as their sickness is incurable."
Then why do you support the ACLU making it so it's hard to find out who the pedophiles are and allowing them to live where they want (schools and such)?
"What specific freedom do you lack, Mr. Grande?"
Well, they are trying to make it so I can't where my cross to school, I can't say UNDER GOD in the pledge, I can't put more than 5 U.S. flags on my front lawn or house, I can't put a cross or any religious statues on my front lawn or house, I can't view a cross on a hilltop (one was removed from behind my house), my city (even if it is named "The Crosses") can't have a cross on the seal, I can't sleep at night knowing I am safe because the ACLU has made it extremely tough for cops and other law enforcement to arrest known gangmembers and they are a many other reasons why the ACLU should wither and die.
"And since when does the ACLU make our laws?"
No, but they are a big influence in law making.
6 - Victor Plenty
Interesting that no right-wingers have spoken up to commend you for your support of the NRA. Or for that matter, spoken up to praise your excellent vindication of the ACLU. You've shown why any real conservative movement, truly friendly to freedom and hostile to tyranny in all its forms, would consider the ACLU a valued ally.
Sadly, what passes for a "conservative" movement in America today has no interest in real freedom. Instead it spends most of its energy whipping up the fears and paranoia of its rank-and-file supporters until they can't even tell when they are ranting wildly and have failed to back up a single one of their claims with any verifiable facts. Like our Mr. Grande here, for example.
What such people fail to realize (and their dishonest leaders hope they never learn) is that universal human rights are not truly universal unless everyone has them -- even very bad people. And if human rights are anything less than universal, then nobody really has them.
If your freedom of speech depends on being popular, it is only an illusion of freedom. Today you might have it, and next week you could lose it when the winds of public opinion shift against you.
This is why a free society must extend the same freedom to scum like the neo-nazis (so long as they remain law-abiding scum). Not because they have anything to say that is worth listening to, but because if they're not free to voice their views, then the rest of us are not truly free either.
7 - ryan
If the ACLU actually cared about our rights, why arnt they upset about the San Fran gun law?
8 - Victor Plenty
Maybe because the San Fran gun law won't ever hold up in court, so it's a non-issue to everyone except those who are trying to make your irrational fears triumph over your critical thinking skills, Ryan.
9 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Since the ACLU seems to be doing such a fantastic job defending the rights of pedophiles and neo-Nazis, maybe they can involve themselves in restoring academic freedom in your country - particularly in state funded schools where the denial of academic freedom there can be construed as "state action".
If the right to speak freely on the campuses of your country were restored and the spirit of open academic inquiry that once prevailed there before the "new left" destroyed it were restored - maybe, JUST MAYBE, the monkeys who run the universities here in Israel will imitate you.
They seem to like all the crap your country puts out. Who knows? They might go for quality too.
10 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Mr. Grande, complaints about how our Constitution makes it too hard for the police to catch criminals are often heard coming from lazy and/or incompetent investigators.
Such assertions are an insult to the many law enforcement officers who are thorough and attentive in performing their duties.
Don't let the fear mongers impose tyranny just because a few people working in law enforcement would rather subvert the Constitution than do their jobs properly.
11 - Victor Plenty
Rumors of the death of academic freedom have been greatly exaggerated. Many people make the claim, in broad general terms, that free academic inquiry has been "destroyed" by the grim specter of political correctness. Few ever have any specific examples to cite.
The subject does provide many fine opportunities for vague complaining, though. I have to admit that.
Can you suggest any specific cases the ACLU ought to be pursuing in this area, Ruvy? If so, why not tell the organization about them directly?
12 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Mr. Grande, Have you been forbidden to wear your cross to school or is that case still pending?
I don't know about how many US flags people are allowed to put on their lawns and houses, but that sounds like a zoning ordinance that is intended to protect the rights of nearby homeowners who might view such a garish display (more than one US flag on your property would be tacky, not to mention jingoistic) as detrimental to their property values.
If you are not allowed to place a cross or any religious statues on your front lawn or house, you should perhaps consider moving to a neighborhood without so many deed restrictions.
What are the details involved with regard to the hilltop cross that was removed? Was it removed after the ACLU won some court case or was it taken down for some other reason?
13 - Margaret Romao Toigo
The case of the crosses on the Las Cruces city emblem is still pending and the ACLU is likely to lose that case because of the name of the town.
The ACLU is no more of an influence upon lawmaking than any other similar organization (the NRA is far more powerful).
But the authoritarian fear mongers who wish to demonize the ACLU have apparently influenced you and others in a big way, playing upon your fears to the point where you don't even feel the need to question their transparent propaganda.
Living in freedom requires a lot of courage. Cowards prefer tyranny.
14 - Anthony Grande
Comment 10, Margaret, you are obviously unfamiliar with this certain incident that I am referring to.
This was a couple years ago in a town in California (I forget, but believe it was San Jose area). There was a big problem with gang members in this area and the crime rate was tremendous and walking through the area was dangerous.
So what the police started doing was arresting known gang members, search them for weapons and drugs, question them and if nothing was found, let them go.
This area really started to clear up and crime was WAY down and the city became more safe and the people were so happy. Then the ACLU got involved.
They called what the police were doing "illegal search and seizure". So the police had to stop what they were doing and the city went back to the way it was with the high murder and crime rate and the dangerous streets while all the cops could do was watch the known gang members flash their colors and signs.
I personally believe that someone in a known criminal gang and is seen wearing colors then the police have the right to search them. It the cops don't find nothing then they let them go. What is wrong with this?
And for anyone who believes that I am making this up here:
yeah yeah I know, this is ACLU.org. I am quite embarrased that I couldn't find a nonbiased website.
Now, would someone tell me what good has the ACLU done in the last 10 years?
15 - Victor Plenty
We could prevent all crime if we just arrest everyone and put them all in solitary confinement. Bam! Crime wiped out in one swell foop.
Too bad the wimpy wusses in the ACLU won't let the police carry out such an obviously right solution.
Seriously, Anthony, do you even read your own ranting anymore? Don't you realize how nutty your opinions sound? Why not try educating yourself for a change? Learn what our Constitution actually says, and that might cure your magical thinking that everything would be okay if we just removed all limits on police powers.
16 - Anthony Grande
Hey Victor, do you know how nutty is sounds to make it so a cop can't bring in a known gang member and search him then let him go?
The Fourth Amendment: SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
"Unreasonable searches are forbidden."
Searching a known gang member for being a KNOWN gang member is not "unreasonable".
I grew up near a big gang infested area and I known actual gang members and I know for a fact to be in an gang you will have to carry out an illegal act like stealing a car, robing a liquor store, home invasion, dry by, ect.
Then if one wants to be accepted and respected among their fellow gang members they have to keep going outside the law and can't be afraid to pull the trigger.
So don't tell me that we can't "assume" that a GANG MEMBER is a criminal because in the initiation along they have to commit a crime and to keep respect they can't show weakness and have to kill or go outside the law.
There is your constitution and I have proven that what the cops were doing is constitutional. So sit on that.
17 - Victor Plenty
You prove only your own ignorance, Anthony. Again.
By the very same "logic" you use, I could also "prove" that it's reasonable for the police to detain and search all known Christians, or anyone wearing Christian symbols. After all, it's well known that fundamentalist Christian terrorists have bombed medical clinics and murdered doctors who didn't share their extremist beliefs. For everyone's safety, the police should have the power to arrest any Christian they see.
If the police find a particular Christian isn't carrying a bomb or a gun, they can always let him go.
Being a Christian yourself, Anthony, you might object to this plan. But if you do object to being arrested and searched at random, what you really should ask yourself is why you hate America.
18 - Anthony Grande
Now you are proving your ignorance.
Sure, there are a few Christian/Muslim/Jewish terrorists out there but 99.9999999% or Christians, Muslims and Jews are NOT terrorists.
To be a gang member means that commiting crimes is your day to day job. They break the law. So 100% or gang members break the law.
It is not "unreasonble" to search a person who breaks the law for a living or as a lifestyle.
19 - Victor Plenty
Reason and logic disagree with you, Anthony. It is in fact unreasonable and unconstitutional to arrest and search people just because you think it's their "lifestyle" to commit crimes. In reality, despite your loud claims, you don't really know this is a fact. You only think you know.
Arresting people for wearing a particular color of cloth, or for being seen with a particular person, or for any other act that isn't against the law, is a step toward the kind of police state where the government would have the power to arrest all Christians if it wanted to, and nobody could ever say a word against it without fear of also being arrested.
If the police can arrest anyone they think is a bad person, what's to stop them from deciding you are a bad person? The answer is nothing. Nothing would stop them.
If that's the kind of system you want to live under, then by all means continue your efforts to destroy the ACLU.
20 - Anthony Grande
"If the police can arrest anyone they think is a bad person, what's to stop them from deciding you are a bad person?"
Well I don't have anything to hide so they will let me go after searching.
This system you are mentioning cannot happen because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for "unreasonable" search and seizure.
Police and the FBI have lists of who is who and is in what gang. They know the usual faces and they know who the gang members are.
Most likely if you are on the lists and are stopped walking on the street you will most likely be carrying a gun, knife or some kind of drug accessory.
Gangs are a big problem here. And if you live in California, like I do, you will realize the truth of this statement.
Gangs are a drain on society. Anyone cops have reason to believe is in a gang should be detained and searched for illegal material. And if the cops or FBI believe that I am in a gang then bring it on, search me. I got nothing to hide.
"If that's the kind of system you want to live under, then by all means continue your efforts to destroy the ACLU."
By your own logic, what the ACLU is doing against religion will lead to a state where religion is not allowed. Is this the system you want to live under?
21 - Victor Plenty
The ACLU works to protect freedom of religion, Anthony. The hypothetical examples of police arresting Christians were extensions of YOUR logic. They are NOT examples of anything I would ever want to happen, nor are they examples of anything the ACLU has ever supported. You would know this if you had any interest in the truth.
In reality, the ACLU actively fights for the rights of religious believers to express their beliefs without government interference (and also without government support).
You are the one who wants a system where anyone's freedom can be taken away at a moment's notice with no substantial cause, merely because they look suspicious or are seen with people who look suspicious.
22 - Victor Plenty
Oh, and here are just a few examples of good things the ACLU has done recently to protect freedom of religious expression.
I really shouldn't be doing your homework for you like this, Anthony, but you seem kind of helpless by yourself.
You're welcome.
23 - Alethinos
Damn Victor! Do you EVER sleep? Good posts. Mr. G., of COURSE the ACLU takes on some rather unpopular and I think silly stances - and I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU. I let them know when I think they've gone overboard too - as a member of any group should do... But as Victor has so ably done here - the work they do for the good FAR outweighs the times they go too far.
Your example about the police and the gangs... You need to really try and broaden your outlook here.
Of course what the police were doing was "temporarily" a good thing. And I've no doubt they were doing it with the best of intentions. What the ACLU was concerned about was NOT protecting the rightful prosecution of gang members or the protection of citizens in the area - what the ACLU was doing was protecting the FUTURE.
Often times people just don't get this about the ACLU. They don't like the bad guys any more than you do. But the WAY that the police (for example) are GOING ABOUT dealing with the bad guys sets a very bad PRECEDENT. In the FUTURE this precedent COULD be used to violate YOUR rights and mine - if left UNCHECKED. You see - this is how our particular judicial system works - on PRECEDENT. We aren't like the French who don't do it this way...
Can you see this Mr. G? Can you wrap your mind around this now?
Alethinos
24 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Victor, you asked, and here is an answer, pulled from a comment on a different article.
"Jews on campuses across North America are nervous about showing themselves as Jews ore showing "too much" pride in being Jewish. "New left" profs on campuses, often 'Jews' themselves, will flunk kids who showe support for Israel in class or on papers. Then there are the Palestine Days and the eforts to prevent Jewish organizations to do anything to show Jewish pride on campus - often violent intimidation by Arabs and their running dogs. This is stuff I get in my inbox all the time."
This deals with Jews alone, but the point is that their civil liberties in the States are being violated. There is also the issue of professors who do not toe the "new left" line at universities being booted out or denied tenure. I know of one case myself.
Bear in mind that given that the ACLU is a single issue organization, devoted to protecting people from state action as it impacts on the first amendment, it would only be able to act where federal funding is used to somehow subsidize university programs - just about every school in the country, in other words.
25 - Michael J. West
The comment thread on this post is, all too predictably, contentious and frustrating to read. (With apologies to all commenters...I just can't bring myself to get involved in this argument today. Too dicey for my Monday morning.)
However, Margaret, I want very much to tell you what a beautiful, eloquent, and well thought out piece this is. Keep fighting the good fight.