Religious War on Brink in Haiti

Haiti's supreme voodoo leader vowed "war" on Wednesday after Evangelicals attacked a ceremony organized by his religion honoring those killed in last month's massive earthquake.

The attack on Tuesday in the capital's sprawling Cite Soleil slum came with religious tensions rising, as Protestant Evangelicals and other denominations recruit in the wake of the earthquake that killed more than 200,000.

"It will be war -- open war," Max Beauvoir, supreme head of Haitian voodoo, told AFP in an interview at his home and temple outside the capital.

"It's unfortunate that at this moment where everybody's suffering that they have to go into war. But if that is what they need, I think that is what they'll get."

The quake also left more than a million homeless and left much of the capital and surrounding areas, in this Caribbean nation of more than nine million, in ruins.

Police said a pastor urged followers to attack the ceremony, resulting in a crowd of people throwing rocks at the voodoo followers.

Rosemond Aristide, police inspector in Cite Soleil, said he has since spoken with the pastor, who agreed to allow voodoo ceremonies to take place there.

However, Aristide could not explain why no arrests were made nor provide further details.

Beauvoir claimed hundreds of Protestant Evangelicals along with other people they hired attacked the ceremony, causing a number of injuries.

About half of Haiti's population is believed to practice voodoo in some form, though many are thought to also follow other religious beliefs at the same time.

The religion -- whose practitioners often use the vodou spelling as opposed to the Westernized version -- is deeply rooted in Haitian culture.

A voodoo priest named Boukman has been credited with setting off the country's slave rebellion in the late 18th century.

Court Considers Terror Law and Free Speech Case

WASHINGTON — In the first test of its kind since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Supreme Court will consider today whether a federal law that bars support to designated terrorist groups violates First Amendment rights of free speech and association.
The crux of the case, which pits First Amendment values against government anti-terrorist efforts, is whether the law that traces to 1996 and was amended by the 2001 USA Patriot Act is so poorly defined that it criminalizes pure speech.

Among those challenging the "material support" prohibition are the Humanitarian Law Project and its president, longtime civil rights advocate Ralph Fertig, who was a Freedom Rider trying to integrate the South in the 1960s and is a professor of social work at the University of Southern California.

The challengers argue that the law barring not only financial support to designated groups but also "training" and "expert advice and assistance" impinges humanitarian and peace-building efforts.

The Humanitarian Law Project says it wants to support non-violent activities of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, a militant separatist organization in Turkey known as the PKK, and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a separatist group in Sri Lanka. The secretary of State's designation of those groups as "foreign terrorist organizations," dating to 1997, is not in dispute in the case, which was filed in 1998 and gained relevance in the post-Sept. 11 atmosphere.

"I want to help the Kurdish people develop non-violent means of resolving their conflicts and have their case be heard by the world's community," Fertig, 79, said in an interview. He said his lawyers have advised him to stop his efforts, which included showing Kurds how to bring human-rights complaints to the United Nations, because they could come under the rubric of "training" prohibited by the law.

Former president Jimmy Carter, founder of the Carter Center at Emory University, one of many groups that have entered the case, said in a statement Tuesday, "Our work to end violence sometimes requires interacting directly with groups that have engaged in it. Unfortunately, efforts like ours … are hindered by the extremely vague 'material support' law that leaves us guessing whether our work to encourage peace could actually be considered illegal."

U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan says the law's terms "rest on simple distinctions that are readily understood by people of ordinary intelligence." In her brief, Kagan contends that any support the Humanitarian Law Project or other organization gives to a terrorist group allows the group to put more of its own resources into violent activities.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, ruled that sections of the law making it a crime — subject to 15 years in prison — to provide "service," "training" and "expert advice or assistance" fail to make clear what is prohibited and are unconstitutionally vague. The appeals court said congressional amendments intended to clarify the law in 2004 were not sufficient.

In the Justice Department's appeal, Kagan said that since 2001, 150 people have been charged with violations of the material-support ban; about 75 have been convicted. She says "several of those prosecutions" have been under the disputed provisions.

The case has drawn an array of outside groups on both sides. Among those backing Fertig and other challengers are individuals "blacklisted" during the McCarthy era. They argue that the contested law recalls government attempts in the 1940s and '50s during the "Red Scare" to root out anyone associated with communism.

Siding with the Justice Department are groups that include retired military officers and the Anti-Defamation League. A brief from four retired military officers, including major general John Altenburg, says they have "firsthand knowledge of the grave threat to national security posed by foreign terrorist organizations." The brief urges the high court not to "second-guess" Congress.

The Anti-Defamation League, which monitors groups such as the PKK, contends that once resources of any kind "are put into the hands of foreign terrorist organizations, how those resources are used is out of the control of even a high-minded, well-intentioned benefactor."

Religion in the Workplace

SANTA CLARA, Calif., Feb. 24 -- The San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-SFBA) announced today that it has filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint against Abercrombie & Fitch on behalf of a Muslim employee who was allegedly fired because she refused to remove her Islamic head scarf, or hijab.

The Muslim employee reported to CAIR-SFBA that she was hired as a stockroom worker in October of last year at the Hollister outlet in San Mateo, Calif. She says she was told at that time that she could wear her scarf if it was in a color that matched the company's brand identity.

[Hollister Co. is a division of Abercrombie & Fitch. Ohio-based Abercrombie & Fitch operates more than 1100 stores worldwide.]

Recently, a district manager visited the store and noticed that the Muslim employee was wearing a head scarf. The district manager then reportedly initiated a conference call with the company's human resources department during which the Muslim worker was told that scarves and hats are not allowed in the "look" policy. Despite informing company managers that she wears her scarf for religious reasons, the Muslim employee was sent home immediately.

This week, she was told she must remove her scarf during work hours. When she refused to violate her religious beliefs by removing her scarf in public, she was fired.

"This unconscionable and apparently illegal action by company managers violates not only federal civil rights law as it relates to religious accommodation in the workplace, but also violates Abercrombie & Fitch's own stated commitments to diversity, inclusion and ethical business practices," said CAIR-SFBA Programs and Outreach Director Zahra Billoo. "We urge Abercrombie & Fitch customers who value diversity and inclusion to contact the company to express their concerns about this violation of religious freedom."

She said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing and other terms and conditions of employment. The act also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee, unless doing so would create an "undue hardship" for the employer.

In 2008, the EEOC issued new guidelines on accommodating religious beliefs and practices in the workplace. The guidelines offer protection for workers who wear religious attire such as hijab.

Billoo said CAIR's Oklahoma chapter filed a similar complaint against Abercrombie & Fitch in 2008 on behalf of a Muslim applicant in that state who was denied a job because of her hijab. In September of 2009, the EEOC filed a discrimination suit against the company on behalf of the Muslim applicant.

Abercrombie & Fitch's position on "Diversity & Inclusion" states: "...we are committed to increasing and leveraging the diversity of our associates and management across the organization. Those differences will be supported by a culture of inclusion, so that we better understand our customers, enhance our organizational effectiveness, capitalize on the talents of our workforce and represent the communities in which we do business."

Its corporate "Code of Business Conduct and Ethics" states: "The Company will adhere to its employment policies of non-discrimination as it relates to race, color, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation or handicap and will ensure compliance with all legal and other regulations governing employment."

CAIR offers a booklet called "An Employer's Guide to Islamic Religious Practices" to help corporate managers gain a better understanding of Islam and Muslims.

CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

Texas Hispanics Shift to Right

AUSTIN – A bent to conservatism and family makes Hispanics a promising pool of votes for Republicans, but the party's targeting of illegal immigrants has withered its attraction.

Regardless, Gov. Rick Perry has fared relatively well, perhaps because of his anti-Washington rhetoric and his careful immigration stance, a recent poll indicates.

It shows more than half of Texas Hispanics call themselves conservative, and a surprising 23 percent say they might participate in Tuesday's GOP primary. Among those, Perry leads Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison by 2 to 1, according to the poll, commissioned by an Austin consultant for a national group of Hispanic legislative leaders.

Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, said the poll hints at a little-noticed facet of Perry's political persona: He doesn't frighten Hispanics because he often visits their communities, and he distances himself from immigration hard-liners in the GOP.

"He thought the border wall was a little ridiculous and didn't think it was going to help," said Van de Putte, Democrats' leader in the Senate and a co-chairwoman of the Democratic National Convention in Denver two years ago. "What he wanted to keep out were those people that are smuggling drugs and people."

Van de Putte said Perry tilts more to the right than his predecessor, George W. Bush, and can't match Bush's high level of support among Hispanics. But she said many Hispanics remember that Perry signed a 2001 bill that let illegal immigrants pay in-state tuition at public colleges. He has defended the bill, saying affected students have studied hard in Texas schools and will be good citizens.

"That kind of inoculated him a little bit," she said. She added: "Rick Perry is a tremendous retail campaigner."

Some political demographers remain skeptical that more than a smattering of Hispanics will cast GOP ballots next week or that Perry will capture much beyond token support among Latinos in the primary or November's election.

Lydia Camarillo, vice president of the nonpartisan Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, said exit polls in recent governor's races show Perry captured far less of the Hispanic vote than the 39 percent that Bush grabbed in 1998 against Land Commissioner Garry Mauro, a Democrat.

Perry attracted only 13 percent of Hispanic votes cast in his 2002 general election showdown with Laredo banker Tony Sanchez, according to exit polls by the William C. Velasquez Institute, a think tank affiliated with Camarillo's group.

Four years ago, Perry won just 14 percent of Hispanic votes cast, compared with 40 percent for Democrat Chris Bell and 29 percent for independent Carole Keeton Strayhorn, exit polls showed.

With both Perry and Hutchison stressing a lean state government and low taxes, Camarillo said, it's hard to see many Hispanics breaking for the GOP nominee this year.


Differing definitions

The poll found that only 18 percent of Texas Hispanics say they're liberal or progressive, while 54 percent say they're conservative, moderate conservative or religiously conservative.

But Camarillo said many Hispanics who identify themselves as conservative aren't talking about "less taxes, less government," the way white conservatives would.

"When a Latino says that he or she is conservative, they're thinking about how they are raising the kids and ... the family," she said. "It's more about work ethic, and that when you give your word, you give your word. Those kinds of things are what they're thinking of. It's a different frame of mind, and pollsters have yet to define it."

Demographer Dan Weiser pointed to voter turnout in recent Dallas County elections and said that despite the poll's findings, Perry can hope for relatively little Hispanic support.

In the hotly contested 2008 presidential primary in Dallas County, 91 percent of Hispanics who participated cast a Democratic ballot, he said. Weiser, a longtime student of Dallas politics, projects countywide turnout among minorities by studying key precincts dominated by blacks or Hispanics.

He said that while almost 300,000 voters participated in Dallas County's presidential primary two years ago, only 12 percent were Hispanics. Of about 92,000 voters in the county's last GOP presidential primary, only 4 percent were Hispanics, Weiser said.

"Each time you think there will be a real increase in Hispanic votes, I don't find it," he said.

Frank Santos, the Austin lobbyist and consultant who commissioned the poll, conceded it's only a first attempt to grasp Hispanics' complex leanings.

The Board of Hispanic Caucus Chairs, a group of Hispanic legislative leaders from 32 states, paid for the poll. It was supervised by Cristina Garcia, a California-based researcher who studies Hispanic civic engagement. There were telephone interviews with 502 registered Hispanic voters, conducted Jan. 27-31, in either English or Spanish, at the choice of the voter surveyed. The poll has an error margin of 4.4 percent, meaning results can vary by that much in either direction.


A wakeup call

"It's really a wakeup call for both parties," said Santos, the group's executive director. "Either [Hispanics] are being taken for granted by the Democratic Party or they're being ignored by the Republican Party."

He said that of about 3 million new people added to Texas' population between 2000 and 2008, 63 percent were Hispanic.

A majority said they're conservative, but a bigger share, 63 percent, said they identify most with the Democratic Party. And 70 percent approve of the job that President Barack Obama is doing. Meanwhile, 54 percent approve of Perry's performance as governor; and 58 percent, of Hutchison's as senator.

"What does that say?" Santos said. "It says they're a growing, developing and evolving electorate."

Libertarian Wins Conservative Straw Poll

(CNN) -- U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, a stalwart foe of government spending, won a blowout victory Saturday in the annual Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll.

With participants naming "reducing the size of federal government" as their top issue, the 74-year old libertarian hero captured 31 percent of the 2,400 votes cast in the annual contest, usually seen as a barometer of how the GOP's conservative wing regards their potential presidential candidates.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney finished second with 22 percent of the vote, ending a three-year winning streak at CPAC. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin finished third with 7 percent of the vote, followed by Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty at 6 percent and Indiana Rep. Mike Pence at 5 percent.

They were followed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who tied at 4 percent. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, South Dakota Sen. John Thune and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour rounded out the results.

Five percent of participants voted for "Other" and 6 percent was undecided.

The announcement of Paul's win, a surprise victory unlikely to have a major impact on the 2012 presidential contest, drew a volley of loud boos from the CPAC audience.

That discontent could be seen in the poll results: A majority of participants said they wished the Republican Party had a better field of candidates to choose from.

But Paul's victory might be seen, in part, as a result of his support among anti-establishment Tea Party activists -- who turned out in force at this year's conference and expressed some frustration with the Republican Party.

Reflecting the college atmosphere of the annual event, young people dominated the voting: 54 percent of participants were between the ages of 18 and 25.

The poll also contained a bit of bad news for Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who made an under-the-radar appearance at CPAC late Friday.

Participants were asked to rate their opinions of several top political figures, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader John Boehner, both of whom received a majority favorable rating.

But Steele was the only Republican to garner an upside-down rating, with 44 percent giving him an unfavorable rating and 42 percent rating him favorably.

The three-day meeting Saturday that has featured speeches by Republican leaders, training sessions for local political activists and a renewed purpose to stand firm behind their principles heading into the midterm elections.

Terrorism Defined

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- When a man fueled by rage against the U.S. government and its tax code crashes his airplane into a building housing offices of the Internal Revenue Service, is it a criminal act or an act of terrorism?

For police in Austin, it's a question tied to the potential for public alarm: The building set ablaze by Joseph Stack's suicide flight was still burning Thursday afternoon when officials confidently stood before reporters and said the crash wasn't terrorism.

But others, including those in the Muslim community, look at Stack's actions and fail to understand how he differs from foreign perpetrators of political violence who are routinely labeled terrorists.

''The position of many individuals and institutions seems to be that no act of violence can be labeled 'terrorism' unless it is carried out by a Muslim,'' said Nihad Awad, director of the Washington-based Council on Islamic-American Relations.

Within hours of Thursday's crash, which several witnesses said stirred memories of the Sept. 11 attacks, both federal and local law enforcement officials, along with the White House, said it did not appear to be an act of terror. A widely quoted statement issued by the Department of Homeland Security also said officials had ''no reason to believe there is a nexus to terrorist activity.''

Yet at the same time, Stack's motives for flying his single-engine plane into a seven-story office building after apparently setting his house on fire were becoming clear as detectives, reporters and others found a rambling manifesto on the Web in which he described a long-smoldering dispute with the IRS and a hatred of the government.

In the note, Stack said he longs for a big ''body count'' and expresses the hope that ''American zombies wake up and revolt.''

''To keep the government from getting money, he burned his house. To keep them from getting money he crashed his airplane,'' said Ken Hunter, whose father Vernon, a longtime IRS employee, was the only person killed by Stack's attack. ''That's not the act of a patriot. That's the act of a terrorist, and that's what he is.''

Stratfor, an Austin-based global intelligence firm specializing in international risk management, said the rhetoric in Stack's rant clearly matches the USA Patriot Act's definition of terrorism: a criminal act that is intended to ''intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.''

''When you fly an airplane into a federal building to kill people, that's how you define terrorism,'' said Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican whose district includes Austin. ''It sounds like it to me.''

It doesn't to Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo, who instead sees an isolated, criminal attack carried out by a lone individual. He said branding the crash as terrorism so soon after the plane's impact could have provoked unnecessary panic and prompted residents of Austin and beyond to erroneously conclude that other attacks might be imminent.

''I did not want to use it because I didn't want people that have children in school and loved ones at work to be panicking, thinking that, 'Oh my God, is there going to be 10 more little planes around the country crashing into buildings?''' Acevedo said. ''I knew that this appeared to be one guy in one city in one event.''

Other experts agree. Ami Pedahzur, a professor of government at the University of Texas and author of the book ''Suicide Terrorism,'' said that while Stack's actions might be viewed as a copycat version of 9/11 attacks, they fall short of terrorism.

Pedahuzur said there is no evidence that Stack was involved in a highly planned conspiracy, and descriptions of Stack's state of mind in the days before the crash suggest the software engineer ''snapped'' after suffering an emotional breakdown. His manifesto was filled with rants that were just as personal as they were political, such as his complaint that corrupt politicians are not ''the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.''

Pedahuzur compared the incident to the criminal rampage depicted by Michael Douglas in the 1993 movie ''Falling Down,'' in which an unemployed defense worker angry at society's flaws goes on a rampage.

''(Stack) seems to be trying to cover up a personal crisis with some type of political agenda,'' Pedahzur said. ''It looks like terrorism, but basically it's a story of a person whose anger was building up. It's more of a personal issue than a large movement.''

School Spies on Students at Home

A Lower Merion family has set off a furor among students, parents, and civil liberties groups by alleging that Harriton High School officials used a webcam on a school-issued laptop to spy on their 15-year-old son at home.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court, the family said the school's assistant principal had confronted their son, told him he had "engaged in improper behavior in [his] home, and cited as evidence a photograph from the webcam embedded in [his] personal laptop issued by the school district."

The suit contends the Lower Merion School District, one of the most prosperous and highest-achieving in the state, had the ability to turn on students' webcams and illegally invade their privacy.

While declining to comment on the specifics of the suit, spokesman Douglas Young said the district was investigating. "We're taking it very seriously," he said last night.

The district's Apple MacBook laptops have a built-in webcam with a "security feature" that can snap a picture of the operator and the screen if the computer is reported lost or stolen, Young said.

But he said "the district would never utilize that security feature for any other reason." The district said that the security system was "deactivated" yesterday, and that it would review when the system had been used.

Widener University law professor Stephen Henderson said using a laptop camera for home surveillance would violate wiretap laws, even if done to catch a thief.

A statement on the district Web site said the lawsuit's allegations "are counter to everything that we stand for as a school and a community."

The suit says that in November, assistant principal Lynn Matsko called in sophomore Blake Robbins and told him that he had "engaged in improper behavior in his home," and cited as evidence a photograph from the webcam in his school-issued laptop.

Matsko later told Robbins' father, Michael, that the district "could remotely activate the webcam contained in a student's personal laptop . . . at any time it chose and to view and capture whatever images were in front of the webcam" without the knowledge or approval of the laptop's users, the suit says.

It does not say what improper activity Robbins was accused of or what, if any, discipline resulted. Reached at home yesterday, his mother, Holly, said she could not comment on advice of the family's lawyers.

Blake Robbins, answering the door at his home, said he, too, could not comment. With a mop of brown hair and clad in a black T-shirt and jeans, he smiled when told the suit had earned him a Wikipedia page and other Internet notoriety.

Mark Haltzman, a lawyer with the Trevose firm of Lamm Rubenstone, which represents the Robbins family, did not return calls seeking comment. Matsko's husband said the assistant principal could not comment.

Fueled with state grants, the Lower Merion district issued laptops to all 2,300 high school students, starting last school year at Harriton and later at Lower Merion High, to promote more "engaged and active learning and enhanced student achievement," Superintendent Christopher W. McGinley said in a statement.

McGinley and Lower Merion School Board President David Ebby did not respond to requests for comment.

Families in the 6,900-student district reacted with shock. Parent Candace Chacona said she was "flabbergasted" by the allegations.

"My first thought was that my daughter has her computer open almost around the clock in her bedroom. Has she been spied on?"

Victoria Zuzelo, a senior at Harriton, said she and other students had been told about the security feature, and knew the district had the right to search computer hard drives at school.

Some students had taken to covering webcams in school with paper because they thought they might be watched, she said. "But . . . they would never think the school would be watching them at home. I'm not sure who to believe, but I'm hoping it is not true because if it was, it would really be outrageous."

Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a privacy watchdog group in Washington, said she had not heard of any other case in which school officials were accused of monitoring student behavior at home via a computer. If the allegations are true, she said, "this is an outrageous invasion of individual privacy."

Witold J. Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, told the Associated Press: "School officials cannot, any more than police, enter into the home either electronically or physically without an invitation or a warrant."

Virginia DiMedio, who as the Lower Merion district's technology director until she retired last summer helped launch the laptop initiative, said yesterday: "If there was a report that a computer was stolen, the next time a person opened it up, it would take their picture and give us their IP [Internet protocol] address - the location of where it was coming from."

She said that the feature had been used several times to trace stolen laptops, but that there had been no discussion of using it to monitor students' behavior. "I can't imagine anyone in the district did anything other than track stolen computers," she said.

DiMedio said the district did not widely publicize the feature "for obvious reasons. It involved computer security, and that is all it was being used for."

She added: "People ask you all the time, 'Can you do this? Can you do this?' . . . But you have to be conscious of students' rights. I would not have walked into that swamp. . . . You want kids to use the technology. You want them to feel safe, to feel trusted."

The laptop initiative, she said, is "a wonderful program. There were kids in some of the poorer areas that had none of the resources that the other students had. That was what the initiative was for - to give kids a chance."

In a published policy statement, the district warns that laptop users "should not expect that files stored on district resources will be private," and says the network administrator "may review files and communication to . . . ensure that students are using the system responsibly."