|What do the Ku Klux
Klan and Disney have in common? It would seem little on the
surface, but when one uses a paring knife and peels back the flesh of
Terrorism, there is a common core issue that every citizen faces
daily--to ignore or accept that Terrorism takes many forms--one, the
burning of a cross, and two, a Winnie The Pooh doll. Decide
where the Terrorism line should be drawn, and if the Supreme Court of
the US should be sitting in judgment of burning crosses or Winnie The
12, 2002—Ground Zero Plus 456
Vigilance Attacks On Disney & The Ku Klux Klan--Yield Terrorism's Sores
Of The Soul
Editor, New York City Combat Correspondent News
GROUND ZERO, New York City, Dec. 12 --
Terrorism leaves sad sores on the soul of nations and peoples.
They never seem to heal, despite all attempts to medicate them.
In the midst of impending war with Iraq, a
troubled economy, a threatened transportation strike in America's biggest
city, and a major battle between the power of the United Nations versus
the power of the United States to act decisively against Terrorism, the
pox of Terrorism erupts daily, driving its emergency response teams mad
trying to keep them all treated with antibiotics
cross-burning be outlawed?
A big sore is facing the U.S. Supreme
Court--the legality of burning a cross. Some say the burning
of a cross is protected under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment's
guarantee of Free Speech. Others argue it is a Terrorist
attack, as flagrant as waving a gun in the face of citizens and therefore
stands outside the First Amendment as a "clear and present danger."
Speaking out in favor of upholding the
Virginia law making it illegal to burn the cross, Justice Clarence Thomas,
the only black Supreme Court Justice condemned the burning of crosses as part of
a "reign of terror" by the Ku Klux Klan during a century of American
history. "It is unlike any symbol in our society," said Thomas.
"It was intended to cause fear, terrorism."
California is one of thirteen states
with similar laws banning cross burning for the purpose of "terrorizing"
others. The difference, the court says, between burning a U.S.
Flag and a cross is the intent. Protesting a symbol of
government is different from a specific design to "terrorize."
Heavy rain didn't dampen the Vigilance of Disney
In another attack of Vigilance last
night, protestors gathered in a torrential downpour in New York City's
wealthiest shopping sector, Fifth Ave, to protest Disney's use of child
labor to produce many of its products. The protestors, young and
old, stood behind police barricades with signs and vigil candles, shouting
out anti-Disney slogans, protesting the harsh and cruel treatment of
labor in many underdeveloped countries that manufacture products for the
According to a flyer distributed by the
protestors, the National Labor Committee alleges that workers are paid
just 5 cents for each $17.99 Disney Winnie the Pooh shirt they sew, and
that the contractors Disney use treat their employees--mostly women and
children--like slaves with mandatory daily hours ranging from 14-15 hours
a day and earning as little as 12 to 19 cents a hour or $5.67 a week.
While I couldn't make the Supreme Court
discussion over the "burning flag" issue, I did wrap myself in layers of
rain gear to capture the protest of the anti-Disney protestors in 'my
Store on Fifth Ave.
An expected crowd of
1,000 protestors was reduced to a few hundred due to the pelting rain. I
huddled in an eave in front of the Disney store, between two female NYPD
officers, two of more than a hundred on the scene, and captured pictures
of protestors dressed as Mickey and Minnie Mouse holding signs protesting
Michael Eisner's continued use of child labor. One of the
flyers noted that Eisner pays himself $667 million a year, about $63,000
an hour, and cited that it would take a worker being paid 12 cents an hour
210 years to earn the same hourly wage Eisner does.
I followed the protestors down Fifth
Avenue, past hundreds of well-dressed, high-income people who work and
shop in the exclusive Fifth Avenue location where retail icons like Fendi
and Tiffany are located. Their chants and diatribes were met
with stares and some grumps for blocking a major section of the sidewalk,
but for the most part, the protest was peaceful. There were no
I thought about the difference between
burning a cross and protesting Disney.
The Supreme Court, it appeared, was on the
verge of upholding the law making it a crime to burn a cross for the
purpose of "terrorizing others," and I wondered why all the accusations
that Michael Eisner was a "child terrorist" who tacitly abused children
around the world by contracting with companies outside the United States,
stood outside the "terrorism law."
Obviously, there is a difference between
opening your door and seeing a cross burning in your front yard, and
buying a Winnie The Pooh doll made by the bloodied fingers of a young child
thousands of miles away. The blood from the child's fingers can't be
seen because it is hidden in the stuffing of the doll.
But it did bring up the issue not of the
"degrees of Terrorism" that separates a cross burning or a doll made by
child labor slaves, but rather the source of Terrorism.
advertising toys made by young children in third world countries
I wondered why the Supreme Court didn't
make it illegal to raise a child to burn crosses rather to invoke a law
about a grown child burning one. It seemed that if law's
purpose was to make the world safer, it would reach down to the seeds of
the crime and try to snuff the bad ones out before they grew rather than
wait for them to grow into tumors.
The Disney protest I thought was far more
fundamental than the issue before the Supreme Court. In the Ku
Klux Klan cross burning issue, the "act of Terrorism" was on trial.
In the Disney protest case, the "source of Terrorism" was on trial.
Disney protestors wanted to change
the fundamental way children are treated when they work for American
companies. They were seeking to remove the "clear and present
danger" of child abuse.
When someone thinks about the two
issues, a burning cross in their front lawn or supporting the continued
abuse of children in other lands by companies who do not monitor or manage
the conditions of their workers, and accept products manufactured by
virtual "slave labor conditions," it makes one wonder if fighting
Terrorism ultimately comes to how close it is to our noses.
It makes little sense to imagine
someone walking out of his or her home to meet a burning cross in his or
and screaming: "I want to know the names of the parents of the
people who lit this burning cross on my yard so I can seek justice against
them for being Terroristic parents and allowing their children to grow up
thinking they have a right to Terrorize others in the name of their
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court
Justices weren't asking those kinds of questions as they pondered the
constitutionality of a cross burning law.
The word "constitution" means the
"composition of something's structure, its makeup." The
implication of the word is more than something's physical attributes, and
suggests there is a source, a core of the "thing's composition" that
comprises the "constitution" of it.
The "constitution" of a cross burner,
therefore, is far more than the hand of the man or woman igniting the
cross. It is composed of the entirety of the person, his or
her whole being, including the source of his or her existence, the
parents, guardians, society in which he or she lives.
Will the Supreme
Court legitimize Terror by ruling on the First Amendment?
I often want to vomit when I think of
the Supreme Court having the power to make people think they can judge
law, when the word "law" itself means something is immutable,
unchangeable. A "law" is a fixed thing in nature, not subject to
interpretation, not open for discussion. The law of gravity cannot
be altered--"what goes up must come down."
Yet we as human beings mask law. We
dress it up in robes and judiciary, and we pompously assign faulty human
beings to administer it and to judge it. It is oxymoronic to
say "he or she is a lawmaker." There are no "law makers." Laws
exist without the need for human beings to create them. Those who
believe they do or can, or who believe they can alter them, are only
trying to play "God." They are Terrorizing the law by assuming it is
a toy for them to mould as they might a piece of clay.
Terrorism isn't measure by the
degrees of law, but by the screams and pain of the children it attacks.
A burning cross means nothing to one who recognizes that those who set it
on fire are nothing more than twisted children who have grown up chewing
on the seeds of hate and bigotry, and seek to diminish other human beings
for not believing in what they believe, or looking like they look, or
thinking what they think. The great crime in cross burning is
to give cross burning the power to "terrorize," by making it illegal to
burn a cross as though the burners of the cross did indeed have "power" to
intimidate, to strike fear into people, to force others to run and hide as
though they were mice and the cross burners feral cats hunting them down.
The problem with cross burning is the idea
those who look at a burning cross let it strike Fear, Intimidation and
Complacency in them. Banning cross burning only gives the
Terrorists of Cross burning more power. It legitimizes the
The real law in cross burning should
be to make it illegal for parents to raise children who think they can
Terrorize others. That's the real crime. If there
were a Supreme Court of Vigilance, it would not rule against cross
burning, but against the Parents of Terror who raised cross burners.
It would go the source, for the law of human beings it to evolve above
Fear, Intimidation and Complacency, not to live in legislation of it.
That's why the Disney protest last
night had ten times more power to it than the Supreme Court's pious
undertaking to uphold or strike down the constitutionality of cross
change in front of The Disney Store
The couple of hundred protestors last
night braving the pelting rain and chanting for a change in the
"constitutionality" of American companies and child labor, was far more
vast and far reaching than anything happening in Washington D.C.
The Sentinels of Vigilance,
those souls who hover above Ground Zero, were at the Disney protest last
night. They weren't up in the Supreme Court chambers.
They were marching with
the drenched protestors down Fifth Avenue, urging their small Voices to be
heard not only by Eisner, but by any company that believes their products
can be manufactured without violating the "laws of child terrorism."
And if there are
true "constitutional heroes" at play in this nation, they aren't the
black-robbed nine who think they rule the laws of America, or have some
righteous wisdom over what is good for this country. No, the
real "constitutional jurists" of America were out in the streets last
night, asking the Supreme Court of Vigilance for mercy. They were
healing the sores on the soul of Terrorism by going to the source of the
flame of Terrorism's fuel, not just trying to snuff out its wick.
Court Terrorism: Iraq vs. U.N.--Losers Lose Their Heads
- 2004, VigilanceVoice.com, All rights reserved - a