Indian PM’s daughter works for the ACLU

Posted on by

Amardeep Singh reports that Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh is visiting the UN in New York this weekend, followed by meetings with Bush and Musharraf and some quality time with his youngest daughter, Amrit.

Now here’s what’s really interesting: Amrit Singh works for the ACLU in NYC fighting both the Pentagon on Abu Ghraib and airlines on anti-brown discrimination while flying.

Many years ago, my now-retired uncle was an Indian diplomat. Whenever my cousin and I stepped out of the family apartment, we were trailed by Indian men in dark suits, packin’ heat. So here’s what I want to know:

  1. When Manmohan Singh meets Bush, are their daughters verboten? Is talking about Amrit frowned upon, like ‘Hey Dubya, is Jenna out of rehab?’ and ‘Hey Dick, what’s Mary been up to lately?’
  2. Could Amitabh Bachchan beat up eight Indian bodyguards, like in the movies? Or do they have some gatka moves up their sleeves?

Maybe they need to hire this woman.

23 thoughts on “Indian PM’s daughter works for the ACLU”

  3. I doubt Manmohan is proud of the fact that his daughter is an angry leftist. I also doubt that he thinks fundamentalist Muslims are as cuddly as his daughter evidently does.

  4. GC: is the ACLU full only of angry leftists? Anybody who opposed Senator McCarthy was an agent of Communism? It’s impossible to be against terrorism and for civil liberties at the same time?

  5. GC: is the ACLU full only of angry leftists?… It’s impossible to be against terrorism and for civil liberties at the same time?

    Of course it’s possible to be anti-terrorist and for civil liberties. The ACLU and Amrit Singh are most certainly NOT. They are dhimmis, pawns or actively pro-Islamic. Remember, the ACLU is the organization that did both this:

    County supervisors have decided to remove a tiny cross from the countyÂ’s official seal rather than face a potential lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union.

    See the seal here. In the same month they did this

    …the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan has received hundreds of calls and e-mails from around the country from people asking our position on the amended Hamtramck noise ordinance passed by the City Council. The change in the ordinance occurred in response to a request that the Wayne County city allow a Muslim call to prayer five times a day. …The city must allow for reasonable accommodation of religious speech, whether it is the ringing of church bells or the Muslim call to prayer or interdenominational holiday decorations. This is also true in governmental workplaces. It is for this reason that the ACLU has supported federal regulations that allow government agencies to accommodate personal religious expression by federal employees, including the wearing of head coverings by Jews, Muslims or members of the Sikh faith, if it does not impair workplace efficiency.

    Now, maybe you can reconcile those two positions with some contorted spin. Perhaps in some universe a tiny christian cross on an unnoticed seal is less intrusive than a FIVE TIMES DAILY CALL TO PRAYER IN ARABIC.

    But unless you want to do that kind of spin, I think it’s fair to say that yes, the ACLU is a bunch of angry, hateful, vicious pro-Islamic leftists who hate America. They are not really anti-religion or anti-discrimination, for they will push the most discriminatory, theocratic policies around if they benefit poooooor minorities.

    Another example: while leftists babble about the theocracy of Bush, there is sharia in Canada:

    Canadian judges soon will be enforcing Islamic law, or Sharia, in disputes between Muslims, possibly paving the way to one day administering criminal sentences, such as stoning women caught in adultery. Muslims are required to submit to Sharia in Muslim societies but are excused in nations where they live as a minority under a non-Muslim government. Canada, however, is preparing for its 1 million-strong Muslim minority to be under the authority of a Sharia system enforced by the Canadian court system, according to the Canadian Law Times.

    Sure, sharia is “voluntary”. Just like the burka is “voluntary”. This is the natural progression of hate-America leftists – as opposed to universalist leftists. Anti-American leftists like the ACLU reject universalist leftist morality by granting nonwhites moral exemptions for whatever they do. Sharia? Sounds great! Adds to our multicultural stew! And five times daily calls to prayer in arabic in North America? Why, it’s just freedom of religion.

    This is the way by which an insane religious fundamentalist like bin Laden is given a respectful hearing as an anti-imperialist. Universalist leftists who stand up for free speech, women’s rights, or the separation of church and state are denounced by the anti-American left as “racists”. And even a brief google shows that Amrit Singh is most assuredly in the anti-American category.

    2) Anybody who opposed Senator McCarthy was an agent of Communism?

    Not all, but many of them were. Haven’t you read the Venona Decrypts? Ever heard of the Comintern? Or perhaps this Reason article might ring a few bells:

    “One of the most pressing tasks confronting the Communist Party in the field of propaganda,” wrote the indefatigable Comintern agent Willi Muenzenberg in a 1925 Daily Worker article, “is the conquest of this supremely important propaganda unit, until now the monopoly of the ruling class. We must wrest it from them and turn it against them.” It was an ambitious task, but conditions would soon turn to the party’s advantage… The first head of what eventually became the House Committee on Un-American Activities was New York Democrat Samuel Dickstein. As the recently declassified “Venona” documents (decrypts of Soviet cables) reveal, Dickstein moonlighted for Soviet intelligence–not out of ideology but for money… The legend of the blacklist, sanitized of all references to Stalin or to the Communist Party’s actual record in the studios, became a continuing influence on Hollywood’s political life. Hollywood had entered its period of anti-anti-communism, a well-known phenomenon in American cultural and intellectual life. Those motivated by this ideology have vilified such critics of the Soviet Union as Robert Conquest and Sidney Hook, while venerating such paleo-leftists as journalist I.F. Stone, whose 1952 Hidden History of the Korean War parroted the party line that South Korea invaded the North. Anti-anti-communism demonizes anti-communists, however truthful their revelations, as paranoid and on the wrong side of history, while praising apologists of totalitarianism as well-meaning idealists, however mendacious and servile their record. Such a vision is not likely to promote a meaningful cinematic treatment of communism.

    What do you think the Comintern DID, anyway?

  6. Woah. The cross is on a government seal, that’s a violation of the first amendment. Similarly, they aren’t asking the government to issue the call to prayer, they’re asking them not to allow groups to issue their call to prayer, just like they allow church bells to ring. They want religion out of government and government out of religion. It’s called the first amendment. It’s hardly pro-islamic to make these arguments, and the ACLU fights similar battles on behalf of many Christian groups (like the Jehovah’s Witnesses) up to the present day.

  7. The cross is on a government seal, that’s a violation of the first amendment. Similarly, they aren’t asking the government to issue the call to prayer, they’re asking them not to allow groups to issue their call to prayer, just like they allow church bells to ring. They want religion out of government and government out of religion. It’s called the first amendment.

    You have got to be kidding me. The cross on the seal is miniscule. Have you even looked at it? Compare that to a FIVE TIMES DAILY BROADCAST CALL TO PRAYER IN ARABIC OVER A NON-MUSLIM TOWN.

    This is not about “principle”. For one thing, you could easily make the argument that the special laws extended to Islamic fundamentalists in Michigan is favoring one religion over another. For another, you could point out that a similar special dispensation for a call to prayer in English – i.e. “JESUS IS LORD” rather than Allahu Akbar – would be attacked by the ACLU immediately.

    Seriously, I can’t believe you’re defending the ACLU on this. What dishonest casuistry.

  8. remember, this self-same ACLU has sued to get any kind of christmas decorations out of the public square. Nativity scenes? GONE. Any sort of private observation of the holidays that might be publicly visible? Sue sue sue!

    Yet…when special dispensation is given to fundamentalist fanatical Muslims to have ARABIC CALLS TO PRAYER BROADCAST OVER A NON-ISLAMIC TOWN FROM 6AM TO 10PM…this elicits no outrage! No condemnation! No lawsuits! It’s just another piece of the lovely multicultural pie…

    Pshaw. Are you defending this with a straight face? How about the sharia in Canada? Please tell me you’re kidding or just playing devil’s advocate.

  9. I disagree with the ACLU on the Hamtramck call to prayer case, because silence is a public good. But the ACLU is absolutely correct in getting the cross and nativity scenes off government property because that too is a public good.

    The more religiously neutral you make the totems of officialdom in a society, the more welcome immigrants feel, and the harder they’ll work in that new society. It’s the same reason why it’s better to name a startup with a shared symbol that people can emotionally invest in rather than merely the founder’s name.

    Oh, and gc: we’re going to impose an outrage surcharge for capital letters, exclamation points and the bold tag 😉

  10. The whole point of the ACLU is to ensure that we have a society where the rights of minorities or the poor are not crushed by the majority or the rich and powerful. In this country, that’s the Christian majority, the large corporations and the local and federal government.

    All lawsuits filed by the ACLU are mostly about keeping religion out of public institutions, protecting people from corporate greed, or safeguarding human rights from government representatives (army and law enforcement).

    So, it’s not about public nativity scenes, crosses on seals, Rodney King, Abu Ghraib, or Muslim prayer. It’s about making sure that we live in a society that is fair. Where everyone has the some basic human rights.

    It’s easy not to care about what happens to some other group, as long as we feel that we are safe. But that’s how fascism always starts. Tomorrow it could be you — as the post about the Indian guy being ticketed for sleeping on a train proves.

  11. GC: you make it seem like they never file suits for anybody else. They file suits for the Christian Scientists, they file suits for the Amish and the Seveth Day adventists, for the Jews, for all variety of religious groups who want the government off their backs.

    As for the cross, here’s the government’s own explanation of the seal:

    The cross represents the influence of the church and the missions of California.

    It was placed on the seal in 1957 as part of an effort to proclaim LA’s godliness in opposition to the soviet menace. It’s a reference to the crosses on the hills in the area (to one specific cross actually) that clearly have Christian meaning.

    I happen to think it’s not a big deal, but it is clearly a mixture of state and religion.

    As for the call to prayer, would you be against the ringing of church bells as well? The ACLU has fought for that right too …

    They’re consistent, and the two aren’t comparable. One is about private groups doing something, the other is about the government doing something. You can disagree with them on both, but to claim they’re comparable is bizarre unless you’re opposed to private property.

  12. Amardeep SIngh is about to be interviewed on WBEZ’s Worldview program. You can listen at http://www.wbez.org. The program runs from 1:00-2:00 PM.

    While I am a consistent critic of the ACLU, I am interested in what Singh has to say.

  17. Where was Amrit Singh when thousands of Sikhs were slaughtered by occupying Indian forces in Punjab during the 80’s and 90’s? Doesn’t she feel the pain of her brethren?

  18. I have tried several times to contact ACLU representatives regarding issues they were defending. I have never received a response. I have taken this to mean that, in their minds, they are always right. In particular, their version of “separation of church and state” is way out of line. Our founding fathers, remembering the Church of England’s control of religion in England and all of it’s territories, refused to allow the same thing to happen in our new nation. What they were concerned about most was a single religion taking control. They were not afraid of individual religions and nothing was said in the first amendment that precluded any religion from receiving recognition and support from the government, federal or state. To the contrary, our country was founded on Christian principles without Christianity ruling as did the Church of England. Today every session of the Senate and the House opens with a prayer. Members of these two bodies are of many different religions. Yet, the ACLU has reached a position in this country where it is dictating to congress and the Supreme Court. The ACLU is up in arms over the “inhumane” treatment of detainees whose purpose in life seems to be to wipe out any vestige of religion that is not Muslim or Islam. Has anybody ever heard of the ACLU sating so much as a single word against the radical Muslims who behead prisoners. I am sorry for taking up so much space. I just want someone to know how I, a Navy veteran who served in Korea and pulled two tours in Viet Nam, feel about the totally misguided ACLU.

  19. Bill, that’s because they have an entire website that explains what issues they are defending. They knew they didn’t need to waste their time explaining them to you, as you clearly haven’t done your homework.

  20. I just saw amrit singh on TV defending their position.

    I have lot of questions about the left agenda which boggles my mind in more ways than one. I understand individual rights which are determined by one self and protected by the constitution. I also know that justice lady is blind and justice is impartial but I always have a feeling that it is not for justice but some hidden agenda which motivates people whether be an individual or a group.

    First ACLU is not a union as they are not representing all the lawyers in the country and they solicit donations and also get compensated for their court battle and I am sure they could not have been starving as I have never seen them not wearing decent clothes or live in homeless shelters or ride a bicycle or even slow down their breathing so that they do not produce more carbon dioxide haven forbid they would cause global warming. My impression is those ideologs have had some inner conflict like psychological, social or emotional trauma resulting in the path they have taken in the process.

    Does it give them the right to choose what case they are going to pick or it has to fit their agenda. Like carrie Prejean ( Miss California ) who was slammed by the left wing and they did not say anything about it but maybe her social values did not meet their mustard and maybe they would not get anything out of it or may be be they will alienate other left wing supporters.

    So the times moves on.

  21. I request Amrit Singh to support us morally to set up 24×7 Live Academic TV Channels for Class 10

    I promise to invest for the whole project. I promise to make it a fairly success

    SUSHIL AHUJA 4C/ 16 , Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi 09871966707 011-45088422