Latest news with #Anti-Christian
Otago Daily Times
15-05-2025
- General
- Otago Daily Times
Keep the lights on
Sumner residents have given their verdict on the issue of the Cave Rock mast. They say the status quo should remain: Keep the lights on every night from dusk until 11pm, except for when a request is made for them to be turned off and during Matariki. It comes as the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board is seeking public feedback after some people in the community raised concerns over the brightness, configuration and frequency of the lights. Some residents have also taken issue with the mast shape having religious connotations. The solar powered lights were installed in 2021, after lobbying from the Sumner Redcliffs Historical Society and the Sumner Community Residents' Association. The board is inviting feedback on how the lighting should be managed, including the daily operating hours and how often the mast should be lit. Deputy chair Keir Leslie told The Press the board 'inherited' the lighting problem. When the previous board signed a deed of accessibility with the Breakfree Foundation in November 2020, it stipulated that the foundation was solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and repair of the lights. Leslie said a 'change of language' in the deed meant the foundation could have the lights on every night, as opposed to just on holidays like Christmas and Easter. 'This is an opportunity to have a conversation with the community that possibly didn't happen at the time of the change.' Bay Harbour News spoke to residents to get their views. Sebastian Koburg 'It doesn't bother me at all. I think it's a good thing that the rock is illuminated. I don't really mind if it looks like a cross, it's a free country.' Gordon Minns 'It's 160-years-old. It's part of Sumner's history, given it was used 160-years-ago, it should get to stay. I have no problem with it whatsoever, my wife and I love looking at it from our house and, if we've been away for a while, it reminds us we're home.' Shellie Pounsford 'I think it should stay, I'm a Christian and personally I like it. If it bothers people they need to find a different way of looking at it.' Kate Livingston 'I don't feel very strongly about it. I suppose it is a bit imposing of Christian beliefs on to people.' Pam Sundstrum 'I like the cross and I'd hate to see it go. Anti-Christian people don't like it and I say too bad. The locals put a lot of work into it, it's been there for a long time, it would be a shame to see it go. I think the minority get too much say.' Lis Bennett 'The first time I came to Sumner I had to ask my partner if it was a religious cross, so if you want it to have religious meaning it has religious meaning. I've never been faulted by it, as long as it doesn't effect wildlife it's fine.' Ivana Aisen 'It doesn't offend me. I guess I would ask why that religion, and not any other? But Christianity is the most popular so it makes sense. I don't live super close to the lights so it doesn't bother me.' Bobbie Jones 'I don't look at as a religious symbol and the lights make it a cool beacon for when I'm driving back. It symbolises that I'm coming home, I don't understand why people are upset.'
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How Trump Will Use 'Anti-Christian Bias' to Entrench His Power
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways On April 22, Attorney General Pam Bondi hosted the first meeting of the 'Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias in the Federal Government.' Attendees included the secretaries of Defense, State, Homeland Security, Health & Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Education, and Labor, as well as over a dozen high-ranking officials in the administration. Those attending didn't seem to be bothered by the fact that no evidence of such widespread bias exists. That's because they weren't there to solve a problem but to create one. The Task Force claimed to be standing up for 'religious liberty,' but its real goal is to amplify the persecution complex of the Trump administration's Christian nationalist allies and base—and then to use groundless claims of religious discrimination as the basis for the suppression of dissent. Less than a week later, an incident at the U.S. Capitol made clear that the Trump administration has zero interest in promoting 'religious liberty.' As the Reverend William Barber and other faith leaders opposed to Republican budget cuts gathered to pray at the Capitol Rotunda, they were swiftly surrounded by Capitol Police officers, one wearing a 'crime scene' vest. The press was expelled from the building, and the pastors were arrested. You would think that a Task Force concerned with anti-Christian bias would take an interest. But the administration appears to have nothing to say. The problem for the Reverend Barber and his fellow pastors is that they would seem to be the wrong kind of Christians. Right-wing pastor Sean Feucht has 'filled the US Capitol Rotunda with worship time and time again for the last 4 years,' in his own words, and yet he has never been arrested or detained. He, apparently, is the right kind of Christian. In the United States, attacks on Christians continue to occur at far lower rates than those targeted at other religious groups, including Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs. The Task Force's exclusive focus on Christian victims exposes its rhetoric about defending 'religious liberty' as transparently insincere. Instances of alleged 'anti-Christian bias' cited in the executive order that established the Task Force are even more revealing. The first and most prominent example of bias provided is the conviction of anti-abortion activists in connection with their violations of laws intended to protect the rights of individuals seeking health care services—a group that Trump pardoned in his first days in office. The second example is an internal FBI memo from 2023 that identified certain extremist Catholic groups as potential terror threats—even though an internal FBI review of the memo in 2024 concluded that there was no evidence the memo targeted or resulted in the targeting of anyone on account of their religious beliefs, Catholic or otherwise. The irony of 'anti-Christian bias,' as the Trump administration defines it, is that it is not, in fact, directed at Christians per se. After all, the Reverend Barber, like many American Christians, appears to anchor a commitment to equality, social justice, and concern for the poor in his faith. Rather, the alleged victims of bias are those Christians who endorse reactionary positions in the culture wars and support Trump's agenda unconditionally. The other fact about this misnamed 'anti-Christian bias' is that it is indistinguishable from sincere efforts to protect individual rights against discrimination on the part of this subset of people who identify as Christian. If you try to prevent a political activist who holds this preferred identity from discriminating against or infringing on the rights of people of whom they disapprove—precisely what the anti-abortion activists were doing—then you, not they, are allegedly engaging in 'bias.' This is what 'religious freedom' has come to mean: privilege for conservative Christians alone, including the freedom to harass or discriminate. But there is still more to make George Orwell proud. The most insidious aspect of this 'anti-Christian bias' program is that it refers not primarily to actual crimes, such as acts of discrimination or violence, but to thought crimes. The reason the administration can't let go of the FBI memo on terrorist threats from 'radical-traditionalist' Catholic extremists is not that it proves discrimination—it does not—but that it serves as evidence that someone somewhere in the FBI had a negative thought about some reactionary people who happen to identify as Catholic. The thought-crime focus of the Task Force is evident in the memo that Veterans Affairs circulated to its staff immediately after the meeting. That email specifically calls on employees to report on 'any informal policies, procedures, or unofficial understandings hostile to Christian views.' So, if your office holds the 'unofficial understanding' that LGBTQ people or the nonreligious or progressive Christians, for example, should have equal rights—an understanding clearly hostile to the views of the subset of Christians who believe that 'woke Christians,' the nonreligious, and LGBTQ Americans deserve no such equal protections—do you rat out the office for rampant anti-Christian bias? If your agency promotes racial equality, concern for the poor, or the protection of the earth from climate change—views apparently at odds with the ideas of those who characterize 'DEI' as an 'ungodly agenda,' who promote 'biblical economics' or regard environmentalism as a 'cult of the green dragon' and, conveniently for the fossil fuel interests that fund many of their operations, deny the reality of climate change—should you turn them in too? Federal employees will have no trouble picking up the real message of the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias, even though one hopes that they will have the strength to resist. The message is that one political ideology—the one that the administration mislabels as 'Christian'—occupies a place of special privilege in the United States. If anything you say or do can be construed as 'hostile' to this ideology, you will face the coercive power of the federal government. This kind of thought-crime demagoguery, which panders to the persecution complex of Trump's Christian nationalist base, has been tremendously successful. A 2023 survey, conducted by the Survey Center on American Life, reported that nearly 60 per cent of white evangelicals in America say they face 'a lot' of discrimination. Other surveys show that Republicans and those who lean Republican now say that discrimination against white people and evangelicals is more common than discrimination against Black people. To make people feel persecuted, it turns out, you don't actually have to persecute them. You just have to tell them, over and over again, that they are being persecuted. The supposed 'war on Christmas' operates on the same principle as 'the stolen election': You repeat the lie until you believe that it is true. The public has little difficulty in figuring out the real message too: that there is one group in America that is authentically American and deserving of rights and privileges. The autocrat in power will defend them and their tribe against all others who fail to conform. If those 'others' step out of line, they will be punished, no matter what the law and the Constitution says. Majoritarian grievance is the energy drink of all fascist movements, but the Task Force is more than just a propaganda stunt to shore up the base. It is weaponizing the constitutional guarantees on the free exercise of religion. Trump's Task Force is turning a legitimate concern—that no one should suffer discrimination on the basis of belief—into a pseudo-legal foundation for the prosecution of those whose thoughts are 'hostile' to the ideology of the regime and its preferred, protected class of people. This is how it starts.
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's Navy Secretary Keeps Flubbing The Date Of Pearl Harbor
A social media account for U.S. Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, whom President Donald Trump tapped for the role despite him having zero military experience, posted the wrong date of the attack on Pearl Harbor twice late last week. The two posts, which have since been deleted, went up Friday after Phelan ― a wealthy investor, prominent art collector and Trump campaign donor ― visited the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and USS Arizona Memorial in Hawaii, saying he was 'there to honor the thousands of service members and civilians who died at Pearl Harbor on June 7, 1941.' In another post, the account referred to it as 'the fateful day of June 7, 1941.' The Japanese military's attack on Pearl Harbor, which President Franklin Roosevelt famously referred to as 'a day that will live in infamy,' happened on Dec. 7, 1941. As the impetus for the United States' entrance into World War II, it's remembered as a day that changed the course of world history. Newly hired Navy spokesperson Kristina Wong, a former Breitbart News correspondent, took the blame for the mistake on Monday. 'I sincerely regret the error. As the daughter of an Air Force veteran it pains me to have made this mistake,' she wrote on social media. Veterans came out in large support for Trump in last year's election, with about 65% of them saying they voted for him, exit polls showed. That came after he made big promises to service members and veterans during his campaign last year, vowing to raise military pay and root out its 'woke' leaders. But an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press last month found that Trump's so-called Department of Government Efficiency, helmed by billionaire Elon Musk, plans to cut more than 80,000 jobs from the Department of Veterans Affairs, which provides health care and other services to America's millions of veterans. The cuts will reportedly happen this summer as the department undergoes a major reorganization in August. Harry Chandler, Navy Medic Who Survived Japan's Attack On Pearl Harbor, Dies At 103 Seth Meyers Sinks Trump's Navy Secretary Pick In Just 1 Brutal Move Trump Administration Urges Workers To Snitch On One Another For 'Anti-Christian Bias'
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Critics see ‘monumental shift' in Trump remaking of DOJ civil rights division
The Trump administration has shifted staff and undertaken a series of policy changes at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division that current and former staff say strike at the heart of its mission. Justice Department leadership has in recent weeks directed attorneys to focus on priorities laid out in executive orders from President Trump, such as 'Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports' and 'Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias.' It's a departure for a division that under former President Biden described itself as protecting the civil rights of all Americans, including 'some of the most vulnerable members of our society.' 'The impact is catastrophic. They are scaling back possibly, nearly all enforcement that they have been doing for decades on civil rights statutes they're required to enforce,' said Stacey Young, a longtime Civil Rights Division attorney who now runs Justice Connection. 'This is a monumental shift in the way the division operates, and it's going to result in American civil rights not being protected as they almost always have been.' The department last week removed roughly a dozen career leaders from their positions, pushing some into unrelated roles responsible for responding to public information requests and a complaint adjudication office. Many have since resigned, leaving many sections without any leadership beyond political appointees, with additional departures expected. Justin Levitt, a former deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights under former President Obama, said the moves were 'sidelining an enormous amount of very nonpartisan expertise' that has enforced the law under administrations of both parties. 'And the only reason you do that is if you didn't think that the laws were worth enforcing. That actually should really raise eyebrows in Congress,' he said. The sweeping changes come less than three weeks after the swearing in of Harmeet Dhillon, Trump's assistant attorney general for civil rights. The former co-chair of Lawyers for Trump, Dhillon backed Trump's efforts to challenge the 2020 election and also was among those defending him against a Colorado lawsuit arguing he should be barred from running for office due to leading an insurrection. The California lawyer has made a name for herself by championing conservative causes, suing on behalf of Trump supporters who said actions taken by San Jose police enabled a clash with counterprotestors. She represented a Google employee fired after he criticized the company's diversity policy by arguing biology was to account for why there were fewer female engineers at the company. She also sued California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) over his stay-at-home order during the COVID-19 pandemic, challenging the law on behalf of churches and other entities. In her short tenure, she's sent out new mission statements for the division's 11 sections, with many offering a passing reference to the major statutes they enforce — such as the Voting Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act — while directing attorneys to use orders from Trump to guide their priorities. 'The zealous and faithful pursuit of this section's mission requires the full dedication of the section's resources, attention, and energy to the priorities of the President,' the mission statement for the Educational Opportunities Section reads. Levitt said the Civil Rights Division has a long history of protecting populations that face discrimination, whether based on race, religion, gender, disability or other factors. 'The orientation coming out of the mission statements of the Civil Rights Division thus far seem to have forgotten that,' said Levitt, now a professor at Loyola Law School. 'It's very clear that Assistant Attorney General Dhillon made her name and came to Trump's attention bringing cases based primarily on white Christian male grievance.' In the new mission statements, Dhillon referenced a number of orders referencing transgender issues, seeking to limit transgender participation in sports and seeking to limit transition surgeries for children. It also points to orders about combating antisemitism — something some Jewish groups have said use the very real threat as a guise to target free speech. 'It seems to be that Harmeet Dhillon is taking it quite a bit further by not just undoing the traditional mission, but really flipping the mission on its head — using the Civil Rights Division against civil rights,' said Aaron Zisser, a former attorney in the division who now runs his own practice. 'That's a scary way to wield the enormous power and resources of the Department of Justice to punch way, way down,' he said, referencing cases about transgender youth in sports. 'Of course, they say, 'Our target is the school,' and they're investigating the school. But in fact, they're targeting the school in order to target this vulnerable population.' Employees are fearful the actions will undermine the spirit of a division formed in 1957 during the Civil Rights Movement and efforts to desegregate the South and protect the voting rights of Black Americans. In the division's Voting Rights Section, the mission statement now references the need to battle 'illegal dilution or error' — a nod to unproven GOP claims there is widespread voting by noncitizens and other malfeasance. Prior reviews have found a fraction of a percentage of votes illegally cast by noncitizens. The section has previously brought cases against jurisdictions it says have unlawfully made it tougher to access the ballot. But last month, the Trump administration dropped its multiyear case against Texas, alleging the state redrew its 2020 maps in a way that discriminated against Black and Latino voters. The housing section in its mission statement was directed to primarily focus on religious freedom cases in zoning regulations. It typically focuses its work on cases of discrimination in housing, at financial institutions, and other places of business. 'Our sections are now being weaponized against the very people they are intended to protect,' said one attorney working in the Civil Rights Division who was granted anonymity to discuss the moves. The source said the department was focused on using 'its power in a way that's really political and really just intended to go after people, entities and institutions that Trump perceives are too liberal or not obsequious enough to him.' Employees last week were offered deferred resignation through an email from Dhillon – a second chance at the 'Fork in the Road' offer pushed by Elon Musk earlier in the administration. A number of civil rights division staffers have accepted the deal. One source said the number of staff members planning to take the deferred resignation offer could leave the division with 60 percent fewer attorneys than it had at the start of the year, estimating that the figure could stretch to 70 percent or 80 percent once final decisions are made ahead of the April 28 deadline for accepting the offer. Dhillon defended her moves on both the policy and personnel fronts, saying she looks forward to 'aggressively protecting' civil rights. 'Each new administration has its own priorities, and allocates resources accordingly. The Trump administration is no different. When I assumed my duties as Assistant Attorney General, I learned that certain sections in Civil Rights had substantial existing caseloads and backlogs, and that formed the basis of temporary details to assist those sections in getting, and staying, caught up,' she said in a statement. 'As to the [deferred resignation], throughout the federal government, workers are being offered a unique, generous, and voluntary opportunity to pursue their passions elsewhere. Many are taking this opportunity, and we thank them for their service and wish them well as they enter the next phase of their careers.' Young said the widespread resignations have crushed morale at the department. 'What I'm seeing and hearing is just trauma. And I think in the last few days, employees have kind of come to accept the fact that they are just destroying the division. I think people were very hopeful that some of their important work would be preserved, but I think people are losing hope in that possibility,' she said. 'There's just despair. These are people who joined the department to make a career of enforcing civil rights laws at the most important, consequential place to do it, and now they're seeing that place destroyed.' Zisser said the actions have not been happening in a vacuum. The Department of Education gutted much of its own internal Civil Rights Office, and the Department of Homeland Security toppled its own Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, calling it a 'roadblock' to enforcement. He encouraged the country's many civil rights nonprofits to pick up the mantle, as well as for private law firms to do so, including on a pro bono basis. 'A lot of that work is just going to be done by other entities instead, who need to pick up the slack,' Zisser said. But he acknowledged there are gaps — it's the Justice Department that has brought pattern or practice investigations against police departments, sometimes pushing them into consent decrees to promote changes of policies in response to excessive uses of force. Arthur Ago, director of strategic litigation at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said the organization does see an important role for itself but noted the loss of 'allyship in the federal government — it makes our work a lot harder.' He said the group would regularly make referrals to government agencies, but those at the Department of Education are now going unanswered. 'One hundred percent civil rights organizations like ours have to now fill the void that we are anticipating is created by this fundamental restructuring of the Department of Justice,' he said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
28-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Critics see ‘monumental shift' in Trump remaking of DOJ civil rights division
The Trump administration has shifted staff and undertaken a series of policy changes at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division that current and former staff say strike at the heart of its mission. Justice Department leadership has in recent weeks directed attorneys to focus on priorities laid out in executive orders from President Trump, such as 'Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports' and 'Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias.' It's a departure for a division that under former President Biden described itself as protecting the civil rights of all Americans, including 'some of the most vulnerable members of our society.' 'The impact is catastrophic. They are scaling back possibly, nearly all enforcement that they have been doing for decades on civil rights statutes they're required to enforce,' said Stacey Young, a longtime Civil Rights Division attorney who now runs Justice Connection. 'This is a monumental shift in the way the division operates, and it's going to result in American civil rights not being protected as they almost always have been.' The department last week removed roughly a dozen career leaders from their positions, pushing some into unrelated roles responsible for responding to public information requests and a complaint adjudication office. Many have since resigned, leaving many sections without any leadership beyond political appointees, with additional departures expected. Justin Levitt, a former deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights under former President Obama, said the moves were 'sidelining an enormous amount of very nonpartisan expertise' that has enforced the law under administrations of both parties. 'And the only reason you do that is if you didn't think that the laws were worth enforcing. That actually should really raise eyebrows in Congress,' he said. The sweeping changes come less than three weeks after the swearing in of Harmeet Dhillon, Trump's assistant attorney general for civil rights. The former co-chair of Lawyers for Trump, Dhillon backed Trump's efforts to challenge the 2020 election and also was among those defending him against a Colorado lawsuit arguing he should be barred from running for office due to leading an insurrection. The California lawyer has made a name for herself by championing conservative causes, suing on behalf of Trump supporters who said actions taken by San Jose police enabled a clash with counterprotestors. She represented a Google employee fired after he criticized the company's diversity policy by arguing biology was to account for why there were fewer female engineers at the company. She also sued California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) over his stay-at-home order during the COVID-19 pandemic, challenging the law on behalf of churches and other entities. In her short tenure, she's sent out new mission statements for the division's 11 sections, with many offering a passing reference to the major statutes they enforce — such as the Voting Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act — while directing attorneys to use orders from Trump to guide their priorities. 'The zealous and faithful pursuit of this section's mission requires the full dedication of the section's resources, attention, and energy to the priorities of the President,' the mission statement for the Educational Opportunities Section reads. Levitt said the Civil Rights Division has a long history of protecting populations that face discrimination, whether based on race, religion, gender, disability or other factors. 'The orientation coming out of the mission statements of the Civil Rights Division thus far seem to have forgotten that,' said Levitt, now a professor at Loyola Law School. 'It's very clear that Assistant Attorney General Dhillon made her name and came to Trump's attention bringing cases based primarily on white Christian male grievance.' In the new mission statements, Dhillon referenced a number of orders referencing transgender issues, seeking to limit transgender participation in sports and seeking to limit transition surgeries for children. It also points to orders about combating antisemitism — something some Jewish groups have said use the very real threat as a guise to target free speech. 'It seems to be that Harmeet Dhillon is taking it quite a bit further by not just undoing the traditional mission, but really flipping the mission on its head — using the Civil Rights Division against civil rights,' said Aaron Zisser, a former attorney in the division who now runs his own practice. 'That's a scary way to wield the enormous power and resources of the Department of Justice to punch way, way down,' he said, referencing cases about transgender youth in sports. 'Of course, they say, 'Our target is the school,' and they're investigating the school. But in fact, they're targeting the school in order to target this vulnerable population.' Employees are fearful the actions will undermine the spirit of a division formed in 1957 during the Civil Rights Movement and efforts to desegregate the South and protect the voting rights of Black Americans. In the division's Voting Rights Section, the mission statement now references the need to battle 'illegal dilution or error' — a nod to unproven GOP claims there is widespread voting by noncitizens and other malfeasance. Prior reviews have found a fraction of a percentage of votes illegally cast by noncitizens. The section has previously brought cases against jurisdictions it says have unlawfully made it tougher to access the ballot. But last month, the Trump administration dropped its multiyear case against Texas, alleging the state redrew its 2020 maps in a way that discriminated against Black and Latino voters. The housing section in its mission statement was directed to primarily focus on religious freedom cases in zoning regulations. It typically focuses its work on cases of discrimination in housing, at financial institutions, and other places of business. 'Our sections are now being weaponized against the very people they are intended to protect,' said one attorney working in the Civil Rights Division who was granted anonymity to discuss the moves. The source said the department was focused on using 'its power in a way that's really political and really just intended to go after people, entities and institutions that Trump perceives are too liberal or not obsequious enough to him.' Employees last week were offered deferred resignation through an email from Dhillon – a second chance at the 'Fork in the Road' offer pushed by Elon Musk earlier in the administration. A number of civil rights division staffers have accepted the deal. One source said the number of staff members planning to take the deferred resignation offer could leave the division with 60 percent fewer attorneys than it had at the start of the year, estimating that the figure could stretch to 70 percent or 80 percent once final decisions are made ahead of the April 28 deadline for accepting the offer. Dhillon defended her moves on both the policy and personnel fronts, saying she looks forward to 'aggressively protecting' civil rights. 'Each new administration has its own priorities, and allocates resources accordingly. The Trump administration is no different. When I assumed my duties as Assistant Attorney General, I learned that certain sections in Civil Rights had substantial existing caseloads and backlogs, and that formed the basis of temporary details to assist those sections in getting, and staying, caught up,' she said in a statement. 'As to the [deferred resignation], throughout the federal government, workers are being offered a unique, generous, and voluntary opportunity to pursue their passions elsewhere. Many are taking this opportunity, and we thank them for their service and wish them well as they enter the next phase of their careers.' Young said the widespread resignations have crushed morale at the department. 'What I'm seeing and hearing is just trauma. And I think in the last few days, employees have kind of come to accept the fact that they are just destroying the division. I think people were very hopeful that some of their important work would be preserved, but I think people are losing hope in that possibility,' she said. 'There's just despair. These are people who joined the department to make a career of enforcing civil rights laws at the most important, consequential place to do it, and now they're seeing that place destroyed.' Zisser said the actions have not been happening in a vacuum. The Department of Education gutted much of its own internal Civil Rights Office, and the Department of Homeland Security toppled its own Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, calling it a 'roadblock' to enforcement. He encouraged the country's many civil rights nonprofits to pick up the mantle, as well as for private law firms to do so, including on a pro bono basis. 'A lot of that work is just going to be done by other entities instead, who need to pick up the slack,' Zisser said. But he acknowledged there are gaps — it's the Justice Department that has brought pattern or practice investigations against police departments, sometimes pushing them into consent decrees to promote changes of policies in response to excessive uses of force. Arthur Ago, director of strategic litigation at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said the organization does see an important role for itself but noted the loss of 'allyship in the federal government — it makes our work a lot harder.' He said the group would regularly make referrals to government agencies, but those at the Department of Education are now going unanswered. 'One hundred percent civil rights organizations like ours have to now fill the void that we are anticipating is created by this fundamental restructuring of the Department of Justice,' he said.
