Letters to the Editor

New constitution is wrong for Iraqi people

The Iraqi people are thankfully free from the brutal
dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, but they now face an enemy that is
perhaps even more dangerous: their new constitution.

Daily Bruin cartoonist Alex Hoffman draws Iraq with the words
“We the People of Iraq” to compare it to
America’s constitution, but the similarities are only
superficial.

America’s constitution and founding documents declare the
supremacy of the individual citizen and the inalienability of
rights. To guarantee this, a clear separation of church and state
is established, and the right to free speech is clearly
defined.

Iraq’s new constitution, however, states that Islam is the
country’s official religion and a valid source of law. The
government may also prohibit any speech that it deems violates the
public morality and can even limit “any of the freedoms and
liberties stipulated in the constitution” as long as the
restrictions are deemed necessary.

It also permits the seizure of private property for any
“public benefit” and entitles all Iraqis to the
disastrous welfare state promises of free education, health care
and job security.

After being oppressed by a brutal dictator for so long, the
Iraqi people should realize that giving virtually unlimited power
to their new government is not only unwise ““ it is
suicide.

Kenneth Hurst

Chairman of L.O.G.I.C.

Lazar’s characterization of Hispanics inaccurate

In reading David Lazar’s criticism of the department of
Chicana/o studies’ sponsorship of a Marxist event, I was
struck by his characterization of the 40 percent of Hispanics who
voted for President Bush (“On-campus communist support
appalling,” Oct. 20). According to Lazar, they would not be
in favor of naming the department after César E. Chávez
because Bush voters are conservative capitalists.

Most of my family members voted for Bush in 2004 because of one
issue: abortion.

When I’ve asked them, they’ve told me they
don’t care much for Bush’s corporate welfare policies,
or his misguided war in Iraq, or his attempts to get rid of Social
Security. Like most people in the United States, my family members
voted on one or two issues important to them.

It’s disingenuous to make the claim that support for Bush
in 2004 equates to support for unfettered capitalism and automatic
opposition to Chávez.

Most of my family has a deep admiration for Chávez and what
he did for the struggle for Chicano civil rights. I’m sure
many Hispanics who voted for Bush in 2004 probably do too.

Lazar is too caught up in his Republican ideological crusade to
recognize this.

Antonio Sandoval

UCLA alumnus