If Cassius Clay (aka "Muhammad Ali") had been a white supremacist instead of a black supremacist - would he had been equally loved by pc media and pc justice?

This is what BBC won't tell the compulsory BBC fees paying Brits:

This is the final blow that pushed Cassius Clay's* already ongoing Parkinson's disease to its knockout stage. But what about the blow to the Supreme Court produced by an unnamed clerk to a justice ignorant about islam and fearing to be called a "racist"?

* Cassius was given the name "Muhammad Ali" by US worst racist supremacist group, the Nation of Islam, also known for its childish mythology and the number of murders it has committed.

Larry Holmes (left) badly beat "the greatest" (right) to an extent that definitely sealed the rest of Cassius' life under the spell of Parkisnon's disease.

The leader of the racist supremacist organization Nation of Islam is Louis Farrakhan who here spews his hate mongering in front of eager co-racists.

Farrakhan used to be defended by Sadiq Khan who was "elected" mayor of London by the help of supremacist muslims. Sadiq Khan is also known for his view on moderate muslims as "uncle Toms".

BBC asked an "expert" (who turned out to be Lieberman, a director of the Muhammad Ali Parkinson Center in Arizona) if boxing caused Cassius Clay's PD.

"I don't think it helped but I think he developed it slowly over a number of years," he said.

"People that develop Dementia Pugilistica are usually dead within three or four years - he's had Parkinson's for over 30 years.

"It started on one side, his brain looked relatively good on MRI scan, I can't tell you boxing didn't have a role but I think he had regular Parkinson's disease."


Klevius correction and clarification:

No, it couldn't have been Dementia pugilistica simply because the very definition of this diagnosis would have made it impossible for Cassius Clay to continue boxing at all. However, it should also be said that Dementia pugilistica is just the tip of an iceberg - i.e. waiting for the push of an already existing PD caused by head traumas, that will make the disease symptoms more visible and severe.

Dementia pugilistica (DP) is caused by repeated concussive and sub-concussive blows (blows that are below the threshold of force necessary to cause concussion), or both. Medical professionals have called for a ban since the 1950s. Symptoms and signs of DP develop progressively over a long latent period sometimes amounting to decades, with the average time of onset being about 12 to 16 years after the start of a career in boxing.

The condition, which occurs in athletes having suffered repetitive blows to the head, manifests as dementia, or declining mental ability, problems with memory, dizzy spells or lack of balance to the point of not being able to walk under one's own power for a short time and or Parkinsonism (a grave variant od PD), or tremors and lack of coordination. It can also cause speech problems and an unsteady gait. Patients with DP may be prone to inappropriate or explosive behavior and may display pathological jealousy or paranoia. Individuals displaying these symptoms also can be characterized as "punchy", another term for a person suffering from DP.

Damage associated with past traumas to the cervical spine and misalignments in the upper neck may lead to a total or partial CSF flow obstruction. These obstructions of cerebrospinal fluid flow are leading to changes in the brain, including CSF leaks and increased intracranial pressure. These brain changes constitute a probable cause of Parkinson’s Disease, multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, ALS, and Childhood Autism.

All in all there seems to be very little support for Lieberman's rejecting of boxing as the cause - and an abundance of reasons to the contrary.

Klevius (who also has written a PhD thesis about football) has always propagated for soft helmets for football players (no dude, I'm not talking about American hand "football"). While the ball has an inbuilt "airbag" and hence can't shake the brain over the limit, a skull to skull collision may well have the same effect as a boxing blow to the head when the boxer is already dizzy and less capable of using his neck muscles to soften the impact.

Why was Cassius Clay declared "religious" by the Supreme Court?

In 1890, the Supreme Court in Davis v. Beason: “[T]he term ‘religion’ has reference to one’s views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will.”

In 1961, the Supreme Court in Torcaso v. Watkins: The Court stated that the establishment clause prevents government from aiding “those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.” In a footnote, the Court clarified that this principle extended to “religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God … Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.”

United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965),[1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the exemption from the military draft for conscientious objectors could not be reserved only for those professing conformity with the moral directives of a supreme being, but also for those whose views on war derived from a "sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those" who had routinely gotten the exemption.

The case resolved, on diverse but related grounds, three cases, each involving conviction for failure to accept induction into the armed forces on the part of someone who sought conscientious objector status without "belong[ing] to an orthodox religious sect". The accused, whose cases were otherwise unrelated, were Arno Sascha Jakobson, Forest Britt Peter, and Daniel Andrew Seeger; it was Seeger's case that gave its name to the multi-case decision.


Welsh v. United  States 1970

Reversing Welsh's conviction, the Court held that " [i] f an in-
dividual deeply and sincerely holds beliefs which are purely ethical or
moral in source and content but which nevertheless impose upon him
duty of conscience to refrain from participating in any war at any
time.. ." he is entitled under the Military Selective Service Act of 1967'
to a conscientious objector exemption. 7
Religious objectors have been provided with some form of conscrip-
tion exemption since 1775 when the First Continental Congress unani-
mously passed a resolution exempting those who, because of "religious"
principles, could not lend themselves to the war effort." The Draft Act
of 19179 expressly exempted those of "any well recognized sect ... whose
existing creed or principles [forbade] . . .its members to participate in
war in any form." 10 In 1940, Congress included in the exemption not
only members of the accepted peace churches, but also individuals "who,
by reason of religious training and belief," are opposed to war in any
form.

The Court in its 1981 decision Thomas v. Review Board further expressed its reluctance to protect philosophical values. The Indiana Supreme Court had ruled that a decision by a Jehovah’s Witness to quit his job after he was transferred to a weapons-making facility was a “personal philosophical choice rather than a religious choice” and did not “rise to the level of a first amendment claim.” In overturning the Indiana decision, Chief Justice Warren Burger cautiously stated, “[o]nly beliefs rooted in religion are given special protection to the exercise of religion.” The Court found the worker’s actions to be motivated by his religious beliefs.

Klevius question: Proof enough of how the "god" confusion is allowed to still hide religious fascism from judicial scrutiny! How can we as civilized people even consider special treatment for people who "believe" in something they don't know anything about but rather use for very secular purposes?!

The case of Cassius Clay (also named "Muhammad Ali" by the worst racist supremacist hate organization in the US) and his "religious beliefs" is a deeply confused one.

Cassius Clay wanted to join the U.S. Armed Forces but failed the qualifying test in 1964 because his writing and spelling skills were "sub-standard". 

 However, with the escalation of the Vietnam War, the test standards were lowered in November 1965 and Clay was reclassified as 1-A in February 1966, which meant he was now eligible for the draft and induction into the U.S. Army. When notified of this status, he declared that he would refuse to serve in the U.S. Army and publicly considered himself a conscientious objector. Ali stated that "War is against the teachings of the Koran (sic)*. I'm not trying to dodge the draft. We are not supposed to take part in no wars unless declared by Allah or The Messenger. We don't take part in Christian wars or wars of any unbelievers."


* War against, and enslavement of the "infidel" is the very core of islamic teachings. And that was certainly what Nation of Islam had told him - yet he chose not to mention it. Do you see the parallels with what is going on in Sunni mosques around the world?

Cassius Clay's draft evasion by the help of a supremacist "religion"

Clay appealed his local (Louisville, Kentucky) draft board's rejection of his
application for conscientious objector classification. The Justice Department, in response to the State Appeal Board's referral for an advisory recommendation, concluded, that his claim should be denied and that he did not meet any of the three basic tests for conscientious objector status. The Appeal Board then denied his claim.

In early 1967, Clay changed his legal residence to Houston, Texas, where his appeal to be reclassified as a "muslim minister" was denied 4-0 by the federal judicial district on February 20. He appeared for his scheduled induction into the U.S. Armed Forces in Houston on April 28. He refused three times to step forward at the call of his name. An officer warned him he was committing a felony punishable by five years in prison and a fine of $10,000. Once more, he refused when his name was called. He was indicted by a federal grand jury on May 8 and convicted in Houston on June 20.The trial jury was composed of six men and six women, all of whom were white. The Court of Appeals affirmed and denied the appeal on May 6, 1968.

In the U.S. Supreme Court, the government conceded the invalidity of two of the grounds for denial of petitioner's claim given in its letter to the appeal board, but argued that there was factual support for the third ground.

Clay v. United States, 403 U.S. 698 (1971) was the appeal of his conviction in 1967 for refusing to report for induction into the United States military forces.  In a unanimous 8-0 ruling (Thurgood Marshall recused himself due to his previous involvement in the case as a Justice department official), the United States Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit's confirmation of the conviction.

The Court found that the government had failed to properly specify why Clay's application had been denied, thereby requiring the conviction to be overturned. A unanimous decision (8-0), "the court said the record shows that his beliefs are founded on tenets of the muslim religion "as he understands them".

The Supreme Court decision was handed down on June 28, 1971. The Supreme Court held that, since the appeal board gave no reason for the denial of a conscientious objector exemption to petitioner, and it is impossible to determine on which of the three grounds offered in the Justice Department's letter that board relied, the 1967 conviction must be reversed: "...the boxer's beliefs 'are surely no less religiously based' than those in previous cases." The Court incorporated Welsh v. United  States, in which the Court “'had ruled that moral and ethical objection to war was as valid as religious objection, thus broadening the qualifications.'”

The eight justices initially voted 5 to 3 to uphold the conviction. However, Justice Harlan, assigned to write the majority opinion, became convinced that Clay's claim to be a conscientious objector was sincere after reading background material on Black Muslim doctrine provided by one of his law clerks. To the contrary, Justice Harlan concluded that the claim by the Justice Department had been a misrepresentation. Harlan changed his vote, tying the vote at 4 to 4. A deadlock would have resulted in Ali being jailed for draft evasion and, since no opinions are published for deadlocked decisions, he would have never known why he had lost. A compromise proposed by Justice Stewart, in which Ali's conviction would be reversed citing a technical error by the Justice Department, gradually won unanimous assent from the eight voting justices.

Cassius Clay (aka "Muhammad Ali") "opposed all wars" - except islamist jihadism, i.e. what we today call islamist terrorists.

It's alleged that:

One of Justice Harlan's clerks began working on a draft of the majority opinion, and a second clerk persuaded him to reconsider Ali's opposition to war. In the book, neither of the clerks is named. But the second clerk, according to the authors, had been influenced by Alex Haley's “Autobiography of Malcolm X” and the Black Muslim text. “Message to the Black Man.” Soon the first clerk agreed that Clay was opposed to all wars, and that his willingness to participate in a holy war was irrelevant to his conviction.

At first Justice Harlan, appointed to the Supreme Court by President Eisenhower in 1954, did not sympathize with the clerk's view. But after studying the background material, Harlan changed his mind. To the shock of the other Justices, Justice Harlan suggested that Clay's conviction be reversed because the Justice Department had misrepresented the Black Muslim (Nation of Islam) doctrine. But a 4‐to‐4 vote would still send him to prison.

Fear of being called a racist back in the early 1970s and a technical error saved Cassius Clay from prison

Justice Stewart was particularly disturbed. He knew that no opinion would accompany a 4‐to‐4 vote, that Clay would never know why his conviction had been upheld. Justice Stewart proposed to set him free, citing the Justice Department's technical error. By not establishing precedent, the decision would not make all Black Muslims eligible to be conscientious objectors. All except Chief Justice Burger accepted Justice Stewart's alternative. However, Burger finally relented because he feared accusations as a racist if he dissented.