Free Website Hosting

Friday, July 31, 2009

Chinese Workers Say Illness Is Real, Not Hysteria


Du Bin for The New York Times

Zhang Fusheng, a 29-year-old textile worker, was tethered to an oxygen line at the Jihua hospital.


Published: July 29, 2009

JILIN CITY, China — Tian Lihua was just beginning her morning shift when she felt a wave of nausea, then numbness in her limbs and finally dizziness that gave way to unconsciousness. In the days that followed, more than 1,200 fellow employees at the textile mill where Ms. Tian works would be felled by these and other symptoms, including convulsions, breathing difficulties, vomiting and temporary paralysis.

Skip to next paragraph
Du Bin for The New York Times

From left, Deng Yanli, Tian Lihua and Li Xiuying at Jihua Hospital in Jilin. Ms. Deng told of suffering convulsions and dizziness.

“When I finally came to, I could hear the doctors talking but I couldn’t open my eyes,” she said weakly from a hospital bed last month. “They said I had a reaction to unknown substances.”

Ms. Tian and scores of other workers say the “unknown substances” came from a factory across the street that produces aniline, a highly toxic chemical used in the manufacture of polyurethane, rubber, herbicides and dyes.

As soon as the Jilin Connell Chemical Plant started production this spring, local hospitals began receiving stricken workers from the acrylic yarn factory 100 yards downwind from Connell’s exhaust stacks. On some days, doctors were overwhelmed and patients were put two to a bed.

A clear case of chemical contamination? Not so, say Chinese health officials who contend that the episode is a communal outbreak of psychogenic illness, also called mass hysteria. The blurry vision, muscle spasms and pounding headaches, according to a government report issued in May, were simply psychological reactions to a feared chemical exposure.

During a four-day visit, a team of public health experts from Beijing talked to doctors, looked at blood tests and then advised bedridden workers to “get a hold of their emotions,” according to patients and their families.

Western medical experts say fear of poisoning can lead people to describe symptoms that exist mainly in their minds. But outbreaks of psychogenic illnesses on the scale of what has been reported in Jilin are rare, they say.

The official diagnosis has done little to ease anxieties in Jilin, an industrial city in northeast China where verdant low-rise mountains form a backdrop to a thicket of smokestacks. More than two months since the health complaints began, at least two dozen people remain hospitalized, and many others insist that they are suffering from toxic poisoning. Local residents say the “mass hysteria” verdict is an attempt to cover up malfeasance.

“How could a psychological illness cause so much pain and misery?” said Zhang Fusheng, a 29-year-old textile worker, gasping as he lay tethered to an oxygen line in the hospital, his limbs seized up and his eyes darting back and forth. “My only wish is to get better so I can go back to work and take care of my family.”

In May more than 1,000 residents blocked railroad tracks in the city for hours to draw attention to the sick workers. Their ire intensified after the State Administration of Work Safety posted a statement on its Web site describing the problem as a “chemical leak” and advising other companies to learn from Connell Chemical’s mistake. After a few hours, however, the statement had been removed.

“We are simply laboratory mice in Connell’s chemical experiment,” said Xie Shaofeng, 34, a textile worker whose wife remains hospitalized.

The episode comes at a time of rising environmental degradation in China brought on by decades of heady growth and lax pollution controls. Although many people here have long lived with sullied air and water, they are increasingly aware of the toll that they take on human health and are demanding greater restrictions on noxious industries.

Fear of contamination was heightened last fall after the government acknowledged that thousands of children had been made ill by milk adulterated with melamine, an ingredient used in the manufacture of plastics.

The Ministry of Health in Beijing declined to provide details of their findings in Jilin, but according to local officials, investigators found no evidence of organ damage that would point to chemical exposure. They added that those claiming to be sick had been in different parts of the sprawling textile factory and offered inconsistent descriptions of the odor of what they said caused their symptoms.

Although they say those who fell ill in Jilin could have been poisoned, psychogenic experts outside China say it is also possible for some to have been affected by toxic fumes while others exhibited psychosomatic illnesses set off by real poisonings.

Robert E. Bartholomew, a sociologist at the International University College of Technology in Malaysia, said the government’s handling of the episode, including the ban on reports in the news media, might be fueling paranoia. “The best way to handle psychogenic illness is to be open and transparent, which tends to dissipate concerns,” said Mr. Bartholomew, a co-author of “Outbreak! The Encyclopedia of Extraordinary Social Behavior.” If it is indeed a case of mass hysteria, he said, it would be the largest instance of workplace psychogenic illness on record.

The episode is not Jilin’s first experience with the perils of aniline. In 2005, an explosion at another factory that produced the volatile substance killed eight people and sent 100 tons of deadly benzene and nitrobenzene into the Songhua River, tainting drinking water for millions of people downstream.

Public anxiety was high even before the new $125 million aniline plant opened in early April. During a test run last September, two security guards standing in front of the textile plant were overcome by fumes. Connell paid them compensation, although it is unclear what adjustments were made to the manufacturing process and, more important, the venting of its airborne byproducts, a mix of carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide and nitrogen oxide.

Shortly after production began, Li Hongwei, a 34-year-old Connell worker, collapsed and died on the job. Although rumors suggested that he had been poisoned, factory officials insist that Mr. Li succumbed to a heart attack. His family, which received a compensation package that included a job for his wife and a monthly $200 stipend for his mother and son, declined to talk to reporters.

After Mr. Li’s death, the authorities forced Connell to halt production for a month. But in early June, not long after it resumed, Wang Shulin, a 38-year-old technician at the textile mill, went into convulsions while on the job. He was sent to the hospital but died just as doctors were administering a CT scan, according to co-workers. The cause of death was a brain hemorrhage.

Factory officials insist that Mr. Wang’s death had nothing to do with chemical exposure.

Such assurances have done little to quiet fears that Connell continues to taint the air. Li Jingfeng, 35, an electrician at an ethanol plant that abuts the aniline plant, said chemical detectors at his factory had gone off five or six times in the last month, forcing workers to evacuate. “Everyone is nervous about what’s coming out of that place,” he said.

Skip to next paragraph
Du Bin for The New York Times

The Jilin Connell Chemical Plant began producing aniline, a highly toxic chemical used in manufacturing, in the spring.

The New York Times

Textile workers were stricken in the industrial city of Jilin.

Those who continue to insist that they were poisoned have placed local officials in a difficult position. Some patients have been sent to other cities for treatment; those who refuse to leave local hospitals say doctors have been given orders to stop their medication. To get the skittish back to work, factory officials have added an incentive of $20 to $30 to monthly salaries that range from $120 to $200.

In interviews, a half-dozen of those still hospitalized in Jilin said they had not been given a diagnosis nor were they allowed to see their medical records. One of them, Deng Yanli, 30, who is troubled by convulsions and constant dizziness, showed a receipt for 10 medications that included vitamin injections, pills to combat nausea and other treatments commonly given to stroke victims. She said doctors at Jihua Hospital stopped administering the drugs in early June in an effort to get her to leave.

The hospital director referred questions to the Jilin City Health Bureau, which issued a statement saying, “We have done our best diagnosing and treating these patients.”

Officials at Connell, which has resumed full production, say they are eager to move past the episode. Although privately owned, the plant has a complicated corporate structure that includes investors from Hong Kong and a number of local government officials. The aniline plant and the neighboring textile mill are partly owned by one another, and Connell, according to a company Web site, also runs a pharmaceutical concern that supplies Jilin City hospitals with 90 percent of their intravenous drugs.

Cementing the company’s prominence is its president, Song Zhiping, a representative to the National People’s Congress, China’s legislative body.

Connell executives said Ms. Song was traveling during a reporter’s visit to their offices, but Xu Zhongjie, vice chairman for corporate governance, said Ms. Song felt wounded by the allegations against her company, which he described as preposterous. “I come here every day, and do I look sick?” he asked with a broad smile. “If we were spreading poison, the government wouldn’t allow us to continue production, and I have faith in the government.”

Xiyun Yang contributed research.

Microsoft and Yahoo Are Linked Up. Now What?

Yahoo, via European Pressphoto Agency

Carol Bartz of Yahoo and Steven A. Ballmer of Microsoft signed a global search agreement.


Published: July 29, 2009

The bumpy, marathon mating dance between Microsoft and Yahoo finally concluded on Wednesday, when the two companies announced a partnership in Internet search and advertising to take on the industry powerhouse Google.

But there was plenty of skepticism about whether the new partners could make a serious dent in Google’s dominance.

Even with the deal, the Microsoft-Yahoo search operation will be dwarfed by Google — with a 28 percent market share in the United States, versus 65 percent — and will face an uphill struggle to try to wean people away from Google’s simple white search page.

If Yahoo and Microsoft cannot persuade people to switch, they will not build the larger audience that will bring in more revenue from ads tied to searches.

“This battle is won or lost as the user sits at the keyboard,” said Peter S. Fader, a professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and co-director of its Interactive Media Initiative. “Google is winning for good, consumer-friendly reasons. You can’t just buy that.”

The Microsoft-Yahoo pact represents a pragmatic division of duties between the two companies, instead of the blockbuster deal Microsoft, No. 3 in the search market, was shooting for last year when it bid $47.5 billion to buy Yahoo, No. 2 in search.

That hostile offer was ultimately withdrawn by Microsoft, and its collapse led to lots of soul-searching at Yahoo and the replacement of its co-founder Jerry Yang with an outsider, Carol Bartz, in the chief executive role.

Under the pact, Microsoft will provide the underlying search technology on Yahoo’s popular Web sites. The deal will give a lift to Microsoft’s search engine, which it recently overhauled and renamed Bing. Its search ads will have broader reach and become more lucrative.

Bing, which tries to put search results in better context than rivals, has won praise and favorable reviews, after Microsoft spent years falling farther and farther behind Google in search.

For Yahoo, the move furthers the strategy under Ms. Bartz to focus the company on its strengths as a publisher of Web media sites in areas like finance and sports, as a marketer and leader in online display advertising.

“This deal allows Yahoo to invest in what we should be investing in for the future — audience properties, display advertising and the mobile Internet experience,” Ms. Bartz said in an interview on Wednesday. “Our vision is to be the center of people’s lives online.”

The terms of the 10-year agreement give Microsoft access to Yahoo’s search technologies. Yahoo will receive a lucrative 88 percent of the search-generated ad revenue from its own sites for the first five years of the deal, much higher than is standard in the industry.

After the takeover bid failed, the companies renewed talks about a partnership last summer. The talks included discussion of a large upfront payment from Microsoft.

But when Ms. Bartz joined Yahoo at the start of this year, the interest on the Yahoo side shifted. Ms. Bartz was more interested in steady revenue to ensure the longer-term financial health of Yahoo instead of a big payment, she said in a conference call Wednesday.

Shares of Yahoo fell 12 percent, to $15.14, after the deal was announced, apparently reflecting investors’ disappointment in the lack of a payment. Shares of Microsoft rose slightly.

“It feels kind of like a stab in the chest,” said Darren Chervitz, the co-manager of the Jacob Internet Fund, which owns about 100,000 shares of Yahoo. “It certainly feels like Yahoo is giving away their strong and hard-fought share of the search market for really a modest price.”

Now, Yahoo’s financial fate will be inextricably linked with Microsoft for years. “My sense is that Yahoo will regret making this move,” Mr. Chervitz said.

If the deal is completed next year as planned, and after the partnership is fully in place in three years, Yahoo estimates that its operating income will increase by $500 million a year, based on the anticipated higher search traffic and ad revenue, and a substantial drop in its investment in technology development.

Steven A. Ballmer, Microsoft’s chief executive, said in an interview that Ms. Bartz had driven a hard bargain. “Look,” he said, “she got 88 percent of the revenue and none of the cost.”

Still, Mr. Ballmer added that he won something he badly wanted as well: “I got an opportunity to swing for the fences in search.”

The crucial issue for the partnership, analysts say, is its ability to stop and reverse the advance of Google, which has steadily gained in search and search ad share in the last few years while Yahoo and Microsoft have kept on fading. Reversing the trend, they say, would give the partnership newfound credibility with advertisers and publishers.

“If Microsoft and Yahoo are 30 percent and growing in search, then the dynamics of the market can shift,” said David B. Yoffie, a professor at the Harvard Business School.

Mr. Fader of Wharton said he was not sure the partners would be able to shake up the business. “Microsoft is buying some market share, but there is no evidence they are going to change the game in any fundamental way,” he said. “What the Microsoft-Yahoo partnership needs is real breakthroughs to deliver disruptive innovation in search.”

Advertisers and Web publishers say they will be looking to the combination to improve its search technology and service and put more pricing pressure on Google, which has turned the small text ads that appear next to search results into a multibillion-dollar business.

“It could be a more competitive marketplace, but that’s not certain,” said Bob Liodice, president of the Association of National Advertisers, a trade group. “Google still holds two-thirds of the market.”

Branding was one important consideration in the deal. Yahoo will still control the look of the search features on its sites and will determine how search technology may be tailored differently for, say, entertainment and finance sites. But Yahoo’s search will include a logo saying “Powered by Bing.”

And Yahoo will be able to tap into records of searches for its own purposes, like monitoring the online behavior of anonymous users to more efficiently place online display advertisements.

Throughout a conference call and the later interviews, Ms. Bartz and Mr. Ballmer emphasized that combining the No. 2 and No. 3 companies in search would not harm competition but enhance it. Google was rarely mentioned by name, but it was the subtext of the conversation and the deal itself.

Ms. Bartz pointedly said the partnership would “put choice back in the hands of consumers, advertisers and publishers,” all of whom, she said, were “increasingly concerned” about the rising power of Google.

Microsoft and Yahoo said they expected resistance from Google. But Microsoft’s general counsel, Bradford L. Smith, said he looked forward to explaining the details of the planned partnership to antitrust officials in Washington and Brussels.

“There is a compelling case that this is going to increase competition,” Mr. Smith said.

The Microsoft-Yahoo stance, legal analysts noted, amounts to the assertion that Google is so dominant in Internet search and search advertising that the best way to foster competition and innovation is with a duopoly — with the Microsoft-Yahoo partnership creating a credible rival to Google.

That position, legal experts say, will take some skillful persuasion, since antitrust regulators typically oppose the creation of duopolies. But Yahoo, they say, is likely to contend that it could not afford to keep up in the technology arms race against Google, unlike Microsoft, and that Yahoo’s greatest chance for commercial success lies in focusing on being a Web media portal.

“That is a pretty strong story, and I suspect the one they will present to the Justice Department,” said Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University.

Miguel Helft and Ashlee Vance contributed reporting.


Bright Lights, Big Internet


Published: July 29, 2009

THIS summer, as in so many summers gone by, young aspirants to the creative class — would-be writers, musicians, artists, editors, comedians, performers, thinkers, provocateurs — are stepping off buses in Port Authority and trains in Penn Station, navigating their rented trucks and borrowed cars through outer-borough blocks. These new arrivals come to New York, first and foremost, to find one another, a flock of other young people like themselves. But they come also to seek success, to chase their “big break,” that vague but real moment when, as if by magic, one suddenly finds oneself on the opposite side of the glass from one’s nose print.

Is New York still worth the trip? Recessions tend to be hard on youthful dreams, but this downturn has proved especially dispiriting. Those in the print media have come to see their present fiscal woes as not merely cyclical but structural, and so their slashed workforce and diminished output seem unlikely to rebound any time soon. Galleries have closed. Foundations, their endowments devastated, have cut back on grants for the arts. Internships across the board are down by more than 20 percent. And those of us who still hold full-time jobs in creative fields are clinging to them for dear life, making it difficult for young people to pry any free for themselves.

Meanwhile, another destination beckons, a place that courses with all the raw ambition and creative energy that the hard times seem to have drained from New York. I am referring, of course, to the Internet, which over the past decade has slowly become the de facto heart of American culture: the public space in which our most influential conversations transpire, in which our new celebrities are discovered and touted, in which fans are won and careers made.

Wherever young creatives physically reside today, in their endeavors they are increasingly moving online: posting their photos, writing, videos and music, building a “presence” in the hope of winning an audience. Monetary rewards on the Internet are still scarce, it is true, but the cost of living is cheap and, more important, the opportunities for attention are plentiful. Every month more YouTube sensations emerge, more bloggers ink big book deals, more bands blow up through music Web sites and MySpace, and every day more young people seek their “big break” in the virtual megalopolis rather than in (or as well as in) the physical one.

The experience of moving online actually bears quite a few similarities to becoming a New Yorker. Disorienting and seemingly endless, the Internet conversation moves at lightning speed and according to unstated social rules that can bewilder outsiders. Also, like New Yorkers, residents of the Internet do not suffer fools, or mince words in belittling them, as anyone who has contributed a redundant post to Metafilter, or an earnest comment to Gawker, can attest.

In their scope, both the Internet and New York are profoundly humbling: young people accustomed to feeling special about their gifts are inevitably jarred, upon arrival, to discover just how many others are trying to do precisely the same, with equal or greater success. (For a vivid demonstration of this online, try to invent a play on words, and then Google it. You’ll be convinced that there is, in fact, “nothing new in the cloud” — a joke that a British I.B.M. employee beat me to last November.)

Moreover, the presence of an audience causes online residents to style themselves as outsized personae, as characters on a public stage. On the Internet, as in creative New York, everyone can possess a tiny measure of celebrity, and everyone pays attention to what everyone else is doing, all the time.

Six months after my own arrival in this city, when I began a brief stint in 2000 working in the Condé Nast building, I was surprised to see minor incidents from the elevators, or the cafeteria, appear in the pages of The New York Observer, just as a decade before they might have shown up in Spy magazine. Today, of course, that sort of mirthful over-scrutiny is everyone’s lot, as any misdirected e-mail message in any city or industry whatsoever is likely to find its way onto blogs and into the public domain.

But online, when creative affirmation finally arrives, it takes a very different form than it has in New York. In the offline world, getting a “big break” is a matter of impressing a subjective intelligence, one person or a few people who look at work with an experienced eye and declare there’s something to it. Up until now, it has been intimate encouragement that has literally set the course of whole careers: a gallery offers a show, a record label dangles a contract, a prospective boss plucks one résumé from a sheaf, and a path forward is set.

Such moments of recognition, by individuals or small groups, have helped to decide not merely who succeeds but at what. A nice note from a famous poet can cause an amorphously creative young person to throw the novels and screenplays overboard and take up verse for life. Without intervention from The New Yorker, John Updike might well have been a cartoonist, James Thurber a journalist, William Shawn himself a composer.

On the Internet, however, it’s not one single subjectivity but a popular hive-mind that decides. The “big break” arrives when, with lightning speed and often to one’s own surprise, the inscrutable pack decides to start forwarding one’s content around.

Like the note from the poet, the viral blowup online is transformative: The Gregory Brothers, transplants to Brooklyn from Radford, Va., are a serious soul band, but ever since the sudden success, this spring, of their deliriously funny YouTube series “Auto-Tune the News” (which turns news footage of politicians and pundits into pop jams), they’ve been devoting ever more time to keeping their hundreds of thousands of online fans entertained. Talk to anyone who makes culture online and you’ll often hear a similar story — of the first Web site that took off, or the video or the new meme successfully disseminated.

And so the move online changes how we make art, but the road ahead there is uncharted and perilous. In the old model, young creatives dreamed of entertaining the millions, but in practice they could do so only by first pleasing a small group of gatekeepers: established figures who controlled access to the audience and, in doing so, protected young people from that audience, its obsessions and desertions, its adoration and its scorn. These old hands had to worry about the numbers, of course, but they rationalized the upticks and downticks through a certain set of professional values, which they themselves spent years imbibing and which they in turn pressed upon their wards.

Online, though, the audience can be yours right away, direct and unmediated — if you can figure out how to find it and, what’s harder, to keep it. What to you is a big break is, to this increasingly sophisticated and fickle audience, just one forwarded e-mail message in a teeming inbox, to be refilled again tomorrow with a whole new slate of distractions. “Microcelebrity” is now the rule, with respect not only to the size of one’s fan base but also to the duration of its love. Believe it or not, the Internet is a tougher town than New York; fewer people make it here, but no one there seems to make it for long.

Bill Wasik, a senior editor at Harper’s, is the author of “And Then There’s This: How Stories Live and Die in Viral Culture.”

“Dollar nahin deinge, woh hum rakhain ge”


By Ali Eteraz

Last Saturday in various Pakistani papers at once, Fiza Batool, the daughter of the current Prime Minister of Pakistan, Syed Reza Gilani, wrote one of the most flattering — I don’t think that quite captures it — pieces of political fluff about Bilawal Bhutto, the son of the late Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari, the current President of Pakistan. Bilawal, who is 20 and still at Oxford, is being touted as the next leader of the Pakistan’s People’s Party, which was founded by his grandfather, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. He recently gave a speech to party faithful.

This article by Fiza Batool — who is the mother of a 9-year old and is not some adolescent in high school — exalts Bilawal to godly heights. It must be read in full. Be prepared for gems such as:



A leader with vision
Saturday, July 25, 2009
By Syeda Fiza Batool Gilani

The stage was set and the moment had arrived. It was time to introduce the next generation of Bhutto and Zardari to the world-- Bilawal, Bakhtawar and Assefa. Who would have imagined that these children, who had always preferred to stay away from the glitz and paranoia of the dangerous world of politics would one day be entering it albeit, owing to circumstances neither to their liking nor of their own doing. But it was the tragic and unfortunate assassination of their beloved mother that invoked them to change course and set afoot on a dangerous path trodden with surprises and anguish. While friends of Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto say she always envisaged Bilawal becoming her political heir, they agree that she would not have wanted him to have to bear such a burden so young.

In an interview in 2004, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari was asked if he wanted to enter Pakistani politics. “We will see, I don’t know. I would like to help the people of Pakistan, so I will decide when I finish my studies,” he said.

Today, he stood tall being forced into a decision much earlier than he would have imagined then.

A person’s character is best judged once he is pitted against odds. Bilawal had to endure the loss of his mother when he so needed her to be around him to pamper him, to love him and to see him grow. Yet he lost it all in the flash of a second. It was at this crucial moment in his life that there emerged a leader out of him in whose voice echoed the words of his mother “democracy is the best revenge”.

All these thoughts resonated through my head and my eyes flooded with tears as I sat in the Presidency on the 18th of July 2009, listening to the magnanimous speech delivered by Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto’s only son and the Chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party. The event was attended by the parliamentarians and ticket-holders of Pakistan People’s Party, who had been awarded tickets for the elections by Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto herself in 2007, along with their children and families.

This was not the first time that I had met Bilawal, Bakhtawar or Assefa, yet there was something different about Bilawal tonight. This young man standing on the podium, talking to the members of the party, formulated by his grandfather and nourished by his mother had come a long way from the libraries of Christ Church, Oxford. Today, he seemed like an embodiment of perfection, ideally suited to hold the reigns as a true heir to the legend of the party; a people’s man, a true Bhutto.

There were many who had gone to the event with doubtful minds. They wondered as to whether this young lad in his twenties, who did not even reside in this country, could be entrusted with the enormous responsibility of leading the largest political party of this country and in future, the country itself. And this is what he had to say to clear the doubts of one and all. “The Pakistan People’s Party can and will solve all challenges. As the future generation, what can we promise the people of Pakistan? We can promise them that we shall deliver what our older generation has not yet delivered.”

There was resolve, commitment, resoluteness but most importantly, there was recognition and acceptance of the fact that promises made had not entirely been fulfilled yet and it was the right of the people of Pakistan to point out the anomalies of the government in addressing the needs of the people.

This coming from the chairman of the party that is in government is a big accolade and surely, we Pakistanis are not used to such true self analysis and accountability.

On that evening, everybody present there saw Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto come to life again in Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. This young man has the potential, the capability and the courage to lead this party and this country forward. As I listened to Bilawal with tears in my eyes, I felt hope, hope that I had long forgone since the Shahadat of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto. It just occurred to me sitting there that this was what Mohtarma meant once she aptly titled her last book ‘Reconciliation’. It is time to reconcile with the fact that the next generation of the Bhuttos is ready, ready to take on from where their predecessors left and when Bilawal says, “Khoon chaihay, khoon dein gay; sir chahiyay, sir dein gay, jaan chahiyay, jaan dein gay,” you know that this young man really means it because his name ‘Bilawal’ means “one without equal”.

The writer is the daughter of Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani

Musharraf in London

By Ayesha Ijaz Khan

As a commando, Musharraf was probably taught to act first and think later. And that is precisely what he has done by choosing to make London his interim home. I use the word “interim” because I am sure that had he thought rationally about permanent relocation, he would have opted for one of the Gulf States. The UAE, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia offer fancier lifestyles with villas, well-priced cooks, drivers and maids. Hobnob with the royalty and other favours may also be granted, such as use of private aircraft, a privilege Musharraf is said to have availed of often. For those so inclined, there is also no dearth of music parties, even in Saudi Arabia, where I spent twelve years as a child. Not to mention, in Musharraf’s case, far better protection from the law in Pakistan and immunity from trial in general.

In London, by contrast, flats are generally small, house help is paid by the hour, and although at the moment Musharraf is being provided state security, questions are being raised about it in Parliament and efforts made by the likes of Lord Nazir to contact the lawyers who had helped extradite Chile’s Pinochet. By all accounts, Musharraf’s future in London is bleak and a significant downgrade from what he was accustomed to in Pakistan. Why, then, would he have chosen London?

The only reason that I can think of is that London is politically active. The Gulf states, on the other hand, are comfortable but politically dead. When he left Pakistan, he must have been certain of his return and, moreover, of his political revival. He must not have seriously considered the Supreme Court asking him to appear and explain the actions of Nov 3, 2007.

As someone who criticised Musharraf harshly and continually ever since he deposed the chief justice in March 2007, I find it odd now that he resides about a twenty-minute walk from me. And although I have neither seen him nor met him in London, in spite of the fact that I regularly run errands in and around Edgware Road and often pass by his building, Indian acquaintances claim that they saw him working on his biceps at the local gym. They could very well be pulling my leg.

I have been informed by a well-connected Pakistani visiting London this summer that Musharraf paid 1.4 million pounds sterling for a three-and-a-half bedroom flat off Edgware Road. For those not familiar with the London property market, a half-bedroom is one where a single bed can fit, but not a double bed. If in fact Musharraf did pay that amount, all I can say is that he has been royally ripped off!

The flat in question should have cost no more than a million pounds, and the price being quoted is a third too much. Edgware Road is a decent locality, but by no means the most expensive in London. Had the property been situated in nearby Mayfair or St John’s Wood, it could have easily fetched the price being quoted, but on Edgware Road, unless one is selling to a recent immigrant who needs an urgent foothold in London and is unaware of the going rate, values tend to be lower than several other central-London localities.

London does, of course, have its share of Nigerian generals, Thai politicians and Russian intelligence bosses trying to secure their place in exile, although the Russians have far too much money and often gravitate around the more expensive Belgravia. In fact, London’s property market is more reliant on foreign money than perhaps any other in the world. The most expensive property in London was purchased two years ago by the Emir of Qatar for a whopping 110 million sounds. His super-posh One Hyde Park address is reputed to have its own private tunnel linking it to the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in prestigious Knightsbridge. Sheikh Hamad’s 2007 purchase outdid Indian businessman Lakshmi Mittal’s 2004 purchase of a Kensington mansion, which he bought for 70 million pounds and allegedly spent another 20 million on refurbishment.

The building identified to me as Musharraf’s, on the other hand, is average by London standards, not posh. Far from a palace in Surrey or a mansion in Jeddah, the building in question, along with the one in front of it, are popular with visitors from South Asia and the Arab world. It is also perhaps worth mentioning that several Pakistani politicians and businessmen and/or their children owned flats in those buildings prior to Musharraf’s purchase. It may also be noted that the leaders of some of our political parties, including Mian Nawaz Sharif, President Zardari, and Imran Khan’s children live in far better localities in London or New York (as the case may be) and in more expensive properties. I am not at all suggesting that owning expensive properties is proof of any wrongdoing, but, if asked, the owner in question should be prepared to explain the source of wealth and present proof of taxes paid commensurate with the value of his\her assets.

The idea of this piece is by no means to present a defense of Musharraf, for I feel strongly that he must face the courts in Pakistan foremost for acting against the judiciary and violating the sanctity of the Constitution. But if we choose to speak of financial corruption, then we must be fair and maintain perspective. That is what justice demands of us.

Courtesy WhizNews

Musharraf, Imran Khan and Overseas Pakistanis

By AYESHA IJAZ KHAN

July 29, 2009

Although their politics is polls apart, there is one thing that Musharraf and Imran Khan have in common. Both have more support abroad than within Pakistan . Pakistani expatriates, often disturbed by the poverty, lacking social welfare infrastructure and corruption they find on annual trips home, come back pining for “radical change,” a familiar refrain of Imran Khan’s support base. It was this yearning for radical change in fact that led many overseas Pakistanis to initially back Musharraf’s military coup against Nawaz Sharif’s elected government in October 1999.

To be honest, by late 1999, Nawaz Sharif had alienated most of his voters, in spite of the fact that in February 1997 he had swept the polls with a formidable majority. Draconian press controls, a dollar freeze that led the rupee to tumble, constant changing of army chiefs and a desire to become the ameer ul momineen (ruler of the faithful) which smacked more of an archaic kingship than a modern day democracy led few to shed tears for Nawaz Sharif when Musharraf announced a coup in mid-air and took over the reins of power.

Nevertheless, it was during the eight years of Musharraf’s military rule that Pakistanis realized the importance of well-functioning democratic institutions and the rule of law. A courageous two-year lawyers’ movement led to the restoration of a judiciary that now works independent of pressure from the executive and legislature. A vibrant and free press, initially supported by Musharraf’s government, was thwarted when it criticized the ruling regime. But the media, like the lawyers, refused to comply with unreasonable restrictions and fought for their freedom. Most importantly, for the first time in Pakistan ’s history, the military was openly blamed for the ills of society. A new and fresh transparency within Pakistan led many to conclude that democracy, with all its ills, is the best alternative and that in order to benefit from it fully Pakistanis would have to develop mechanisms to hold their leaders accountable. Thus, reform-minded Pakistanis have focused their energies on attaining an independent judiciary, a free press and a neutral army.

Yet, overseas Pakistanis, often unaware of how rapidly democratic institutions are evolving within Pakistan and how quickly the politics is maturing, are still searching for one-man saviours. A newly-formed London-based group called the “lovers of Musharraf” is looking to re-launch the retired general into politics. Comprising mostly of well-connected businessmen who had financially benefited from investing in real estate and the stock market during Musharraf’s time and are entirely unaware of the large sections of society who never saw the trickle down effect of his economic policies, not to mention the looming charges of treason against Musharraf for imposing a second martial law on November 3, 2007, think that Musharraf was the best thing that ever happened to Pakistan and must be brought back into power.

On the other end of the spectrum, are the Imran Khan supporters. For them, nothing in Pakistan has ever gone right. In spite of the fact that in a recent poll eighty percent of the country is supporting the military in its fight against the Taliban, the Imran Khan supporters continue to refer to it as “ America ’s war” and Mr. Khan insists that the Pakistani army is playing a mercenary role. His supporters deride the VIP culture of the politicians in power and constantly blame the west generally, and America in particular, for propping up corrupt leadership that does not think in the national interest because their own assets and children are abroad. Conveniently, they overlook the fact that Mr. Khan’s own children are also abroad and are, in all likelihood, being funded by assets abroad, even if those assets do not belong to Mr. Khan himself.

Within Pakistan however most potential voters are looking to the mainstream political parties to reinvent themselves. In addition to an assertive judiciary and vigilant press, several politically active pressure groups are organizing for change and yielding positive results. A few days ago, for the first time in Pakistan ’s history and owing to the efforts of some dedicated activists, a feudal lord, who had illegally appropriated village land, was forced to return it to its rightful owners, the Kashkeli peasants. In other news, President Zardari’s handpicked nominee for the Ambassador to Paris post was collectively rejected by the Foreign Office and several retired ambassadors. Since the members of the Foreign Service refused to accept the President’s choice, the Prime Minister intervened and reversed the President’s decision.

The Prime Minister, Yousaf Reza Gillani, is slowly but surely asserting himself. A conciliatory personality and not a beneficiary of the controversial National Reconciliation Ordinance that has pardoned other allegedly corrupt politicians (including President Zardari), Prime Minister Gillani is trying to be responsive to the critiques of the press and the needs of the people. In a recent interview, he declared that he wanted to make appointments based on merit, and not on the liking of any one individual, hinting at President Zardari’s nepotistic style. Gillani also spoke out against a recent law initiated by President Zardari’s cronies that sought to punish those who poked fun at Zardari through text messages and emails. If there is one thing that can bring a government down in Pakistan , it is restricting free speech. It contributed to both Nawaz Sharif and Musharraf’s downfall. The late Benazir Bhutto never attempted to curb freedom of expression and yet President Zardari is slow to learn, but Gillani is an older hand at politics and were he to assert himself further, he would find support from many corners.

Neither is the close scrutiny of the public representatives limited to those in government. The opposition has also felt the heat lately, as one prominent Pakistani recently confided to me, “It has become very difficult to be a politician in Pakistan .” Four members of Nawaz Sharif’s party have recently been the subject of public disdain and there is considerable pressure on Mr. Sharif to expel them from his party. One of his party members has been accused of rape, another of harassing customs officials, and a third, a female member of the national assembly, has been caught on CCTV buying jewellery on a stolen credit card. While previously the rich and powerful could get away with much in Pakistan . Things are different today. With a media able and willing to disgrace and a judiciary with a mind of its own, the threat of accountability is far more real than it used to be.

The future of Pakistan ’s politics thus belongs to men and women from the mainstream political parties who are able to distinguish themselves from their colleagues and demonstrate that they really have the people’s interests at heart. It does not belong to fringe politicians like Musharraf and Imran Khan, both of whom claim to represent the silent majority but cannot prove it at the polls.

The writer is a London-based lawyer turned political commentator. Website: www.ayeshaijazkhan.com

A Critique of Religious Extremism

According to a repot contained in the books of Hadith, once, during a battle, a Muslim received a grievous injury on his head. The next morning, the man needed to have a bath, but for him to do so was dangerous, for it could make his wound ever more severe. He turned to some of his fellow Muslims and asked them what he should do. They answered that since water was available he could not escape the rule of having a bath. He followed their instructions, but, as a result, his condition worsened and he died. When the Prophet Muhammad learned of this, he was extremely sad, and announced, ‘They have killed the man. May God destroy them.’

The issue of whether or not the wounded man was obliged, according to Islamic law, to have a bath or not was one that involved ijtihad or the application of reason on the sources of Islamic law. It is evident from this story that the Prophet was greatly angered at the decision that the men made. This indicates that making mistakes in ijtihad is excusable only to a certain extent. In ordinary circumstances, such mistakes might be forgiven, but in very sensitive matters, such as those that involve people’s life and death, it is better to abstain from offering any ijtihad-based opinion. To do so, and, further, to insist on one’s opinion, is inexcusable. It is an indication of the loss of faith.

The above mentioned hadith report concerns an error of ijtihad that involved damage to a single individual. Naturally, an error of this sort, but on a larger scale, such as that which causes harm to a large number of people, is even more unforgivable and much more serious.

If a Mufti gives a wrong fatwa in response to a query as to whether or not one should face in the direction of the Kaaba while bathing, there is no danger of this causing any damage to anyone’s life. But a wrong fatwa about whether or not Islamic laws require a badly injured person to bathe is of a different sort, for it can seriously endanger the person’s health. The two sorts of issues are not the same. In the first case, a person who makes a mistake in his ijtihad will be rewarded by God for his good intention in engaging in ijtihad, but a mistake made in the second case is an inexcusable crime. On issues on which the very fate and lives of individuals and communities crucially depend, it is incumbent on Muftis to remain silent till the very end. If, finally, they have to speak out, they should do so bearing in mind that they would have to be answerable for the opinion before God. This matter relates to the issue of violence and extremism as well.

In a hadith report attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, he is said to have advised his followers not to be harsh with regard to their own selves. Else, he said, they would be dealt harshly with. He added that a particular community was harsh on itself, and then God was also harsh with it. The remnants of that community, he said, were those who lived in churches and monasteries.

The extremism that this hadith report refers to is not related just to religion or a certain form of world-renouncing and extreme monasticism. Rather, it relates to all aspects of human life. It applies to all cases where the middle path is abandoned and replaced with extremism.

The extremist lives in his own world. He knows only what he believes and wants. He is like the person who imagines that a road is empty and drives his car at full-speed. Naturally, such a person can never be successful in achieving his goals. The key to success in this world is the middle path, the path of balance, which is the opposite of extremism. Extremism may be said to be an attitude or a life-style that is contrary to God’s plan of creation. Contrarily, following the balanced way or the middle-path is the means to live out one’s life constructively, and in accordance with that plan. Naturally, then, extremism has no room in Islam, if Islam is properly understood.


God dislikes extremism. Those who take to the extremist path finally end up making extremism part of their very understanding of religion. The generations that follow them then feel obliged to follow precisely that path, wrongly believing it to be mandated by God. They are made to believe that if they turn their backs on extremism they would be less committed to their religion, as they understand it, than their forebears were.

As in matters of religion, extremism with regard to other issues must also be avoided. Take, for instance, the case of the struggle for the political and economic rights of a community. For this purpose, there are, broadly, two ways of acting. One is peaceful struggle; the other is violent agitation. Peaceful struggle and activism is the best path. The violent or extremist path would only invite unnecessary suffering for the community. If it is presented as something mandated by religion, it will turn into a precedent that others will be tempted to follow, even if it does not produce the required results, because people might start believing that not adopting an extremist posture is tantamount to straying from the faith or that it is synonymous with cowardice.

Extremism, including religious extremism, indicates a profound blindness to reality and to existing opportunities. It indicates that one is ruled by emotion, instead of by reason. It indicates haste and impulsiveness, instead of far-sightedness and gradualism. It indicates a total disregard for one’s own or one’s community’s limits. It is analogous to a man who takes burning coals in his hand in order to gauge their heat, or one who uses his head as a hammer in order to break a boulder. Action of this sort clearly trespasses the set limits, and those who take to this path can never succeed in this world.

(This is a translation of a section in Maulana Wahiduddin Khan’s Urdu book Islam Aur Intiha Pasandi [‘Islam and Extremism’] [Positive Thinkers Forum, Bangalore, n.d., pp. 54-58]).

The Positive Thinkers Forum can be contacted on
positivethinkersforum@rediffmail.com

True Islam is Opposed to Terrorism

If properly understood, Islam is the very opposite of terrorism and has nothing to do with it. The word ‘Islam’ is derived from the root s-l-m, which means ‘peace’. Hence, Islam, correctly interpreted, is a religion of peace. Naturally, a religion that describes itself as a religion of peace can have no relation with terrorism, if that religion is interpreted in the right manner. In the Quran the Prophet Muhammad is referred to as rahmat al-il alamin, or ‘mercy unto the worlds’. He is thus a source of mercy for all of humankind, and not just Muslims alone. Naturally, then, his teachings can have no room for terrorism at all.

In a report recorded in the books of Hadith, it is said that every morning, before the fajr or morning prayer and after completing the tahajjud prayer, the Prophet Muhammad would beseech God, saying, ‘Oh Allah! I bear witness that all humans are brothers of each other.’ This being the case, how can anyone kill his innocent brethren? All men and women are brothers and sisters unto each other. Hence, they must have love and concern for the welfare of all. This is precisely what Islam, if correctly interpreted, requires of its followers.

According to another hadith report, the Prophet Muhammad is said to have declared, ‘All creatures are part of God’s family.’ This is a wonderful expression of true universalism. It clearly announces that all of humankind, irrespective of religion or community, belongs to the same family of God. In this way, this hadith report is a declaration of the slogan about the world being a global village which we are today so familiar with.

Given Islam’s clears teaching about all creatures being members of God’s family, it is ironical that some Muslims care nothing about killing innocent people, and that too in the name of Islam. This must be considered to be wholly un-Islamic. When conflicts arise between Muslims and other communities, violence is not the right approach, for it gives rise to terrorism. As the Quran instructs us, ‘Reconciliation is best’. This means that the proper way to solve conflict is not through violence, which leads to terrorism, but, rather, through peaceful discussion and dialogue. One must adopt constructive, not destructive, approaches to conflict resolution.

According to another hadith report, God gives in return for gentleness what He does not in the case of hard-heartedness. This report relates to the consequences of one’s behaviour or approach. If we have a dispute or conflict with someone, fighting him or her will not solve it. In contrast, the only way to do so is through peaceful dialogue and exchange of views. This is what Islam itself demands of us.

Islam, properly understood, does not teach us to hate others. To hate others can be said to be haram or forbidden in Islam. Let me cite an instance in this regard. The Prophet was born in Mecca, and it was there that he announced his prophethood. Thirteen years later, he shifted to Medina. There were numerous Jews living in Medina at that time. One day, he saw a funeral procession and stood up, as a sign of respect, as it passed. One of his followers pointed out that this was a funeral procession of a Jewish man. In other words, he indicated that the Prophet had stood up as the procession had passed despite the fact that the deceased was a Jew, not a Muslim. In reply, the Prophet responded, ‘Was he not a human being?’ That is to say, are not Jews also human beings? This clearly indicates that we have to respect everyone, in their capacity of being creatures of God, including Jews. This shows that terrorism has no place in Islam, if Islam is properly understood.

Terrorism can be defined as illegitimate violence to have one’s demands met. Therefore, those who label terrorism as a jihad are making a mockery of Islam. Jihad can only be declared by a regular government or state authority, not by ordinary citizens. Today, terrorism takes, broadly, two forms: proxy war and guerilla war. I can say with full confidence that both of these forms of terrorism are haram or forbidden in Islam. Proxy war is illegitimate in Islam because Islam requires that a declaration of war be explicitly made before war can be actually waged, while a proxy war, by definition is one that is unannounced and engaged in indirectly, by using local agents. Likewise, guerilla war is also forbidden in Islam, because such a war involves civilians taking up arms against an established government in the name of jihad. It cannot be considered as a legitimate jihad because the right to declare jihad, as I mentioned earlier, rests only with the state authorities.

Let me conclude this essay by reflecting on the on-going violence in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, which some self-styled Islamist groups claim to be a legitimate Islamic jihad. The violence that continues to rage in the state is, clearly, a combination of proxy war and guerilla war, and so is absolutely haram or forbidden, according to Islam. People often complain that the media is being unfair by describing this terrorism in Kashmir as ‘Islamic terrorism’, thereby giving Islam a bad name. But, the question is, when people who call themselves Muslim are themselves engaging in terror in the name of Islam, by what other name should the media refer to this violence? It is for Muslims to desist from this un-Islamic violence and from giving Islam a bad name by claiming terrorism to be Islamically-legitimate jihad.


This is a translation, in slightly edited form, of an article by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, titled ‘Islam Aur Dehshatgardi Ek Dusre Ki Zadd’ (‘Islam and Terrorism Are Polar Opposites’), in Farooq Argali (ed.) Islam Aur Dehshatgardi (‘Islam and Terrorism’), New Delhi: Farid Book Depot, 2003, pp. 85-88).

On Self-Styled ‘Jihadism’ and the Pakistan Situation


Dismal State of Affairs in Pakistan

Fierce fighting continues to rage between the Pakistani Army and Taliban forces along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Every day, reports pour in of vast numbers of people being killed in this violence. Ironically, both parties to the conflict are Muslims, and both claim to want to impose Islamic laws in Pakistan.

The Pakistani Army has named its current anti-Taliban offensive as ‘Operation Direct Action’. Strangely enough, in 1946, just prior to the creation of Pakistan, the Muslim League launched what it called ‘Direct Action’ against the Hindus. Now, Pakistani leaders have begun ‘Direct Action’ against Pakistani Muslims themselves. The head of the Pakistani Army, General Ashfaq Parvez, is quoted as having admitted with regard to the against the Taliban that, ‘There is a difference between conventional war and the present one. In the ongoing war, it is difficult to identify friends or foes.’

The on-going war between the Pakistani Army and the Taliban is not the result of any so-called ‘conspiracy’ on the part of external, non-Muslim forces. Instead, it is entirely the result of the tragic and monumental blunders of Muslim leaders themselves. One of these blunders relates to Pakistan’s arming of terrorists to wage its self-styled jihad in Kashmir. This was, without doubt, something wholly un-Islamic, because in Islam the legitimate use of arms is limited only to the state or established government. The internecine strife that Pakistan is witnessing today is the heavy price that it is paying for this costly mistake made by its leaders. And, it seems very clear to me, the ongoing ‘Operation Direct Action’ will not be able to end this strife.

The second blunder which has resulted in the seemingly ceaseless strife in Pakistan is the result of an erroneous political interpretation of Islam. The Pakistani Government as well as the Taliban have promoted this sort of interpretation. One major damage of a political interpretation of Islam is that it projects Islam as something to be enforced or imposed, rather than willingly followed. It was this sort of interpretation that led to political extremism in the name of Islam in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In turn, this led to conflict and war, reflecting the wrong notion that Islamic laws could be imposed through force.

As I see it, the only solution to the grim situation facing both Pakistan and Afghanistan is what is called tauba or repentance in Islam. This would mean for all parties to the conflict to explicitly and clearly admit and repent for their mistakes, abandon the path of violence and adopt the path of peace. Just as in religious matters reform begins with repentance, so, too, in national and international affairs. Unless one accepts the mistakes of the past, success will continue to evade one in the future. This applies as much to individuals as to entire countries and their governments.

*
Wrong Priorities

Recently, I came across a book penned by a Syeda Humaira Maududi, daughter of Maulana Syed Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of the Jama‘at-e Islami. She writes about her father thus:

‘My father used to tell us that if he had had the chance to take care of us properly he would have made us ideal children, models for the rest of the world to emulate. But, he would say, because he could not give us adequate attention, he did not have the right to question us. He would say that he had sacrificed his time for religious activities and to uphold the supremacy of Islam, and that is why he had left us in God’s care.’

Following the Partition, Maulana Maududi shifted to Pakistan, where he worked for 32 long years. All those years he devoted just to one thin—to help make Pakistan an ‘Islamic State’. Yet, as the conditions of Pakistan today suggest, he was not successful in this endeavour at all. He did not register even one per cent of success in this regard. Instead of this, perhaps he should have devoted his attention to making his own family a model Islamic one.

This is what I mean by wrong priorities. It was not possible for Maulana Maududi to gain any positive success in the political field, but, yet, he devoted his energies to it, instead of to his family. This is what can be called intellectual blindness. Strangely enough, in today’s times almost all Muslim leaders suffer from this very same intellectual blindness that has caused such terrible damage to, and havoc with, the Muslims themselves.

*

Jihad in Islam

The word jihad means to struggle. Contrary to what is generally believed, in Islam the major form of jihad is peaceful struggle or peaceful activism by inviting people to God’s path using the Quran. As the Quran says, ‘Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Quran)’ (25:52). Now, as this verse clearly suggests, engaging in jihad with the help of the Quran definitely cannot mean physical war. The Quran is a book that invites people to listen to it, and so the above Quranic commandment to engage in jihad with the help of the Quran essentially means to exert oneself to the utmost in peacefully inviting people to God’s path. It is this jihad that a hadith report in the Sunan Abud Dawud says shall continue until the Day of Judgment.

One restricted meaning or form of jihad is qital, which involves physical warfare. The Quran suggests that this form of jihad is meant to be a temporary move, a rare exception, and a step undertaken in defence. It cannot be considered as a permanent and never-ending action, for this meaning is not reflected in the life of the Prophet Muhammad himself. There were numerous occasions in the Prophet’s life when his enemies sought to wage war against him but he avoided the violent path. This was exemplified, for instance, in his migration to Medina, the Battle of the Trench and the Treaty of Hudaibiyah which he signed with his Meccan foes.


*

A Basic Principle for Islamic Movements and Groups

A basic principle that should guide the work of Islamic movements and groups is to completely abstain from conflict and engage in their mission using only peaceful means. This is a policy of what I would call political status quoism and non-political activism. It entails staying aloof from political confrontation and fully using the opportunities available in the non-political field. This wise and sensible method was used by the Prophet Muhammad throughout his life. And, this is why he was able to achieve such great success. The advantage of this method is that one immediately gets a starting point to begin one’s work or mission, after which one can devote all one’s energies to it, using all available opportunities and in a peaceful manner for this purpose.

This method is a guarantor for positive thinking and for cleansing the mind from what I call the ‘protest mentality’. A person or community characterized by this way of thinking and acting considers every other human being, no matter what his or her religion, to be a brother. This is a method geared to gradual transformation, which is in accordance with Nature. It is an unassailable truth that in this world only the gradual method is successful. All other paths lead to destruction and nothing else.

(Translated from Al-Risala, August 2009).

Monday, July 27, 2009

An Abortion Battle, Fought to the Death

By DAVID BARSTOW
Published: July 25, 2009
Shrewd and resourceful, Dr. Tiller made himself the nation’s pre-eminent abortion practitioner, advertising widely and drawing women to Wichita from all over with his willingness to perform late-term abortions, hundreds each year. As anti-abortion activists discovered, he gave as good as he got, wearing their contempt as a badge of honor. A “warrior,” they called him with grudging respect.

WICHITA, Kan. — It did not take long for anti-abortion leaders to realize that George R. Tiller was more formidable than other doctors they had tried to shut down.

Larry W. Smith/Associated Press

Protesters long tried to close Dr. George R. Tiller's abortion clinic.

Enlarge This Image
Steve Hebert for The New York Times

A vigil was held the day Dr. Tiller was killed.

And so for more than 30 years the anti-abortion movement threw everything into driving Dr. Tiller out of business, certain that his defeat would deal a devastating blow to the “abortion industry” that has terminated roughly 50 million pregnancies since Roe v. Wade in 1973.

They blockaded his clinic; campaigned to have him prosecuted; boycotted his suppliers; tailed him with hidden cameras; branded him “Tiller the baby killer”; hit him with lawsuits, legislation and regulatory complaints; and protested relentlessly, even at his church. Some sent flowers pleading for him to quit. Some sent death threats. One bombed his clinic. Another tried to kill him in 1993, firing five shots, wounding both arms.

In short, they made George Tiller’s clinic the nation’s most visible abortion battleground, a magnet for activists from all corners of the country.

Dr. Tiller would not budge.

Instead he dug in, pouring his considerable profits into expanding his clinic and installing security cameras, bulletproof glass, metal detectors, fencing and floodlights. He hired armed guards, bought a bulletproof vest and drove an armored S.U.V. He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on some of the state’s best lawyers and recruited an intensely loyal staff that dubbed itself Team Tiller. He lobbied politicians with large donations and photographs of severely deformed fetuses.

Confident and dryly mischievous, he told friends he had come to see himself as a general in an epic cultural war to keep abortion legal, to the point of giving employees plaques designating them “Freedom Fighters.” His willingness to abort fetuses so late in pregnancies put him at the medical and moral outer limits of abortion. Yet he portrayed those arrayed against him as religious zealots engaged in a campaign whose aim was nothing less than to subjugate women.

“If a stake has to be driven through the heart of the anti-abortion movement,” he said, “I want to have my hand on the hammer.”

The son of a prominent Wichita physician, married 45 years, the father of 4 and grandfather of 10, a former Navy flight surgeon, a longtime Republican, Dr. Tiller, 67, insisted that he would not be driven from his hometown, where he belonged to its oldest country club, was a devoted member of one of its largest churches, was active in Alcoholics Anonymous, was deeply involved in his alma mater, the University of Kansas, and adored his local Dairy Queen.

Indeed, he made a point of performing abortions the day after he was shot in the arms.

“His is the only abortion clinic we’ve never been able to close,” Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, said in an interview.

Yet what thousands could not achieve in three decades of relentless effort, a gunman accomplished on May 31 when he shot Dr. Tiller in the head at point-blank range while the doctor was ushering at church.

Scott Roeder, an abortion foe with the e-mail name “ServantofMessiah,” awaits trial in the murder. In a jailhouse interview, Mr. Roeder did not admit guilt but told a reporter that if he is convicted, his motive was to protect the unborn, a goal seemingly advanced when the Tiller family closed the clinic.

But in the weeks since the killing, supporters and opponents of Dr. Tiller have been measuring the larger ramifications. Implacably divided for so long, they now agree on a fundamental point: Dr. Tiller’s death represents an enormous loss for each side.

Abortion opponents are bracing for a drop in support, especially from those in the murky middle ground of the debate. Worse yet, after years of persuading supporters to work within the law, they say they have already lost credibility among the most ardent abortion opponents who cannot help pointing out that one gunman achieved what all their protests and prayers could not.

“The credit is going to go to him,” Mark S. Gietzen, chairman of the Kansas Coalition for Life, said of Mr. Roeder. “There are people who are agreeing with him.”

Advocates of abortion rights, meanwhile, are reeling from the loss of one of their most experienced and savviest leaders. One of only three doctors in the United States who openly and regularly performed late-term abortions, Dr. Tiller mentored abortion providers across the country. Some of the nation’s most influential women’s groups celebrated him as an American hero.

Sedgewick County Jail, via Associated Press

ACCUSED Scott Roeder, who had the e-mail name “ServantofMessiah,” awaits trial in the Tiller killing.

Steve Hebert for The New York Times

PASTOR The Rev. Lowell Michelson said that Dr. Tiller gave options to women “when they had none.”

“This is so much more than just a murder in Wichita,” said Gloria Allred, a prominent women’s rights lawyer.

A Career Choice

Dr. Tiller’s career in abortion began with family tragedy.

In August 1970, his parents, sister and sister’s husband were killed when the small private plane his father was piloting crashed near Yellowstone National Park. Dr. Tiller, who had carried his father’s bag on house calls as a boy, left the Navy and returned home to care for his grandparents and wind down his father’s family practice. He and his wife, Jeanne, adopted his sister’s baby son, and he talked of settling into life as a dermatologist.

But he discovered his father had been performing significant numbers of illegal abortions, and before long women began turning to him for abortions, too, often under desperate circumstances. “The women taught him about life in Wichita,” said Linda Stoner, who worked for Dr. Tiller for a decade. The more skilled he became, the more referrals he got, the more he undercut prices of competitors, the more he began to specialize in abortion, making it the main focus of his practice by the late 1970s.

Friends said Dr. Tiller knew he would become a target. Pickets first showed up in 1975, two years after he performed his first abortion. Years later, an anti-abortion group put him on a “wanted” poster of prominent abortion providers and offered $5,000 for information leading to his arrest. When an abortion provider in Florida was assassinated in 1994, Dr. Tiller spent the next few years under the protection of federal marshals. By 1997, he had been labeled “the most infamous abortionist in the United States” by James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family.

“He chose his life,” said Dan Monnat, his longtime lawyer. “And having chosen it, he wasn’t going to complain about the restrictions on his liberty by those who saw it another way.”

Dr. Tiller also accepted that his career would inevitably bring scrutiny of his private life, including his struggle with substance abuse, which resulted in a 1984 arrest for driving under the influence and an agreement with the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts to seek treatment. (He would later serve on the Kansas Medical Society’s impaired physicians committee.)

Still, his family strongly supported his choice. He described his daughters, two of whom became physicians, coming into his study during one especially stressful period. “What they said to me was, ‘Daddy, if not now, when? If not you, who?’ ” he recalled this spring in a court hearing.

Dozens of anti-abortion groups of varying sizes and philosophies were out to shut down his clinic, Women’s Health Care Services. While their tactics constantly changed, they shared the same basic goal. “We wanted it to get to the point where it was no longer feasible to stay open,” Mr. Gietzen of the Coalition for Life said.

Every vendor who showed up at the clinic was warned that if they continued to do business with Dr. Tiller they would be boycotted. Those who ignored the threat were listed on anti-abortion Web sites. “We had nobody in town that would deliver pizza,” said an employee, Linda Joslin.

Protesters confronted his employees, demanding that they quit. If they refused, activists passed out fliers in their neighborhood accusing them of working for a baby killer.

Patients would encounter a gantlet of protest.

They would see a “Truth Truck,” its side panels displaying large color photographs of dismembered fetuses. Over the clinic gate, strung between two poles, they might see a banner, “Please Do Not Kill Your Baby.” Planted in the grass by the sidewalk were 167 white crosses, representing the average number of abortions that protesters said were performed there each month.

Protesters approached patients’ cars, offering them baby blankets and urging them to visit an anti-abortion pregnancy clinic they had set up next door. Sometimes they followed patients to their hotels and slipped pamphlets under their doors. A few years ago anti-abortion campaigners spent weeks in a hotel room with a view of the Tiller clinic entrance. Using a powerful telephoto lens, they took photographs of patients, which were posted on a Web site with their faces blurred.

Much of this activity was methodically tracked by Mr. Gietzen, who said he presides over a network of 600 volunteers, some of whom drove hundreds of miles for a protest “shift.” Protesters counted cars entering the clinic gate, and they tracked “saves” — patients who changed their minds. According to Mr. Gietzen’s data, over the last five years they had 395 “saves” for an “overall save rate” of 3.77 percent.

They also kept detailed “incident reports” of unusual activity. It was a bonanza if an ambulance was summoned; photographs were quickly posted as evidence of another “botched” abortion.

Skip to next paragraph
Steve Hebert for The New York Times

EMPLOYEE Linda Stoner said the women who came to Dr. Tiller’s clinic “taught him about life in Wichita.”

Steve Hebert for The New York Times

OPPONENT Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, presented his objections to a grand jury.

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

There seemed an endless supply of fresh accusations.

“Wichita shoppers unknowingly sprinkled with the burnt ash of fetal remains,” declared one news release, referring to the clinic’s crematorium.

“If I can’t document it, I don’t say it,” Mr. Newman of Operation Rescue said, moments before suggesting without any proof that Dr. Tiller had bought off the local district attorney, Nola T. Foulston, by giving her a baby for adoption. He referred a reporter to a Web site that vaguely asserted that Dr. Tiller “may have delivered the ultimate bribe to Nola Foulston.” A spokeswoman for Ms. Foulston declined to discuss the accusation.

Anti-abortion activists routinely portrayed Dr. Tiller’s campaign contributions as “blood money” that co-opted politicians. “He owned the attorney general’s office,” Mr. Newman said. “He owned the governor’s office. He owned the district attorney’s office.”

They relished each confrontation, both for public relations value and for the legal costs inevitably incurred by Dr. Tiller. He spent years, for example, fighting a legal battle to stop them from planting the crosses, and just about every inch of land outside his clinic was subject to litigation or negotiation.

“We know what you can do on the blacktop,” Mr. Gietzen said. “We know what you can do on the driveway. We know what you can do on the sidewalk.”

In April 2006, though, a volunteer spotted an opportunity for confrontation in one small strip of pavement that he thought had been overlooked: the gutter running between the street and the clinic driveway. The volunteer knelt in the gutter to pray, placing himself in the path of vehicles entering the clinic.

According to the “incident report,” a clinic nurse pulled up and “laid on her horn repeatedly.” When the volunteer “acted as if he did not know that she was there,” the report continued, a clinic guard told him that he was reporting him to the police.

The next day, Mr. Gietzen was standing in the gutter with his volunteer discussing the new tactic when Dr. Tiller pulled up in his armored S.U.V. In another “incident report,” Mr. Gietzen wrote: “Tiller floored his accelerator, and aimed his Jeep directly at us!”

Mr. Gietzen claimed that Dr. Tiller’s vehicle hit him, causing bruising. He promptly filed a police report, generating more news coverage. He then wrote to Dr. Tiller demanding a $4,000 settlement. When that went nowhere, he sued. He also demanded that Ms. Foulston prosecute Dr. Tiller for attempted murder.

And when she refused, this became more proof of the public “corruption” they traced to Dr. Tiller.

Developing a Sense of Mission

Jacki G., 29, went to Dr. Tiller for an abortion in 1996 after she was raped. She can still remember her trepidation when she and her mother pulled up to the clinic a few weeks into her pregnancy.

In middle school in Wichita, she said, children chanted “Tiller, Tiller, the baby killer.” She recalled the gory Truth Trucks driving around town and the 1991 “Summer of Mercy” protests, when hundreds were arrested for blockading Dr. Tiller’s clinic.

“It makes an impression,” she said.

Not only did she fear the protesters, she also worried about whether Dr. Tiller would be gruff and cold, “only in it for the money,” as his critics alleged. It was almost a shock, she said, to instead meet a slightly nerdy doctor who gently explained every step and kept asking, “Are you doing O.K.?”

Employees said Dr. Tiller did not have moral qualms about his work, in part because he defined it as saving women’s lives and giving them freedom to determine their futures.

“We have made higher education possible,” he said in a speech. “We have helped correct some of the results of rape and incest. We have helped battered women escape to a safer life. We have made recovery from chemical dependency possible. We have helped women and families struggle to save their unwell, unborn child a lifetime of pain.”

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

Dr. Tiller recruited a staff that shared his outlook. Mostly women, several used the same word to describe the clinic: “sisterhood.”

They worked under intense pressure, caring for women in distress while constantly confronting protesters eager to pounce on their every mistake. Abortion protesters sent pregnant women into the clinic “under cover,” hoping to catch the staff violating Kansas abortion regulations. One employee, Ms. Joslin, 68, pulled out an anonymous letter she received a week before Dr. Tiller’s death. “Somebody should kill you, so you can’t kill anymore,” it said.

As Wichita’s three other abortion clinics closed under the pressure of protesters, Dr. Tiller cultivated a sense of mission. Throughout the clinic he hung hundreds of framed thank-you letters from patients. He posted a list of “Tillerisms” — his favorite axioms, including, “The only requirement for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.”

He also paid well and gave bonuses to mark legal victories. In 2001, after heavy protests, he held a party and gave each employee a dozen roses, a medal engraved with the torch of liberty, a T-shirt depicting Rosie the Riveter and the words, “We can do it Team Tiller,” and an American flag that had flown over the clinic.

His defiance was as relentless as the protests. When his clinic was bombed, he put up a sign that said “Hell, no. We won’t go!” In a fit of anger, he once told an anti-abortion leader, “Too bad your mother’s abortion failed.” Employees and protesters alike said he even drove into his clinic “with attitude,” accelerating slightly as if to emphasize that protesters had no right to block his gate. And when he drove by Mr. Gietzen, he sometimes smiled and lifted an editorial cartoon depicting Mr. Gietzen as a lunatic.

In 2001, protesters began appearing at Dr. Tiller’s church with Truth Trucks and a demand that the church ex-communicate the Tiller family.

“They were abusively shouting at people not to take their children into the church because there was a murderer there,” recalled the Rev. Sally C. Fahrenthold, then the interim pastor at the church, Reformation Lutheran.

For at least two years, protesters showed up each Sunday, sometimes disrupting services from the pews. Protesters obtained a copy of the membership address book and sent all members postcards showing aborted fetuses.

Years earlier, friends said, the Tillers had been asked to leave another church because of his abortion practice. Reformation Lutheran made no such request. The Tillers were mainstays in the church. Jeanne Tiller sings in the choir, and her husband was a regular in Bible study. Still, the Tillers were saddened by the protests, Pastor Fahrenthold said, and a couple of families left the church.

Eventually the Sunday protests petered out, although every so often protesters returned. Last fall, when the church was recruiting a new pastor, it listed abortion as one of the main challenges facing the membership. “Everybody there was not on the same page on this issue,” the new pastor, Lowell Michelson, said in an interview.

Pastor Michelson said he and Dr. Tiller sometimes spoke about abortion. This, he said, is how he learned of adoptions Dr. Tiller sometimes arranged for his patients, in some cases even having women live with his family until after childbirth. “He was giving women in the most desperate of situations options when they had none,” he said.

One lingering question in the church, though, was whether to improve security, and there was talk about buying a camera for the church entrance. Dr. Tiller did not perceive any significant threat. He did not, at least in recent years, take his guards to church.

“The church was the one place he felt safe,” Ms. Joslin said.

New Strategies by Opponents

Several years ago it became clear to anti-abortion leaders that they needed a new strategy to shut down Dr. Tiller. They eased off their more combative protest tactics and resolved to rely more on the courts, the Kansas Legislature and the news media to attack him.

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

They also decided to sharpen their focus on late-term abortions.

Dr. Tiller’s clinic Web site boasted that he had more experience with late-term abortions “than anyone else currently practicing in the Western Hemisphere.” Since 1998, interviews and state statistics show, his clinic performed about 4,800 late-term abortions, at least 22 weeks into gestation, around the earliest point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb. At 22 weeks, the average fetus is 11 inches long, weighs a pound and is starting to respond to noise.

About 2,000 of these abortions involved fetuses that could not have survived outside the womb, either because they had catastrophic genetic defects or they were simply too small.

But the other 2,800 abortions involved viable fetuses. Some had serious but survivable abnormalities, like Down syndrome. Many were perfectly healthy.

Like many states, Kansas has long placed limits on late-term abortions of viable fetuses. They can be done only to save the woman’s life or because continuing the pregnancy would cause her a “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function,” a phrase that Kansas legal authorities, citing United States Supreme Court cases, have said encompasses the woman’s physical and mental health. The state also requires the approval of a second Kansas physician “not legally or financially affiliated” with the doctor performing the abortion.

Even so, Kansas law gives considerable deference to physicians’ judgments. Dr. Tiller and his staff said they had a rigorous screening process to comply with the law.

The vast majority of women seeking late-term abortions from Dr. Tiller’s clinic were from other states, records and testimony show. Dozens more came each year from Canada and other countries. Many were referred by their obstetrician. Law enforcement officials sometimes gave Dr. Tiller’s name to victims of rape or incest.

Prospective patients were required to submit a battery of medical records. They were asked whether they had considered adoption. Before meeting Dr. Tiller, women were interviewed by at least two clinic counselors. Many of the questions — about appetite, sleep habits, thoughts of suicide — were intended to detect symptoms of severe mental illness. Patients were also examined by a second physician, as required by law.

According to sworn testimony by his staff, hundreds of women were turned away each year because they did not meet the legal requirements for a late-term abortion.

When late-term abortions were done, Dr. Tiller typically injected a lethal drug into the fetus’s heart, then induced labor after the heart stopped. The entire process typically took several days, and many patients have written tributes about the sensitive care they received.

Abortion opponents focused on a different aspect of the procedure: the fees. Describing Dr. Tiller’s “decadent, lavish lifestyle,” an Operation Rescue Web site included a photograph of his 8,500-square-foot home.

Based on Dr. Tiller’s sworn testimony, his clinic grossed at least $1.5 million in 2003 from late-term abortions, a small fraction of the total number of abortions his clinic performed. On average, he charged $6,000 for a late-term abortion, and by his calculation the clinic’s profit margin was 38 percent.

Anti-abortion leaders were determined to demonstrate that Dr. Tiller enriched himself by performing late-term abortions for trivial reasons, and they believed that Kansas law offered the key to exposing that and closing him down. A billboard in Wichita asked, “Is Tiller above the law?”

They found two powerful champions.

The first was Phill Kline, a conservative radio host and fierce abortion opponent who was elected attorney general of Kansas in 2002 and promptly opened an investigation into Dr. Tiller.

In 2004, Mr. Kline subpoenaed case files of 60 women and girls who had late-term abortions performed at Dr. Tiller’s clinic. (He also sought 30 files from Planned Parenthood in Overland Park.) Mr. Kline said his inquiry centered on potential violations of the late-term abortion law and a second law requiring physicians to report evidence of sexual abuse against minors.

The second champion was Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, host of the nation’s most-watched cable news program, who began attacking Dr. Tiller in 2005, eventually referring to him as simply “Tiller the baby killer.” Mr. Gietzen said he and other activists fed tips to Mr. O’Reilly’s staff. Mr. O’Reilly began one program this way: “In the state of Kansas, there is a doctor, George Tiller, who will execute babies for $5,000 if the mother is depressed.”

Dr. Tiller assembled a legal team to derail Mr. Kline’s investigation. While the Kansas Supreme Court refused to quash Mr. Kline’s subpoena, it was clearly uneasy. Noting that the files “could hardly be more sensitive,” the court ordered identifying information redacted and warned both sides to “resist any impulse” to publicize the case.

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

Mr. Kline’s investigators tried to identify patients anyway, court records show. Mr. Kline also hired medical experts recommended by anti-abortion groups and gave them access to the files without requiring them to pledge confidentiality.

One expert, Paul McHugh, a professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, then discussed the files — though not identities — in a videotaped interview arranged by anti-abortion activists that quickly made its way to Mr. O’Reilly and others in the news media.

Calling Mr. Kline’s conduct “inexcusable,” the Kansas Supreme Court reprimanded him in an opinion that questioned his ethics and honesty. “Essentially, to Kline, the ends justify the means,” the justices said.

Legal Victories

Nonetheless, Dr. McHugh’s interview raised the question of whether Dr. Tiller had used readily treatable mental health maladies as a pretext to justify late-term abortions.

According to Dr. McHugh, the files he saw contained diagnoses like adjustment disorder, anxiety and depression that to his eyes were not “substantial and irreversible.” He also claimed that some women offered “trivial” reasons for wanting an abortion, like a desire to play sports. “I can only tell you,” he said in his taped interview, “that from these records, anybody could have gotten an abortion if they wanted one.”

Yet Dr. McHugh’s description of the files left out crucial bits of context. He failed to mention, for example, that one patient was a 10-year-old girl, 28 weeks pregnant, who had been raped by an adult relative. Asked about this omission by The New York Times, Dr. McHugh said that while the girl’s case was “terrible,” it did not change his assessment: “She did not have something irreversible that abortion could correct.” (Dr. Tiller’s lawyers, who have called Dr. McHugh’s description of the patient files “deeply misleading,” declined to discuss their contents.)

Not content to rely only on Mr. Kline, anti-abortion leaders also took advantage of an obscure Kansas statute allowing residents to petition for grand jury investigations. They gathered thousands of signatures to convene two grand juries focusing on Dr. Tiller.

The first, in 2006, investigated the case of Christin A. Gilbert, a 19-year-old with Down syndrome who died two days after having an abortion at Dr. Tiller’s clinic. The autopsy concluded that Ms. Gilbert “died as a result of complications of a therapeutic abortion,” most likely infection. But the Kansas Board of Healing Arts, after an 11-month investigation by two separate panels, cleared Dr. Tiller of wrongdoing. The grand jury declined to indict.

Mr. Newman of Operation Rescue appeared before the second grand jury armed with a thick briefing book summarizing his group’s investigation into Dr. Tiller. The grand jury was also given access to medical records for more than 150 randomly selected patients who had late-term abortions.

It also declined to indict.

But it did so in a way that was less an exoneration than a criticism of the Legislature for failing to provide clearer guidelines. The law as written and interpreted, the grand jury complained in a statement, seemed to allow late-term abortions to prevent health problems that “as a matter of common interpretation” were not “substantial and irreversible.” The grand jury said lawmakers had intended to limit these late-term abortions to “only the gravest of circumstances,” yet Dr. Tiller’s files “revealed a number of questionable late-term abortions.”

In 2006, Mr. Kline lost his re-election bid by 17 percentage points to Paul J. Morrison, who made Mr. Kline’s abortion investigation a major issue. To anti-abortion activists, Mr. Kline’s defeat was yet another example of Dr. Tiller’s raw clout. Dr. Tiller, they said, had given hundreds of thousands of dollars to a political action committee that criticized Mr. Kline, who was labeled the “Snoop Dog.” They claimed that Dr. Tiller would press the new attorney general to end Mr. Kline’s investigation.

Instead, Mr. Morrison charged Dr. Tiller with 19 misdemeanor violations of the late-term abortion law involving the very files Mr. Kline had subpoenaed.

Dr. Tiller was charged with violating the provision requiring the independent approval of a second Kansas doctor. The same doctor, Ann K. Neuhaus, had signed off on all 19 cases. She typically saw patients at Dr. Tiller’s clinic once a week. Although patients paid her directly, prosecutors claimed that she and Dr. Tiller had a symbiotic relationship because his patients were her only source of income.

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

Dr. Tiller responded with customary self-confidence, insisting that he would take the stand.

The trial so long sought by abortion foes took place this March. It quickly became clear that the case was far from ironclad. The prosecutor produced no evidence of shared fees, partnership agreements or kickbacks. He was reduced to pointing out that Dr. Neuhaus had hugged Dr. Tiller before testifying.

Worse still, there was evidence that an official for the Kansas Board of Healing Arts had suggested the arrangement with Dr. Neuhaus, who had closed her own women’s health clinic to care for her diabetic son. There was also evidence that several times a year Dr. Neuhaus disagreed with Dr. Tiller about whether an abortion was necessary. As for Dr. Neuhaus examining women at his clinic, Dr. Tiller told jurors that was done to spare patients repeated confrontations with protesters.

Why, he was asked, were so few doctors in America willing to perform late-term abortions? “Because of the threat to themselves and to their family,” he replied.

Why had he not switched to another kind of medicine? “Well,” he said, “quit is not something I like to do.”

The jury took less than 30 minutes to acquit Dr. Tiller of all charges.

It was an enormous victory, but Dr. Tiller’s supporters feared a backlash. Anti-abortion activists who had attended court sessions were disgusted. Mr. Newman remembered one new face among the regulars in court — Scott Roeder, who told other protesters that the trial was a “sham” and had argued in years past that homicide was justifiable to stop abortions.

Facing the Risks

On Sunday, May 31, Reformation Lutheran Church celebrated the Festival of Pentecost with a special prelude of international music.

Most members were already settled in the pews, but Dr. Tiller, an usher that morning, was greeting stragglers in the foyer by the sanctuary entrance. His wife was in the sanctuary where Pastor Michelson, beating a darbuka drum, was midway through an African song called “Celebrate the Journey!”

Pastor Michelson heard a sharp noise but thought it was probably a child dropping a hymnal. Then an usher beckoned him toward the sanctuary entrance. “George has been shot,” the usher told him quietly.

Two church members were already performing CPR on Dr. Tiller by the juice and coffee table. Pastor Michelson heard someone say a gunman — later identified by the police as Mr. Roeder — had fled.

Pastor Michelson thought of the families, the children, in the sanctuary. An assistant pastor, trying to avoid panic, went ahead with the service. Dr. Tiller died in the foyer.

Long ago, he had accepted the possibility he might be assassinated. It was something he and his fellow abortion providers had quietly discussed, and friends said he had lost count of all the death threats.

Even so, there was a mood of stunned rage when local abortion rights advocates gathered the Friday after his killing at First Unitarian Universalist Church in Wichita.

Marla Patrick, the Kansas state coordinator of the National Organization for Women, spoke of all the other abortion providers who had been killed, injured or threatened. Including Dr. Tiller, four doctors have been slain in the United States since 1993. It was time, she said, for law enforcement to treat abortion violence as “domestic terrorism.”

Pedro L. Irigonegaray, a lawyer for Dr. Tiller, aimed his fury at Mr. Kline and Mr. O’Reilly, saying their “fraudulent charges” had surely been meant to incite “a response from radicals.”

But it was a demoralized group. In Topeka, the state capital, they have long been outmuscled by conservative Christians, who have been steadily chipping away at abortion rights. One woman, a lobbyist for abortion rights, described how some legislators literally turned their backs when she testified.

Gail Finney, a junior member of the Legislature, stood and asked why there had not been more outcry from the state’s leaders over Dr. Tiller’s killing.

“Where’s the anguish?” Ms. Finney said.

Not a single Kansas politician of statewide prominence showed up the next morning for Dr. Tiller’s funeral, which drew 1,200 mourners. Nor were any at Reformation Lutheran the next day, the first Sunday service after his death.

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

In the foyer where he was shot, the juice and coffee table had been turned into a memorial, with Dr. Tiller’s photograph next to a basket of buttons he had passed out by the boxful to patients, employees and friends. “Attitude is Everything,” they said.

Outside, Pastor Michelson greeted families with hugs. “There was no way I was going to hide inside,” he later said.

The Tiller clan took their usual spot in the pews, and Mrs. Tiller, radiant in red, was embraced again and again. Flowers from her husband’s funeral framed the altar.

The church was more crowded than usual.

In his sermon, Pastor Michelson openly acknowledged his own apprehensions. “Our sanctuary has been violated,” he said. He urged his congregation to rise above fear and anger, and took note of the supportive letters and e-mail messages from churches all over the country.

Only later, during an interview, did he mention all the hate mail.

An End to the Fight

The next morning the Tillers announced the clinic’s closing.

“We are proud of the service and courage shown by our husband and father and know that women’s health care needs have been met because of his dedication and service,” the family said in a statement. “That is a legacy that will never die.”

Mr. Gietzen absorbed the news in his dimly lighted basement, surrounded by dusty stacks of anti-abortion literature, news releases and petitions. Dozens of campaign signs, including one for Mr. Kline, covered one wall. In a corner he had built a crude assembly line for producing the crosses he planted at Dr. Tiller’s clinic. In his driveway was Truth Truck No. 3, proclaiming “Abortion is an ObamaNation.”

Mr. Gietzen juggled two phones, one for his volunteers and one for his Christian dating service.

A volunteer called and Mr. Gietzen issued instructions to call off a protest at the clinic. No need now, he said.

The phone rang again. A volunteer wondered whether the announcement was a trick.

“Listen, Donna,” he said, “I’m sure it’s not a ploy.”

Another call: The voice was jubilant. “God has his own way,” Mr. Gietzen replied, “but you can’t say our prayers weren’t answered.”

Yet later, Mr. Gietzen said his feelings were more complex. Many years ago, he explained, he had wrestled with the question of whether it would be moral to kill Dr. Tiller. Only after months of reading and praying, he said, did he conclude that violence could never be justified. Killing men like Dr. Tiller, he said, will only put off the day when abortion is outlawed altogether.

“He has killed more babies than he has saved,” Mr. Gietzen said of Mr. Roeder. “I don’t care how much fan mail he is getting.”

As he explained himself, Mr. Gietzen did something unexpected. He spoke admiringly of the man he reflexively referred to as “Abortionist Tiller.” He said he was “very smart” and a “great businessman.” He said that if he had been in town he would have attended Dr. Tiller’s funeral to pay his respects.

“A worthy adversary,” he said. “He was right back at us.”