In May, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu issued executive order No. MJL 15-01, in which he is welcoming all to the city and that “there is no tolerance for discrimination”

About one month later, Landrieu began his attack on the historical monuments in New Orleans, which completely violates his own order. He goes on to say “the city of New Orleans is proud to be a culturally rich community of faith, inclusion, tolerance and diversity,” but doesn’t part of that rich culture and diversity include these monuments and the people who view them as part of our heritage?

He then states, “the city of New Orleans is proud to foster an environment for its residents, visitors and businesses that is welcoming, just and inclusive,” but doesn’t being inclusive mean all people, including those who view these monuments with pride and with pride in the South? Landrieu has stated he wants to remove these monuments in order to be more “inclusive.”

How do you “exclude” the people I’ve mentioned and then become more “inclusive”?

Later he talks about prohibiting discrimination “based on race, creed, national origin or ancestry,” but how is he not discriminating against those who have Confederate ancestors and who want to honor those ancestors?

Landrieu then orders “all departments to comply with this order.”

The New Orleans Historic District Landmarks Commission, the City Council and the mayor himself did not comply with this order. The commission also did not comply with its own charter, which is “to safeguard the heritage of the city by preserving and regulating historic landmarks and historic districts which reflect elements of its cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history.” These monuments are definitely historical landmarks and part of our cultural and political history.

In Landrieu’s purpose section of his order, he talks about religious beliefs being protected from unjustified governmental burden. All beliefs should be protected from unjustified government burden.

This entire process has been an unjust governmental burden.

I guess Landrieu’s order for tolerance was meant to include only those people he tolerates and exclude the people he doesn’t tolerate. I guess Landrieu’s order for anti-discrimination is not meant for those he wishes to discriminate against. Tolerance for all and by all is the answer.

Maybe this shouldn’t be titled “Hypocrisy 101” but a “graduate level” course in hypocrisy.

Tom Longmire


New Orleans