UNPRINCIPLED AND CHEAP JOURNALISM CAN THREATEN BOTH THE RIGHTS OF NORWEGIANS AND THE MINORITIES IN NORWAY!
Dear Editor
The past several days have witnessed an unprecedented media hype on the issue of female circumcision, no doubt triggered up by your programme on this subject. Kindly allow me some space to air out some pertinent issues and questions in relation to the issue at hand and other allied subjects vis a vis the situation of immigrants and refugees in Norway. I hope that these may help in raising the level of the debate so that the issue can have a chance of getting the treatment it deserves rather than it being driven underground in the endless abyss of ignorance speculation, rumour mongering and prejudice.
My experience in this country as an immigrant has been that, In a crisis situation, especially when it concerns immigrant and refugee questions, There is often a strange tendency by politicians to give a knee jerk reaction to the crisis. What is even more dangerous is the tendency to dispense panaceas and quick-fixes. Some opportunistic politicians run away with the issue in order to make as much political capital out of it. In like manner, State officials and civil servants too posture and make the right noises for their paymasters benefit and for the general public's consumption. The media pander into the fears and sentiments of the ordinary people by whipping-up anti-foreigner, nationalistic feeling and fantasies. This is done very subtly with an assortment of carefully packaged loaded images disguised in seemingly inocuous terms. the general public are left in a quandry. Regrettably, at the end of the day, it is them who are carrying the can that was manufactured and peddled to them in nice and neat paradigms for them to swallow. Without the requisite information for the whole population to make an informed judgement and without the media taking responsibility for their actions, in a principled and professional way, the public is consequently conned and robbed of it's basic democratic and human right-the right of access to correct, untampered, and unsullied information. I have kept abreast of the relevant press reportage for the past several years and have monitored closely the media coverage of 'third world' issues and indeed issues pertaining to the lives of immigrants and refugees in Norway. I cannot but conclude that the coverage of some sections of the media is often biased, devisive and irresponsible. At the level of the state, the reactions we get from the officials if they are matters of defending or clarifying policy, they are often rail-roaded into blind alleys where they are cornered to take positions that are grossly insennsitive, lack tact and are most of the time out of sync with the modern world and of the realities of immigrants and refugees in this country and I dearsay, this is the view of all immigrants, who are at the recieving end of this onslaught .
Your coverage of female circumsision is not isolated from other coverages. Since this issue has jogged a lot of feeling and merits serious attention, I would like to say categorically that the magnitude of the damage that your coverage has done is of inestimable proportions and will therefore require a lot of convincing to the muslim community to have trust and restore their confidence in the media. I would like to devote the subsequent part of this letter to demonstrating in general terms this tendency and omit the specific details for more appropriate fora.
While conceeding from the out set that female circummcision is abhorrent in all it's manifestations and forms, I hasten to add that Islam has been clear on this subject. There is no where in hadith or the holy quran where the issue of female circumcision is countenanced. Infact female circumcision is an age-old practice that predates Islam and can bbe traced back to Pharoenic Egypt. We know that the practice is prevalent in the horn of Africa and it's adjoining areas, and extends right across the western sudan to the coast of north west and south west Africa. It is general knowledge these days that this information is not new. We also know that If we are interested in finding sources of information, even ten year old children know where to find it. We can go to libraries, assk leading scholars or access information through the information super-highway.
The first question that the muslims are asking is could this information have been gotten without having to use a hidden camera?
The second question is what was TV 2 out to prove? Was it where Islam stands in this matter or were they out to discredit the Imams, and by implication Islam?
Has a clear distinction been made between the Imams and Islam? The Imams are not Islam and Islam is not the Imams!
Have what the Imams said even if, we assume that they all support female circumcision change what is enshrined in the Quran or Hadith? By the way there is only one Quran not more.
Was it necessary to use such clandestine methods to wring out the information, TV 2 needed to confirm or reject certain hypothesis?
Using a twenty year old young woman in this way to invade the individuals privacy in this manner and for the TV to screen this to the general public,without consent of these individuals. does it not raise som matters of violations of civil liberties?
How much did TV 2 pay the young woman and how much training did the woman recieve inorder to carry out such an operation? Are there ethical issues here to be pursued?
How would those that claim the moral high-ground and pontificating so volubly and vociferously on the issue feel if their persons or offices were invaded in this way?
Why did TV 2 not reveal to the public the full text of Ibrahim Saidy's answers to the woman so that people can get a fuller flavour of what he said and in what context?
It is curious that up to the time of going to press only Kebba Secka's innterview was posted in the TV 2 web site. Is this an instance of suppression of evidence? Could this have been the case that the public needs Kebba's interview so that they could lynch him for commenting on what he percieved to be Norwegian attitudes?
By way of conclusion, I would like to say the following:
In most if not all countries the profession that specialises in information gathering, disemmination, checking and reconfirming their sources of information as to their authenticity are journalists.
Journalists also know that the way material is presented to the public can influence how they recieve and digest it's contents.
Journalists also know that they are the fourth estate in a democracy and a lot of power is vested in their hands. since tsuch responsibility is vested to them, they have in place self-regulatory mechanisms that will ensure balance, fairplay and objectivity.
Whatever has happened to the Norway the world knows as the repository of the world's conscience?
I am not in a position to justify whatever was said in the programme as people ought to take personal responsibility for their actions, it would by the same token behove journalists to treat the public with respect and protect their civil liberties.
Despite all the negative bristles that have come with the TV 2 screening, some few lessons must be drawn from it.
the nature and form of action we should and can ourselves take, or addressed jointly inorder to avert any chances of reccurence of the crisis or it's causes are paramount. Experience has revealed that the concerns of minorities are majority concerns, and vice-versa. How can we all work cooperatively and wisely inorder to sort our manifold concerns in the areas of racial descrimination, provision of access to educational and welfare services so that we give each according to his needs; open channels of cross-cultural communication (not immigrants sing and dance and cook and entertain Norwegians) . What is meant here is dealing on equal terms and playing on a level playing field. If immigrants continue to suffer indignities in the hands of the media and harassment from the state institutions , should we not ask ourselves the question, Is there not in place any piece of legislation that could be invoke to prevent it happening? The future of Norwegian democracy is on the line unless it's guardians show conclusive evidence that they are upholding it with an openand even hand and without fear or favour.
No conspiracies of silence can conceal or obliterate the following; The sooner the average Norwegian understands THAT Immigrants and refugees are here to stay THE BETTER IT IS FOR ALL. Immigrants pay taxes in this society and contribute in no small measure to her ecomomy. Needless to cite the other contributions immigrants add to her richness and to her diversity. They are therefore eligible for equal treatment under one rule of law. They are entitled to all the freedoms Norwegians enjoy
The threat of litigation coming from the state advocate was premature, in the same way that examining the children of the so called miliu is unhelpful and will be greeted with unimaginable contempt.
I am of the conviction that we that is both Norwegians and immigrants would like to all get down to the business of building rather than wrecking, creating rather than destroying, and uniting all of our peoples common denominators in our quest for building a society with harmony, a single tier justice for all as we continue to accepteach other for what we are. It is possible to build a society that allows mutual respect for our differences and for democracy to flourish.
----- Baba Sillah
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
