Editorial: 'Free Speech' in Trouble
21 February 2006 
  
Yesterday, an Austrian court sentenced a British historian, David Irving, to three years in prison. His crime? He dared to deny the Holocaust, the extermination of six million Jews by the Nazis. Specifically, Irving has been accused of denying that the Nazis used gas chambers. 

The case is, to put it mildly, unfortunate for all those governments, organizations and individuals who in response to the blasphemous Danish cartoons row have vigorously championed the right of free speech. The Irving case could not have come at a more inconvenient time for them since it exposes a fatal flaw in their argument. Free speech clearly has its limitations. It all depends on the subject and where you are. Deny the Holocaust in nine European countries and you could end up in jail; ridicule Islam in those same countries and you are exercising your right to freedom of expression. Free speech is clearly a highly subjective concept in certain areas of Europe and the West in general.

The fact that Irving yesterday pleaded guilty - having changed his mind about the gas chambers - alters nothing. The case reeks of double standard. The Europeans trumpet the right to insult Muslims in the name of free speech but anyone who dares to use that right to question the Holocaust will be punished.

This sticks in the throat, presumably even that of the Austrians who, like the Germans, take a hard line on Holocaust denial. It has to be one or the other. Either there should be no restrictions whatsoever on free speech (other than incitement to violence) in which case these Holocaust denial laws should be abolished or the countries that have them should have the courage to admit that they are biased. We all know that Israel would baulk at the Holocaust laws being wiped off the statute books in Europe. It has exploited the slaughter of Europe's Jews during World War II to create a sense of guilt and ensure its own political and financial support. It has been brazen and revolting in doing so - and it is the Palestinians who have suffered as a result, paying the price for European guilt. But do the Austrians, Germans and other Europeans really believe that the only way to respond to those who question the Holocaust is by locking them up? Do they have to play Israel's game? In the immediate aftermath of World War II and the horror of the Nazis' "Final Solution," the anti-Holocaust laws were understandable; the Austrians and the Germans needed a total break with the past. But even then, the laws were untenable for societies supposedly wedded to "free speech." 

In normal circumstances, the Irving case would have attracted little international attention. Bizarre and inconsistent, yes; worthy of comment, no. But the free speech argument championed by Europe in the wake of the cartoons row changes everything. We realize that the Austrians, Germans, Swiss, French, Belgians and others are unlikely to heed a Saudi voice pointing out the folly and inconsistency of their Holocaust denial laws. But what they cannot deny is that, contrasted with their views on the cartoons, they literally scream hypocrisy. 
 

Guilt of the Callous Few, Pain of the Decent Many
By Lubna Hussain.  
  
About a year ago I was interviewed by one of Denmark's veteran broadcasters and was surprised at just how upbeat and buoyant he was about Arabs and Muslims in general. A while after the program had been aired I happened to meet a lovely couple from the Danish Embassy who spoke very highly of the documentary and how it served to portray Saudi Arabia in a positive light. They described how thrilled they were to be living in this fascinating country and how much they had learned from being here.

When news broke about those outrageous cartoons appearing in Jyllands-Posten, I was appalled beyond belief. It conjured up memories of when "The Satanic Verses" had first been published and the violent reactions that had been inspired as a result of this unwarranted attack. I was working with a journalist from The Times during my year off and, quite ironically, had met Salman Rushdie in a bookshop a few days before the riots.

I had read some books by him before, but was embarrassed to admit to him that I hadn't even heard of his No. 1 bestseller and was mortified when he asked me to purchase a copy crippled in the knowledge that I only had a few pound coins jingling around in my bag that would be just about enough to get me back home.

"You must read it," he insisted boring holes through me with the weight of his gaze. "I would like to know what you think of it, so tell me. OK?"

I nodded stupidly hoping that he would not ascribe my reluctance to my thinly veiled penury and resolved to buy the book the very next day. By then it was too late as there had been a run on the bookshops and it was sold out.

What followed was a massive polarization of opinion and I clearly remember just how terribly Islam had been depicted even then, prior to the era of Bin Laden and the concomitant indiscriminate Muslim-bashing that followed. We would watch impotently as images of men with long beards donning ethnic dress would be burning copies of the book and effigies of the author. Seasoned reporters would ask, "Have you read the book?" and all that would be chanted in heavily accented reply would be, "Kill Rushdie! Burn the book!"

Of course they hadn't read it. Even though I had enjoyed reading "Midnight's Children," I struggled through the first couple of chapters of the new novel, which I found to be bland, confusing and really not worth the paper they were written on. However, the author had capitalized on a great deal of sensationalism in order to sell his work and had injured and inflamed a sizable amount of the world's population in the bargain. Several lives were lost in the aftermath while the author remained alive and well watching his coffers swell with the proceeds of his incitement.

He banked on the elusive concept of "freedom of speech" and cashed in on how Islam and its practitioners were supposedly against this right. I remember seeing full-page ads in The Times and other broadsheets with almost a hundred writers backing Rushdie after the Ayatollah's fatwa had been announced.

If there was to be a silver lining to this cloud then it came in the form of reasonable minded individuals like Roald Dahl who wrote about how there was an inextricable link between exercising the liberty to express oneself without infringing upon the civil rights of others.

Recently I was requested to provide my opinion on the cartoons for an international publication. I gave the journalist a comprehensive history of Islam and its traditions and asked her why it was that certain sectors of society were immune from the whole issue of "freedom of the press". 

"Personally," I told her, "I would think that the same thing applied to any religion would be distasteful, hurtful and inappropriate. What, hypothetically would happen, if such cartoons had been used to depict the Holocaust? I have many Jewish friends and would be equally vociferous in condemning this."

"Yes. I agree with you," she said. "But I mean I really want to know why you think it is so offensive?" she asked.

"I wonder whether it is conceivable for anyone who's not a Muslim to begin to understand the extreme love, affection and admiration that we have for the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)? Imagine the love you have for your parents or your children. Try to combine that love altogether and multiply it by a huge factor," I explained.

"Oh," she replied sounding a little more convinced. "I think I've got it now."

"So I'd assume you'd feel insulted if someone drew such disgusting caricatures of your family in the newspaper, right? And this man, Muhammad (peace be upon him) unilaterally embodies our faith. I don't know whether you would give up your life to defend someone very dear to you, but that's how Muslims feel toward their Prophet. I think I am a fairly open-minded person. I don't think that you could describe me as an extremist in any shape or form, but when this whole thing started I was livid. I would guard the honor of my Prophet with my life. I don't think violence is a solution, but I do think that it is important that we have the right to be protected from this kind of filth and degradation." Minutes after the piece was published on the website, it was pulled. A new interpretation of what the Americans perceive to be "Freedom of Speech" perhaps? 

It wasn't until I received an e-mail yesterday from my Danish colleague expressing horror at the irresponsible provocation of this "right-wing" newspaper that I remembered the wonderful Danes I had come across.

As Muslims, I am glad that for once we have made a concerted united effort to display our contempt and agony over such a flagrant disregard of our right to respect. I think that exerting our economic clout is more effective and acceptable than applying brute force. However, I hope that we can also bear in mind that we have suffered enough from being tarred by the same brush as that used to depict the hijackers of 9/11 and the terrorists and zealots among us who have used the ruse of religion to further their own dark ends. Yes, there are elements in Denmark that have wounded our sensibilities, but there are also many Danes who are as appalled as we are by what has gone on. Punishing an entire society for the callous actions of a few is no different to what we have been subjected to in recent times.

- Lubna Hussain is a Saudi writer. She is based in Riyadh.

How Long Can Hamas Stay Optimistic?
Linda Heard, [log in to unmask] 
  
The Palestinians voted in free and fair elections, were warmly congratulated on their fledgling democracy by the international community, and on Saturday, their new Hamas-dominated Parliament, was sworn-in.

On Sunday, Hamas announced its nomination for prime minister. Ismail Haniyeh, 46, is a Gaza-born lawmaker, who is generally considered a moderate pragmatist.

This should be a time for celebration but, instead, the Palestinians face troubled times ahead, mainly because the same international community that has been cheering on democracy isn't prepared to support the democratic outcome that produced a Hamas leadership. 

The US and Israel are going a step further, according to Steven Erlanger of the New York Times, who maintains those allies are colluding to oust Hamas from office.

"The intention is to starve the Palestinian Authority of money and international connections to the point where, some months from now, its President Mahmoud Abbas, is compelled to call a new election. The hope is that Palestinians will be so unhappy with life under Hamas that they will return to office a reformed and chastened Fatah movement," he writes.

According to Ha'aretz columnist Gideon Levy, members of the Israeli government consider starving out the Palestinians a subject of intense mirth.

When adviser to the Israeli Prime Minister Dov Weissglass recently met up with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and senior military officials to discuss the imposition of an economic siege, he joked, "It's like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won't die."

Levy is obviously appalled by such flippancy, saying "it again revealed the extent to which Israel's intoxication with power drives it crazy and completely distorts its morality".

If Israeli and American hawks have their way, Weissglass will gain a lot more amusing repartee to add to his after-dinner portfolio.

Under discussion are plans to close the Rafah border between Gaza and Egypt and turn the Gaza-Israel crossing into an international boundary, which would effectively cut Gaza off from the rest of Palestine.

Other sadistic future delights could involve the cutting of electricity supplies to Palestinian territories, the banning of Palestinian workers from pursuing work in Israel and a blockade on Palestinian exports.

At the same time, Israel intends to continue its policy of extrajudicial assassinations and doesn't rule out the murder or arrest of Hamas leaders, even if those ill-fated individuals are duly appointed ministers.

Following a Cabinet meeting on Sunday, Israel plans to hold the Palestinian Authority hostage by refusing to hand over monies it collects on the authority's behalf relating to tax and customs duties.

During the meeting, acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert branded the Hamas government "an enemy", and has urged would-be international donors to refrain from digging into their pockets to close the gap. 

This move will leave an enormous hole in the Palestinian budget as even when the PA does receive a monthly amount of some $55 million from Israel it is still left with a deficit of $70 million. Hamas believes it can recoup some of these losses with aid from new donor countries, but Israel seeks to foil this move by restricting movements of cash and blocking incoming telegraphic transfers.

Tightening the screws even tighter is the US government, which says its laws ban affording aid to Hamas, considered a terrorist organization.

On Friday, the US demanded the return of $50 million handed to the Palestinian Authority last year for the renewal of infrastructure. This petty and parsimonious attitude from a nation that has frittered over $240 billions invading Iraq so that it can ostensibly hand over that ruined nation to Iran-friendly religious leaders. The irony is self-evident.

The mot just for all of the above is "blackmail".

So what is it that Israel and the US want in return for behaving in a humane fashion in their dealings with some of the poorest and longest suffering people on earth?

In short, Hamas is being asked to run its election manifesto through the shredder and morph into a Fatah clone overnight. Hamas must embrace the existence of an Israeli state, throw away its weapons and adhere to all previous agreements and treaties with Israel, including those enshrined in the defunct Oslo and road map.

In the meantime, President Mahmoud Abbas, who now finds himself in uncomfortable partnership with Hamas, is urging that party to agree to resume peace talks with Israel, even though there have been no such talks on the table since Ariel Sharon took power.

But it isn't only its external detractors with which Hamas has to be concerned, as according to the Britain's Sunday Times, "Senior Israeli and Palestinian representatives have held secret talks in America to discuss ways of sidelining Hamas," and strengthening the position of President Abbas.

For its part, Hamas has agreed to support an indefinite cease-fire with Israel and has refrained from militancy for almost a year. These moves have encouraged many observers to request a "wait and see" attitude from the international community.

Russia, Turkey and Venezuela have all agreed to keep open minds and meet with Hamas representatives, provoking condemnation from Israel and the US for so doing.

The EU, as usual, is being ambiguous with its foreign policy chief Javier Solana, saying it will not abandon the Palestinian people, while on the other hand the EU threatens withdrawal of aid should Hamas refuse to toe the line. 

But despite the gloomy forecasts, Hamas intends to carry on regardless in a spirit of optimism, which most people might consider misplaced. Hamas spokesman Nashat Aqtash said he thought Hamas would weather the storm at least initially.

"Hamas had all its leaders deported by Israel in 1992 and imprisoned by the Palestinian Authority in 1996. Many of the leaders were assassinated by Israel. Despite this, it has continued to grow in popularity and strength."

True, but what happens when and if the rose-colored specs fall off and reality sets in? Will Hamas fold and fade away or, as some Israelis are asking, could a third intifadah be lurking on the horizon? And if so, at whose door should the blame be laid? 
 



¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤