|
Freedom
to Abuse?
Once again the
‘freedom of expression’ bug has smitten the West. Though
Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, feminists and even Blacks have
managed to inoculate themselves against its abuse, with the
Western media becoming more mindful of their sensitivities,
Muslims frequently find themselves exposed to its most
virulent strain.
Somehow, it
has become politically correct and morally commendable in
the West to subject Muslims and their religion to the most
vulgar and inane insults in the name of this freedom.
However, the several simultaneous and sudden attacks by
Western media and politicians on Muslims in recent days seem
to be as synchronized as they are insidious.
So when the
far-right Dutch politician Geerth Wilders, who openly claims
to be a Mossad-affiliate, makes an incendiary anti-Islam
film and launches it on the Internet, the self-styled
champions of freedom of expression come out to defend it,
although the movie purportedly seeks to ban a religious
book.
Even more
curious is the fact that the Netherlands, far from taking
any action against Wilders, asks the EU to hold a high-level
summit in anticipation of the film sparking violence in the
region. For its part, the EU also reportedly assures the
Dutch government of supporting it in the cause of ‘freedom
of expression.’
Similarly, it
is difficult to understand how 17 Danish newspapers recently
decided to simultaneously republish highly offensive
anti-Islam cartoons, despite having known that these
cartoons had sparked worldwide protests and uproar when they
were first published by the Jylland Posten newspaper two
years ago.
Like
Netherlands, the Danish government has also showed its
aversion to taking any action against the newspapers. In
fact it has said it will itself stand guard over ‘freedom of
expression.’
It would be
only pertinent to raise the question that if Denmark is such
a passionate advocate of freedom of expression, why does it
have punishments written down in its penal code against
libel and blasphemy. It is important to note that these
provisions are not limited to violations against the
Christian or Jewish faiths only, but to all people living
legally in the country. Thus # 140 of the Danish penal code
states:
"Anybody who
publicly mocks or insults any in this country legally
existing religious community tenets of faith or worship,
will be punished by fine or imprisonment for up to 4
months." The Danish government could have also taken action
against newspapers over the publication of the offensive
cartoons under other sections of its penal code, such as #
266b that states:
"Whoever
publicly, or with intention to disseminating in a larger
circle makes statements or other pronouncement, by which a
group of persons is threatened, derided or degraded because
of their race, color of skin, national or ethnic background,
faith or sexual orientation, will be punished by fine or
imprisonment for up to 2 years.
Sec 2. When
meting out the punishment it shall be considered an
especially aggravating circumstance, if the count has the
character of propaganda." However, its is highly unlikely
that the Danish government or the EU would heed the plea of
the Islamic world, even though Muslims have so far not
resorted to any unseemly acts of violence in their protests.
In the same vein, Germany may also lack the political will
to prevent the staging of a play based on Salman Rushdie’s
novel Satanic Verses in Portsdam on Sunday.
Most Muslims
believe that such insults and expressions of hate almost
certainly would have been treated differently had they been
directed against the Jewish community. Europe has strict
laws against anti-Semitism, which no votary of freedom of
expression could think of violating.
Even noted
academicians who have slightly divergent views on the
genocide of the Jews during World War II, either in the
manner or the extent described by the current Western
scholarship, get the tag of ‘Holocaust denier.’ Over a dozen
countries in the world, including all the great votaries of
freedom of expression, like France, Germany, Austria and
Switzerland, consider a partial disagreement with the
official account of the holocaust fit enough to be deemed a
criminal offence for which a person can be jailed for years.
David Irving,
Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zundel, Roger Garaudy, Jean Marie Le
Pen, Nick Griffin, Ahmed Rami, Pedro Varela, Carlos Porter,
Siegfried Verbeke, Jurgen Graf, Hans Schmidt, Erhard Kemper,
Ingrid Weckert, are just some of the scholars, politicians
and activists who have been victimized, tried, or jailed for
holding differing views on the holocaust than the official
historical account. These people should have known the fate
of Julius Streicher at the trial of German war criminals at
Nuremberg. Streicher, the publisher of the anti-Semitic
newspaper Der Stürmer, had argued in his defense that he had
not killed anyone, but had merely published a newspaper.
However, for causing incitement to genocide, Streicher was
hanged to death in Nuremberg on 16 October 1946.
Therefore,
freedom of expression has almost become the exclusive
preserve of Western powers. For example, when religious
symbols were recently banned from French public schools
mainly to prevent Muslim girls from wearing headscarves in
class, an exception was introduced for Jews and Christians
that allowed them to wear of crosses and Stars of David.
However, in the post-Iraq war scenario the credibility of
Western values is eroding rapidly. Even in the US, the
so-called trustworthiness of its mainstream media that is
virtually owned by four conglomerates has come under severe
strain, especially after its role in misleading the country
into the Iraq war and their disregard of the 9/11 truth
movement. A CBS/New York Times poll conducted in October
2006 found out that 84 per cent of Americans do not think
the US government is telling the truth about the 9/11
attacks. An earlier poll conducted by CNN put the number at
89 per cent.
Yet, the
mainstream US media does not publish the ‘evidence’ of the
alleged cover-up and dismisses members of the 9/11 Truth
Movement as loonies. Many members of this movement are noted
public figures, scientists, former senior military and
government officials, reputed academicians, scholars, TV and
radio talk show hosts etc, who have suffered persecution for
expressing their views. Therefore, before presenting itself
as the proponent of free expression, Western zealots should
first take a look at the hollowness of their claims.
For starters,
they should understand that the principles of freedom of
expression do not extend to hate campaigns, and that it is
time to address the offence and not its reaction.
By Afia Khan
Source:
Khaleej Times
Afia Khan is a Dubai-based journalist who can
be contacted at afia_khan@yahoo.com.
|
