 |
| Is it Politically Correct to Abuse Islam? |
BY AFIA KHAN (Khaleej Times Editorial) 1 April 2008:
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 synchronised 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, colour 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 sam 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 |
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
victimised, 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 defence 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment