|
In this mailing:
by Amir Taheri
• June 28, 2016 at 6:00 am
- A majority of
the members of the UN and the UNESCO which is part of it are states
that cannot be regarded as lovers of press freedom, to say the
least.
- There is also
talk of stopping "hate speech". But hate, like love, is
hard to define and the UN has offered no definition of it. Thus
anyone could use it as an excuse for "stopping" or
restricting freedom of expression.
- As for
"combating Islamophobia", those who unfurl that banner
ignore the fact that it could mean creating a special category for
Islam to shield it against any form of criticism, precisely at a
time that Islam could benefit from serious critical scrutiny.
- At a time that
freedom of expression is under attack by a variety of groups from
all parts of the political spectrum, the last thing we should wish
for is a UN stamp of approval for censorship in any form. What we
need is a free flow of information that cannot be subjected to
bureaucratic rules and regulations.
Editor's Note: Following is a condensed version of
Amir Taheri's remarks as part of a special panel of diplomats and
academics, addressing journalists at the Palace of the Nations, the
European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, on June 22, under
the auspices of UNESCO's liaison office.
The panel took place as part of the UN's 32nd session on human
rights, and in response to UN Secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon's special
report on "violent extremism."
Mr. Taheri spoke on the question of: "Should the United
Nations play a role in countering hate speech and expressions of 'violent
extremism' and 'Islamophobia' in the media?"
Since I haven't prepared a written speech, permit me to offer an
unadorned response to the various plans exposed here. I believe many in
our profession might share my sentiments.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
• June 28, 2016 at 4:45 am
- According to
his account, Abu Zeid was also subjected to shabah-style
torture, where a detainee's hands and feet are tied in painful
positions while his head is covered with a bag. He said that one of
the interrogators threw him to the floor and kicked him in sensitive
parts of his lower body.
- The
interrogators also threatened to arrest Abu Zeid's wife, a female
colleague and his lawyer. That would have been the closest he would
have gotten to the lawyer: in the 37 days of detention, Abu Zeid
claimed that he was prevented from meeting with his lawyer or any
representative of a human rights organization.
- The report
noted that the year 2015 witnessed a "deterioration" in
human rights in the territories and described the situation there as
"catastrophic on all levels -- political, security and human
rights." The report pointed out that Palestinians, including
journalists, were being arrested by the Palestinian Authority (PA)
because of their work and postings on social media.
- Ironically,
this campaign by the PA against journalists, which has failed to
draw the attention of the international community and mainstream
media in the West, is designed to prevent the world from
understanding that the PA is a dictatorship. So far, the plan is
working.
Palestinian journalists protest in Nablus to demand
that the Palestinian Authority release their colleague, Tareq Abu Zeid,
on June 24, 2016. (Image source: Al Resalah)
On May 16, Palestinian Authority (PA) security officers raided the
home of Palestinian journalist Tareq Abu Zeid in the West Bank city of
Nablus. After ransacking the house, the officers confiscated a computer
and mobile phone before taking Abu Zeid into custody.
Abu Zeid, 40, who works for the Al-Aqsa TV channel, which is
affiliated with Hamas, was held in detention for 37 days at the notorious
PA-controlled Jneid Prison in Nablus.
On June 22, a Palestinian court in Nablus ordered the release of the
journalist on 5,000 Jordanian dinars (about $8,000) bail. The same court
had ordered Abu Zeid remanded into custody three times during his
detention. The court had turned down seven petitions demanding the
release of the journalist during his incarceration.
No charges have been filed against Abu Zeid, who is originally from
the West Bank city of Jenin. It is also highly unlikely that he will ever
stand trial.
by Burak Bekdil
• June 28, 2016 at 4:00 am
- Observant
Muslims stubbornly refuse to understand that while the Koran
commands them to abstain from alcohol, it does not command them to
attack those Muslims (and non-Muslims) who do not do so.
- It has become
the observant Muslims' self-granted authority collectively to forbid
evil and command good, rather than just individually to avoid evil
and choose good.
On June 17, a group of men attacked the Velvet
Indieground record store in Istanbul, because they were angry that
several people in the small shop were drinking alcohol during Ramadan. At
right, Seogu Lee, the shop's Korean owner, is seen being beaten by some
of the attackers.
Zaytung, a popular online humor magazine (a kind of Turkish
"The Onion") ran a story:
"Government officials in this eastern city are mulling the
possibility of airdropping food, beverages and cigarettes onto busy
streets, hoping that this may break some fasters' resistance to hunger,
thirst and tobacco needs. The city has been in shock as, already one week
into the holy month of Ramadan, no one has been publicly beaten up for
eating, drinking or smoking."
Zaytung's mocking was not without a reason. "If one tried to
eat in a restaurant [in some parts of Turkey] during Ramadan, one may be
insulted or even physically harmed. Indeed, each year there is an
incident of an unobservant college student being beaten up or even
murdered in the southeast for not fasting during Ramadan," observed
Soner Cagaptay in a 2008 article in the Washington Institute.
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment