ay, so there's no point in self-censoring.
Its important to capture the video below, as part of our library function, as its another marker in the slippery slope of erosion of Free Speech on the grounds of 'offence', so it belongs here in the Censorship Room. Its also the most articulate and measured statement that I've seen from the BNP to date (although it did contain the usual collection of Leftist identity labels in the middle).
Levi once remarked “Everybody has their Jews, and for the Israelis it’s the Palestinians”. By creating a middle Eastern version of the Warsaw ghetto they are recapitulating their own history as though they’ve forgotten it. And by trying to paint an equivalence between the Palestinians – with their homemade rockets and stone-throwing teenagers – and themselves – with one of the most sophisticated military machines in the world – they sacrifice all credibility.
The Israelis are a gifted and resourceful people who fully deserve the right to live in peace, but who seem intent on squandering every chance to allow that to happen. It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that this conflict serves the political and economic purposes of Israel so well that they have every interest in maintaining it. While there is fighting they can continue to build illegal settlements. While there is fighting they continue to receive huge quantities of military aid from the United States. And while there is fighting they can avoid looking candidly at themselves and the ruthlessness into which they are descending.
Did you ever re-listen to My Life in the Bush of Ghosts and feel like there was something missing from it? Well, there is. Brian Eno and David Byrne's groundbreaking 1981 release was never the same after its initial pressing. Following complaints from a London-based Islamic organisation, the track Qu'ran was removed.
Well luckily a snippet can be found in the film Blade Runner
rs ‘something went wrong with the BBC’s religious programming’ and questioned whether it was ‘fit for purpose’.
Could it be because of Aaqil Ahmed, acting with all the stealth and duplicity of Tariq Ramadan, which we flagged up as a major piece of infiltration when he got the job, a few years ago?
The BBC’s head of religion and ethics, Aaqil Ahmed, a Muslim, said it was a ‘complicated’ situation, adding that things ‘took time to evolve’ and newer communities had not had their religion ‘ridiculed’ for as long as others had been
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202379/BBC-liberals-afraid...
Does this not show that you cannot trust a Muslim to act equitably and fairly when given a position of power in a Secular Democratic society? And is this not to be expected, since he will even state that his first allegiance is to Islam and Mohammed?
Its ridiculous. Perhaps we ought to institute an oath of allegiance for all such positions. At least then, when someone has clearly subverted the system, they can be accused of it!
See further 4F discussion in the Censorship Room: http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/freespeech/forum/topics/uk-muslim-nazis-win-again-channel-4-cancels-islam-documentary-scr?xg_source=activity…
cer. He reveled in his job. You only have to glance at his official photograph to get a sense of the character of the man: always cheerful, always enthusiastic, always professional. Like those more high profile ambassadors – Ryan Crocker (U.S. ambassador in Baghdad and Kabul) and Robert Ford (U.S. ambassador in Damascus) – Chris Stevens loved to be on the front lines of American diplomacy.
I remember when I was President Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs and Chris was my Iran desk officer how he came to me to ask permission to start learning Farsi. We were just in the opening stages of an initiative to normalize relations with the newly-elected reformist President Khatemi, an effort which benefited greatly from Chris’s input and management. Chris told me that he wanted to be the first person on the ground in Tehran when we established diplomatic relations.
That effort didn’t work out so well, but I was not at all surprised to hear that Chris was the first American diplomat on the ground in Tripoli when the George W. Bush administration established diplomatic relations with the Qaddafi regime. Nor was it surprising that Chris became the liaison to the Libyan opposition and moved back to Benghazi to be the lead U.S. official on the ground during the effort to overthrow Qaddafi. It was therefore only fitting that he should become the first U.S. ambassador to the free republic of Libya.
The courage and determination that he demonstrated in Libya was typical of the man. He lived on the frontlines of U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East, and now he has died there on the frontlines in the pursuit of liberty – a great American has given up his life for a great American cause. May his memory be blessed.
the Somali capital Mogadishu, police and colleagues said Tuesday.
Warsame Shire Awale, a famous composer who had worked with Somalia's national army band before joining Radio Kulmiye as a drama producer and comedian, was attacked by two gunmen late on Monday.
"Gunmen killed him... we are investigating the matter and the killers will be brought to justice," police chief Ahmed Hassan Malin told reporters.
"Two men armed with pistols shot and wounded him near his house in Waberi district, he died shortly after in hospital," said Abdi Mohamed Haji, a colleague at Radio Kulmiye.
The killing, the latest in a string of attacks on media workers in Somalia, follows the murder of fellow comic Abdi Jeylani Malaq Marshale in August, who also worked at Kulmiye.
Press rights watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has called 2012 the "deadliest year" on record for Somalia, surpassing 2009 when nine died.
At least 17 reporters have been killed this year in the war-ravaged country.
Several killings are blamed on Al-Qaeda linked Shebab insurgents, but other murders are also believed to be linked to struggles within the multiple factions in power.
Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/International/2012/Oct-30/193200-somali-comedian-who-poked-fun-at-islamists-shot-dead.ashx?#ixzz2AvgpXeeX (The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)…
c expression or propagation of faiths other than Islam. But hey, let's try it in the West anyway, and no, really, this time it'll be different.
An update on this story. "Malaysian Christians say no to discriminatory government slogans on Bible," from AsiaNews, March 31:
Kuala Lumpur (AsiaNews / Agencies) - The Christian Federation of Malaysia has rejected the Government's proposal to release 35 thousand Bibles with “For Christianity” printed on the cover. The books, written in Malay, have been under lock and key since 2009 in the port where they arrived. The government had earlier decided to release them, but wanted to stamp a serial number and the slogan "Only Christians” on the cover. The controversy stems from a government decision to ban the use of the word "Allah" to refer to God by non-Muslims. The judiciary has decided against the government on this point, but a [date] for the appeal hearing has yet to be fixed.
The Malaysian Christians argue that there should be no "restrictions, prohibitions and proscriptions" in the use of the sacred books. The government wants to impose an inscription on the Bible, printed in Indonesia, to reduce the risk of Muslims converting.
Their paranoia makes them look weak.
The Bible Society of Malaysia, which imports and distributes Bibles, took charge of a shipment of five thousand Bibles "defaced" by the government writing on March 28. The general secretary of the company, Simon Wong, said that they "can not be sold to Christian buyers" in their current state. "Instead they will be respectfully kept as museum pieces, a witness of the Christian Churches in Malaysia." The president of the Christian Federation of Malaysia, Bishop Ng Moon Hing, said that "there is a systematic and progressive reduction of public space to practice, profess and express our faith. The freedom to wear and display crosses and other religious symbols, to use religious terms and to build places of worship has been progressively restricted. "
Posted by Marisol on March 31, 2011
nt to the nation's Evidence Act. The act reportedly came into effect in April amidst a lot of opposition and has been viewed as a threat to free expression on the web. The protest saw the participation of Malaysian NGOs, popular bloggers and opposition politicians in the country, Reports suggest that during the protest, those participating had their existing homepages replaced with black screens with messages against the new section in the aforementioned act.
As per the reports, the amendment means that "any web host, provider of a wi-fi network, or ordinary user of a computer or mobile device can be found liable for any defamatory or harmful Web content sent via its systems." The protest also saw its support in Malaysia's Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ), which called the amendment a "bad law" that was "passed in haste and does not take into account public interest and participation." They, along with some other critics are now pushing for either scraping the amendment or revising it.
Reports further add that, "Users attempting to access Paultan.org, a highly popular automotive-themed blog, were greeted with with a black pop-up screen that said 'This is what the web could look like' under the legal change."
Earlier in July this year, there were reports about the Russian government proposing amendments to the "Law On Information" and that a discussion was in place in the State Duma of the Russian Federation on the topic. At that time it was reported that if accepted, these amendments would put into effect 'a real censorship on the Internet' in the country, leading to the closure of services like Wikipedia in Russian.
Even Wikipedia had observed a site blackout earlier this year to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). CEO Jimmy Wales had begun tweeting that he'd started to do press interviews on the Wikipedia blackout and has even started a hashtag for the topic, called simply #WikipediaBlackout. He also tweeted that he hopes Wikipedia will melt phone systems in Washington on Wednesday and in another tweet, called out to students to do their homework early, because "Wikipedia protesting bad law on Wednesday."
Internet censorship has been a raging topic back home, too. Even as you're reading this, popular social networking site, Facebook, among others is fighting a legal battle, over allegedly hosting objectionable content on their sites, thereby being potent of harming the nation's peace and harmony. The year, so far, also saw protests throughout the nation by hacking group Anonymous against Internet censorship in the country.
4od). We are indignant to learn that due to threats made on Holland, Channel 4 has cancelled a repeat screening of the historical inquiry into the origins of Islam similar to the kind of inquiry that has been applied to other religions and histories in Britain for many years.
The threats and concerted attempt to stigmatise the documentary and its producers by attacking its credibility and even legitimacy as a field of inquiry is nothing less than an attempt to impose a blasphemy taboo by stealth and coercion against programming that scrutinises Islam.
Caving in to the coercive pressure of Islamists will have catastrophic effects on free inquiry and expression where it pertains to Islam. It would not only further silence academic, historical and theological scrutiny of Islam but would also have the chilling effect of exerting added pressure on Muslims and ex-Muslims who wish to dissent from and question Islam.
CEMB spokesperson Maryam Namazie says:
Here’s my question to Channel 4: what about the threats on our lives for being apostates, ex-Muslims, atheists, freethinkers, secularists, 21st century human beings? What part of our thoughts, lives, and bodies do you recommend we cancel to appease the Islamists? If only there was such an ‘easy’ ‘solution’ for those who are languishing under Islam’s rules. You may accept censorship and cowardly silence in the face of Islamist threats and intimidation but we cannot afford to do so. And we never will.
The CEMB urges you to view the documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm8xKh8eQqU) and write to Channel 4 and Ofcom (contact information below) calling for a repeat screening.
We look forward to your support.
Addresses for Channel 4 and Ofcom:
Lord Burns, Channel 4 Chairperson, Channel 4 Television Corporation, 124 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 2TX
Avi Grewal, Programme Coordinator, Arts & Religion, firstname.lastname@example.org
Mark Raphael, Emma Cooper, Lina Prestwood, Anna Miralis, Commissioning Editors, Documentaries, KHall@channel4.co.uk
Ed Richards, Chief Executive of Ofcom, Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HA, email@example.com
Further Info from: www.ex-muslim.org.uk…
The attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions this week—beginning in Egypt and Libya, and moving to Yemen and other Muslim countries—came under cover of riots against an obscure online video insulting Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. But the mob violence and assaults should be seen for what they really are: an effort by Islamists to garner support and mobilize their base by exacerbating anti-Western sentiments.
When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to calm Muslims Thursday by denouncing the video, she was unwittingly playing along with the ruse the radicals set up. The United States would have been better off focusing on the only outrage that was of legitimate interest to the American government: the lack of respect—shown by a complaisant Egyptian government and other Islamists—for U.S. diplomatic missions.
Protests orchestrated on the pretext of slights and offenses against Islam have been part of Islamist strategy for decades. Iran's ayatollahs built an entire revolution around anti-Americanism. While the Iranian revolution was underway in 1979, Pakistan's Islamists whipped up crowds by spreading rumors that the Americans had forcibly occupied Islam's most sacred site, the Ka'aba or the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Pakistani protesters burned the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad.
Violent demonstrations in many parts of the Muslim world after the 1989 fatwa—or religious condemnation—of a novel by Salman Rushdie, or after the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in 2005, also did not represent spontaneous outrage. In each case, the insult to Islam or its prophet was first publicized by Islamists themselves so they could use it as justification for planned violence.
Once mourning over the death of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and others subsides, we will hear familiar arguments in the West. Some will rightly say that Islamist sensibilities cannot and should not lead to self-censorship here. Others will point out that freedom of expression should not be equated with a freedom to offend. They will say: Just as a non-Jew, out of respect for other religious beliefs, does not exercise his freedom to desecrate a Torah scroll, similar respect should be extended to Muslims and what they deem sacred.
A street protester near the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, Sept. 13.
But this debate, as thoughtful as it may be, is a distraction from what is really going on. It ignores the political intent of Islamists for whom every perceived affront to Islam is an opportunity to exploit a wedge issue for their own empowerment.
As for affronts, the Western mainstream is, by and large, quite respectful toward Muslims, millions of whom have adopted Europe and North America as their home and enjoy all the freedoms the West has to offer, including the freedom to worship. Insignificant or unnoticed videos and publications would have no impact on anyone, anywhere, if the Islamists did not choose to publicize them for radical effect.
And insults, real or hyped, are not the problem. At the heart of Muslim street violence is the frustration of the world's Muslims over their steady decline for three centuries, a decline that has coincided with the rise and spread of the West's military, economic and intellectual prowess.
During the 800 years of Muslim ascendancy beginning in the eighth century—in Southern Europe, North Africa and much of Western Asia—Muslims did not riot to protest non-Muslim insults against Islam or its prophet. There is no historic record of random attacks against non-Muslim targets in retaliation for a non-Muslim insulting Prophet Muhammad, though there are many books derogatory toward Islam's prophet that were written in the era of Islam's great empires. Muslims under Turkey's Ottomans, for example, did not attack non-Muslim envoys (the medieval equivalent of today's embassies) or churches upon hearing of real or rumored European sacrilege against their religion.
Clearly, then, violent responses to perceived injury are not integral to Islam. A religion is what its followers make it, and Muslims opting for violence have chosen to paint their faith as one that is prone to anger. Frustration with their inability to succeed in the competition between nations also has led some Muslims to seek symbolic victories.
Yet the momentary triumph of burning another country's flag or setting on fire a Western business or embassy building is a poor but widespread substitute for global success that eludes the modern world's 1.5 billion Muslims. Violent protest represents the lower rung of the ladder of rage; terrorism is its higher form.
Islamists almost by definition have a vested interest in continuously fanning the flames of Muslim victimhood. For Islamists, wrath against the West is the basis for their claim to the support of Muslim masses, taking attention away from societal political and economic failures. For example, the 57 member states of the Organization of Islamic Conference account for one-fifth of the world's population but their combined gross domestic product is less than 7% of global output—a harsh reality for which Islamists offer no solution.
Even after recent developments that were labeled the Arab Spring, few Muslim-majority countries either fulfill—or look likely to—the criteria for freedom set by the independent group Freedom House. Mainstream discourse among Muslims blames everyone but themselves for this situation. The image of an ascendant West belittling Islam with the view to eliminate it serves as a convenient explanation for Muslim weakness.
Once the Muslim world embraces freedom of expression, it will be able to recognize the value of that freedom even for those who offend Muslim sensibilities. More important: Only in a free democratic environment will the world's Muslims be able to debate the causes of their powerlessness, which stirs in them greater anger than any specific action on the part of Islam's Western detractors.
Until then, the U.S. would do well to remember Osama bin Laden's comment not long after the Sept. 11 attacks: "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse." America should do nothing that enables Islamists to portray the nation as the weak horse.
Mr. Haqqani is professor of international relations at Boston University and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He served as Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S. in 2008-11.
A version of this article appeared September 14, 2012, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Manipulated Outrage and Misplaced Fury.…
You don't have to be a member of 4F to follow any room or topic! Just fill in on any page you like.
Muslim Terrorism Count
Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them.
At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.
Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.
We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.
The 4 Freedoms
These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 1. SP Freedom of Speech Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms 2. SP Freedom of Election Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms 3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation Immigration is allowed -except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud) 4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).
An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:
Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"