Archive for ‘International’

October 25th, 2009

Blasphemy-Dangerous or Necessary?

In an effort to rebuild our relationship with the United Nations, a effort that is being questioned by many Americans, the Obama administration has chosen to support an agenda that contradicts our own Constitution.

blasphemyThe United States has backed a new UN resolution on free expression which would be considered unconstitutional under its First Amendment — which protects freedom of expression and bans sanctioning of religions.

The UN Human Rights Council on 2 October adopted the resolution, which the US had co-sponsored with Egypt. The US had finally joined the Human Rights Council in June, and its support for the measure reflected the Obama administration’s stated aim to “re-engage” with the UN.

While the new resolution focuses on freedom of expression, it also condemns “negative stereotyping of religion”. Billed as a historic compromise between Western and Muslim nations, in the wake of controversies such the Danish Muhammed cartoons, the resolution caused concern among European members.

“The language of stereotyping only applies to stereotyping of individuals, I stress individuals, and must not protect ideologies, religions or abstract values,” said France’s representative, Jean-Baptiste Mattéi, speaking for the EU. “The EU rejects the concept of defamation of religion.”

France emphasised that international human rights law protects individual believers, not systems of belief. But European members, eager not be seen as compromise wreckers, reluctantly supported the measure.

On the other side of the fault line stood the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which lobbied for a measure against “religious defamation”.

“We firmly believe that the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it special responsibilities,” said Pakistan’s delegate, speaking for the OIC. The “defamation” of religion, he said, “results in negative stereotyping of the followers of this religion and belief and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”

Following the OIC’s logic, one could equally apply the language of the resolution to Islamism, a political form which is arguably a “contemporary manifestation of religious hatred, discrimination and xenophobia. It results in negative stereotyping of the followers of other religions and beliefs and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”

The EU also had other worries. European members felt that the provision in the resolution on “the moral and social responsibility of the press” was objectionable in that it went beyond the limited restrictions set out in article 19, the provision on free expression in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. (Source-Index on Censorship)

As Jonathan Turley comments at USAToday,

Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions. Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech — the literal sacred institution of society.

While I respect the right of any person to believe as they wish, I also believe that the right to speak our minds freely and without fear of reprisal, intimidation or sanction is a hallmark of Western democracy. We should not surrender our rights in order to provide uncertain security in the face of violent opposition to contrary opinions. Ben Franklin wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”.

There is no reason to provide special protection to religious beliefs. The fear that religious believers will suffer “incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them” is nonsensical. The majority of people on the planet are religious. Religious believers hold most of the positions of power in both the East and West. They have no reason to fear the opinions of the minority. The most immediate danger to any believer in a particular god are those who believe in another god.

Criticism is not necessarily an act of hatred. Quite often criticism is an act of love. If a family member has become enslaved to drug addiction, is it an act of discrimination or hatred to criticize their addiction? If I firmly believe my country, a country I willingly served to defend, is headed in a dangerous and unconstitutional direction, should I remain mute?

Religious belief in a generic sense is predominant among humans around the globe. But there is little agreement as to the nature of the god the religious believe in. What anti-blasphemy resolutions seek to achieve will result in the inability of Baptists to speak out against the Catholic Church or reasonable people to object to the foolishness of Scientology. We will have to remain silent when Iran decides to execute those who oppose their theocracy or happen to be homosexual. Any theocratic government will be exempt from criticism by anyone for any reason.

The philosophical and legal quagmire with such legislation centers around the definition of “blasphemy.” Practically every religion, sect and cult possesses concepts that are blasphemous to another. As an important example, while Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, Muslims consider him a mere prophet, albeit an important one. Calling Christ the “Son of God,” however, is viewed as “blasphemous” within Islam, as is not believing in Mohammed as Allah’s final and most important prophet. Under such anti-blasphemy legislation, therefore, all Christian literature could be confiscated and Christians arrested, because at its very core, Christianity would represent “blasphemous material” that could cause—and has caused—outrage many times in the Muslim world, explaining in part why the Bible is banned in such fundamentalist Islamic countries as Saudi Arabia.

Furthermore, the punishment for blasphemy according to the Koran includes death and maiming, as stated at Surah 5:33:

“Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land.”

Obviously, many people would object strenuously that there is any relationship between God and all this bigotry, cruelty and gore—to suggest otherwise would be extremely offensive to them and cause them outrage. This notion of a violent, cruel and enslaving God who approves of such behavior would offend their religious sensibilities, leaving its purveyors themselves open to charges of “blasphemy.” (Source-jdstone.org)

The lack of religious belief is just as valid a philosophical position as any religious belief. The only reason theists of any stripe think they can outlaw blasphemy is their majority status. It’s not an issue of rights or responsibility, it’s a matter of “might makes right”.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

CategoryInternational, Laws | Comment2 Comments »

Tags:
June 27th, 2009

Election won’t change Iran

Lila Ghobady has written a powerful statement about the Iranian elections, and why the country won’t change no matter who was elected.

Why didn’t I vote in the latest elections for the president of the country of my birth, Iran? Because no matter who is the president of Iran, they would stone me!lila7

As an Iranian woman, I require big changes in order to convince myself that a change in president would mean an improvement of my basic rights as human being inside Iran.

I was among many Iranians who decided not to vote in the recent [s]election. We boycotted the sham election in my motherland and have not been surprised by the results publicized by the mainstream media, both in Iran and elsewhere. This puppet regime has never considered the people’s wishes and has always acted in the interests of the few who are in charge of the prison called Iran. Cheating, lying and hypocrisy are the specialties of the religious demagogues that maintain the farce that Iran is a democratic state.

A quick look at Mousavi’s political biography reveals him to be a fanatic Khomeini supporter and a fanatic hard-liner similar to Ahmadinejad and others in control of the Islamic regime. His reign as Prime Minister was one of the darkest times in the history of Iran’s Islamic regime in terms of censorship and human rights violations. He is also backed up by the Rafsanjani mafia family, who have stolen oil money for their own family interests while 70% of the population lives in poverty. So ingrained as he is in a system of corruption and exploitation, that how could anyone believe that Mousavi genuinely wants reform?

Please click over and read the full article. Lila makes a compelling argument that Iran will remain unchanged no matter who prevails in the elections.

Lila Ghobady is an exiled Iranian writer-journalist and filmmaker living in Canada since 2002. She has been involved with human rights since working as a journalis in Iran and has continued her work in Canada when she arrived as a refugee. She has worked as a Producer and associate Director of internationally-praised underground films along fellow exiled filmmaker Moslem Mansouri before leaving Iran. Her recent film Forbidden Sun Dance has been well-received in several countries. As a journalist, she received the title of BlogHer of the Week for her Review piece on Slumdog Millionaire in March 2009. Lila has received her Master’s degree in Canadian/women studies from Carleton University in Ottawa.

CategoryInternational | Comment10 Comments »

Tags:
June 16th, 2009

Iran’s all a-Twitter

Just read Clay Shirky’s perspective on the election turmoil in Iran. It’s hardly surprising he’d focus on the technological aspect.

“… this is it. The big one. This is the first revolution that has been catapulted onto a global stage and transformed by social media. I’ve been thinking a lot about the Chicago demonstrations of 1968 where they chanted “the whole world is watching.” Really, that wasn’t true then. But this time it’s true … and people throughout the world are not only listening but responding. They’re engaging with individual participants, they’re passing on their messages to their friends, and they’re even providing detailed instructions to enable web proxies allowing Internet access that the authorities can’t immediately censor. That kind of participation is really extraordinary.” (Source-Anthropology.net)

Extraordinary, you bet. Unprecedented, no doubt. A positive development and one that produces the tangible results of greater freedom for all Iranians? Too early to tell, but the initial signs aren’t good.mousavi-supporters-enghelab-to-azadi10

That the disagreement over the election results is so profound and involves such powerful figures in Iranian society is frightening. This is not a situation I see calming down any time soon. Thankfully we don’t (yet) endure a theocratic government, so it’s hard for some Americans to appreciate what it means to have the Ayatollah oppose the election results. Here we know Pat Robertson hates the president, so what? But there, it’s a serious situation.

So far Iran has shut down access to many websites and blogs, thrown out the Western press and, according to something I read on Friendfeed today (failed to get the link), the government is actually creating phony “anti-Ahmadinejad” sites so they can harvest the names of Iranians who register or leave comments there.

Let’s hope whatever happens in the near future there it stays within their borders and doesn’t spill over to the rest of the world. There’s no way in hell we can afford (literally and figuratively) to be involved in international conflicts on three fronts. We may have to establish priorities; Afghanistan may have to wait if Korea or Iran become a larger and more immediate threat.

CategoryInternational | Comment1 Comment »

Tags:
January 4th, 2009

U.K citizens…please enable remote desktop

If that last post doesn’t make you wonder if George Orwell only erred in the year he selected for his title, read on…

THE Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain routinely to hack into people’s personal computers without a warrant.

The move, which follows a decision by the European Union’s council of ministers in Brussels, has angered civil liberties groups and opposition MPs. They described it as a sinister extension of the surveillance state which drives “a coach and horses” through privacy laws.

The hacking is known as “remote searching”. It allows police or MI5 officers who may be hundreds of miles away to examine covertly the hard drive of someone’s PC at his home, office or hotel room.

Material gathered in this way includes the content of all e-mails, web-browsing habits and instant messaging.

Under the Brussels edict, police across the EU have been given the green light to expand the implementation of a rarely used power involving warrantless intrusive surveillance of private property. The strategy will allow French, German and other EU forces to ask British officers to hack into someone’s UK computer and pass over any material gleaned.

A remote search can be granted if a senior officer says he “believes” that it is “proportionate” and necessary to prevent or detect serious crime — defined as any offence attracting a jail sentence of more than three years. (Source-The Times Online)computerchaineddown

If any of my readers would like advice on securing your computer and/or home network against unwanted intrusion or wiping your hard drive to military specifications, let me know in the comments. Without knowing what resources the governemt currently employ I can’t guarantee absolute security, but I’m willing to bet too many of you are making it far too easy for the government to snoop on your personal computer.

Any trace of even deleted porn, warez or pirated music and movies can be detected by means available to anyone, let alone the government. Even if you think you have nothing to hide, even if you seriously think this will help the police nab criminals or terrorists, you should still be concerned over the rapid loss of our rights to privacy. Soon they’ll be asking, nicely I’m sure, that everyone wear transponding devices (”we can make it look just like fashion jewellery!”) so that the government can know where you are and what you’re doing 24/7. What better way to make sure those rotten criminals and terrorists don’t bother you anymore.

CategoryGovernment, International, Society | Comment13 Comments »

Tags:
October 18th, 2008

Islamophobia disguised under ‘freedom of speech’

Writing to Islam Online, Sadia Ali Aden complains that the freedom of speech is a cover for hate speech directed toward Muslims.

The heartrending reality of bigotry and Islamophobia in today’s American environment is overwhelming.

The Islamophobes use the media as a propaganda tool to poison the minds of the American people under the disguise of “freedom of speech.” This was evident when Mr. Glen Sheller, editor of The Columbus Dispatch newspaper’s editorial page, defended the Dispatch’s distribution of the fear mongering DVD “Obsession,” which was intended to instill fear in the hearts and minds of the unsuspecting American people.

While we should relish and strive to benefit from our freedom of expression without fear or favor, we should also be mindful that the way we use our “freedom of speech” speaks volumes about us.

The gate keepers of public forums should remain neutral moderators and not compromise their ability to objectively protect the principles of this American value. Once reason is overshadowed, and objectivity diluted with hate, positive public discourse becomes more elusive.

There is a fine line between the healthy use of freedom of speech, and employing such “freedom” to advance bigotry and Islamophobia. The Media has become an effective tool for prolonging the psychological terrorization of the American people. American citizens must be vigilant in not allowing hate mongering interest groups, such as the producers of this DVD, to subvert such values as liberty, peace, and justice for all.

I am strongly opposed to newspaper editors, like Mr. Sheller, allowing themselves to be used to advance the agenda of hate mongering Islamophobes. As a mother who must carefully shelter her child from dangers lurking in the dark, I also feel the need to protect our cherished Constitutional principles, and the hard earned image of the better of the “two Americas.”

I fully understand the pain and anxiety caused by these hate mongering, Islamophobic groups who try to cloak their agendas under the umbrella of “freedom of speech”. They are far more detrimental to the health and welfare of America than meets the eye.

The promulgation of hatred and bigotry does not lead to positive public discourse.

In such an atmosphere that fosters so much pain and fear, a more healthy journalism – one that is balanced and fair – must be exerted. I support freedom of speech, but not at the expense of truth and justice!

Truth and justice. Foreign concepts to a discussion of religion. Truth is actually opinion and belief unsubstantiated by any form of evidence, as a proper proof would be. Justice is the new codeword for not allowing criticism and skepticism of anyone’s particular faith.

Islam is perhaps the least tolerant, next to Scientology, of any public challenge to its beliefs. They are seeking to have blasphemy made illegal in international courts. This is nothing less than an attempt to undermine the very essence of free speech. Religious belief must be very fragile if it cannot stand up against skepticism and doubt.

Harold Stone, in his reply to the Columbus Dispatch editorial mentioned by Aden, says exactly what I think when I read comments like Aden’s.

I respond to the Sept. 19 Faith & Values article “Distribution of DVD disturbs many Muslims.” I and everyone with whom I have discussed it applaud The Dispatch and other media outlets for the invaluable public service done by distributing the DVD Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West.

The defensive comments of Asma Mobin-Uddin, president of the Ohio Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, offer no reasons for viewers to question the film’s validity or grave concerns and fears it generates.

I submit that her “anger and disappointment” at the disparagement of radical Islam are misdirected. As I understood the film, it attacked an estimated 15 percent of Muslims, not all, as Mobin-Uddin stated.

Where is the outrage, shame and guilt that righteous Islamists should espouse toward the abhorrent deeds and preachings of Islamic extremists (whatever their percentage of the faith) who are demanding death for all non-believers and are training a new generation to perpetuate their objectives? Are the other estimated 85 percent of Muslims simply turning a blind eye to the radical movement with hope that it will go away? Or does their seeming acquiescence reflect a degree of unspoken support?

If Mobin-Uddin is aware of falsehoods or misrepresentations presented by Obsession, she is obligated to address them specifically, clearly and objectively, not in an aura of self-indulgence or self-pity. To do otherwise is, I believe, a disservice and self-inflicted humiliation to all Muslims.

If Muslims do not themselves squelch the pervading evil and consuming hatred within the Islamic faith, who then must? And at what cost to civilization?

CategoryFree Thought, International, Laws, islam | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
April 5th, 2008

Two completely different ways of looking at the world

For most of us in the Western world, challenging religion and advocating free thought are reasonably risk-free activities. One has to admire the courage of Syrian poet Adonis, advocating those ideals while delivering the keynote address at the ‘Innovation in Islam’ conference.

“If a religion cannot offer human beings free thinking and freedom, there is no benefit in continuing to be part of it, Syrian poet Adonis said yesterday.

What can emanate from a faith where people are made to believe that everything has been said and no more inquisitiveness or reasoning is required. A society that ceases to think freely is an antipode to existence,” he said.

“Islam today is nothing but similar to Christian theology except with a turban. Muslims can either continue the concept of one Umma (Nation) – which has been failing – or they can join the concept of humanism, that liberates them from the rules of fiqh and allows total equality for all citizens,” remarked Adonis.

“Innovations cannot be made in a religion. Only human intellect makes it possible,” he said, and “that can only come when Muslims start to question and reason again. The religion and politics must be separated.”

“Look at the Arab history, intellectual dealing, religious text, upheavals and all the events until the end of the first half of the Hijri century, during which four Rightly-Guided Caliphs were murdered – one supposedly poisoned. Then Baghdad declines and falls in 1228, gets taken over by Ottomans, followed by another takeover by Western civilisation that continues to be the case until today,” he said.

“During this time, while we should have learned from the age of Renaissance – allowing for more vision and adaptations – we went back to traditions and the result is a current Islamic fundamentalism, that people say lays a siege on human culture. Its like allowing the people to ‘look’ but not ‘join’,” he said.
Adonis, also drew great parallels between religious text and poetry, calling the former “a text that was said once and forever”, while the latter “an innovative process, allowing the poet to present new words and relations between man and the universe”.

“Essence of innovation in poetic terms means to reject the preconceived notions, while essence of innovation in religious terms means not to reject the sacred text. The text can be explained and interpreted but not questioned,” he said.

“The truth in poetry is relative and innovation in it changes with time, whereas religion never changes. That makes religion an answer, while poetry a question – thus the incompatibility. One requires submission, dictation and faith, the other requires reasoning and exploring. Two completely different ways of looking at the world,” he added.

(Source)

CategoryFree Thought, International | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
March 17th, 2008

Further erosions of British liberty

Is the only way to effectively combat terrorism the creation of a police state?

MI5 seeks powers to trawl records in new terror hunt

Millions of commuters could have their private movements around cities secretly monitored under new counter-terrorism powers being sought by the security services.

Records of journeys made by people using smart cards that allow 17 million Britons to travel by underground, bus and train with a single swipe at the ticket barrier are among a welter of private information held by the state to which MI5 and police counter-terrorism officers want access in order to help identify patterns of suspicious behaviour.

The request by the security services, described by shadow Home Secretary David Davis last night as ‘extraordinary’, forms part of a fierce Whitehall debate over how much access the state should have to people’s private lives in its efforts to combat terrorism.

It comes as the Cabinet Office finalises Gordon Brown’s new national security strategy, expected to identify a string of new threats to Britain – ranging from future ‘water wars’ between countries left drought-ridden by climate change to cyber-attacks using computer hacking technology to disrupt vital elements of national infrastructure.

The fear of cyber-warfare has climbed Whitehall’s agenda since last year’s attack on the Baltic nation of Estonia, in which Russian hackers swamped state servers with millions of electronic messages until they collapsed. The Estonian defence and foreign ministries and major banks were paralysed, while even its emergency services call system was temporarily knocked out: the attack was seen as a warning that battles once fought by invading armies or aerial bombardment could soon be replaced by virtual, but equally deadly, wars in cyberspace.

While such new threats may grab headlines, the critical question for the new security agenda is how far Britain is prepared to go in tackling them. What are the limits of what we want our security services to know? And could they do more to identify suspects before they strike?

One solution being debated in Whitehall is an unprecedented unlocking of data held by public bodies, such as the Oyster card records maintained by Transport for London and smart cards soon to be introduced in other cities in the UK, for use in the war against terror. The Office of the Information Commissioner, the watchdog governing data privacy, confirmed last night that it had discussed the issue with government but declined to give details, citing issues of national security.

Currently the security services can demand the Oyster records of specific individuals under investigation to establish where they have been, but cannot trawl the whole database. But supporters of calls for more sharing of data argue that apparently trivial snippets – like the journeys an individual makes around the capital – could become important pieces of the jigsaw when fitted into a pattern of other publicly held information on an individual’s movements, habits, education and other personal details. That could lead, they argue, to the unmasking of otherwise undetected suspects.

Individuals wrongly identified as suspicious might lose high-security jobs, or have their immigration status brought into doubt, he said. Ministers are also understood to share concerns over civil liberties, following public opposition to ID cards, and the debate is so sensitive that it may not even form part of Brown’s published strategy.

But if there is no consensus yet on the defence, there is an emerging agreement on the mode of attack. The security strategy will argue that in the coming decades Britain faces threats of a new and different order. And its critics argue the government is far from ready.

(Source)

What they need are some technologically intelligent people who can conceive of ways to protect their citizens without violating all their liberties.

signature

CategoryGovernment, In the News, International | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
March 17th, 2008

English police want a children’s DNA database

Primary school children should be eligible for the DNA database if they exhibit behaviour indicating they may become criminals in later life, according to Britain’s most senior police forensics expert.Gary Pugh, director of forensic sciences at Scotland Yard and the new DNA spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said a debate was needed on how far Britain should go in identifying potential offenders, given that some experts believe it is possible to identify future offending traits in children as young as five.’If we have a primary means of identifying people before they offend, then in the long-term the benefits of targeting younger people are extremely large,’ said Pugh. ‘You could argue the younger the better. Criminologists say some people will grow out of crime; others won’t. We have to find who are possibly going to be the biggest threat to society.’

Pugh admitted that the deeply controversial suggestion raised issues of parental consent, potential stigmatisation and the role of teachers in identifying future offenders, but said society needed an open, mature discussion on how best to tackle crime before it took place. There are currently 4.5 million genetic samples on the UK database – the largest in Europe – but police believe more are required to reduce crime further. ‘The number of unsolved crimes says we are not sampling enough of the right people,’ Pugh told The Observer. However, he said the notion of universal sampling – everyone being forced to give their genetic samples to the database – is currently prohibited by cost and logistics.

A recent report from the think-tank Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) called for children to be targeted between the ages of five and 12 with cognitive behavioural therapy, parenting programmes and intensive support. Prevention should start young, it said, because prolific offenders typically began offending between the ages of 10 and 13. Julia Margo, author of the report, entitled ‘Make me a Criminal’, said: ‘You can carry out a risk factor analysis where you look at the characteristics of an individual child aged five to seven and identify risk factors that make it more likely that they would become an offender.’ However, she said that placing young children on a database risked stigmatising them by identifying them in a ‘negative’ way.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights group Liberty, denounced any plan to target youngsters. ‘Whichever bright spark at Acpo thought this one up should go back to the business of policing or the pastime of science fiction novels,’ she said. ‘The British public is highly respectful of the police and open even to eccentric debate, but playing politics with our innocent kids is a step too far.’

Last week it emerged that the number of 10 to 18-year-olds placed on the DNA database after being arrested will have reached around 1.5 million this time next year. Since 2004 police have had the power to take DNA samples from anyone over the age of 10 who is arrested, regardless of whether they are later charged, convicted, or found to be innocent. (Source)

One has to wonder if children who refuse to believe in gods or otherwise think for themselves will be suspect.

signature

CategoryGovernment, In the News, International, Laws | Comment1 Comment »

Tags: