Liberty Bell

From Expose the Left: President Bush spoke to military and civilian families in Wheeling, West Virginia this afternoon about the War in Iraq. As usual, he spent a long period of time with the audience to answer the questions they may have. One woman, a military wife, told President Bush about her husband’s career as a military broadcast journalist and the footage he got about how great things are going in Iraq. She told the President that many cable news channels are just not reporting good news and only the bad news. She wanted to know what people could do to see the good happening in Iraq. President Bush’s answers: The blogs and the internet:

WOMAN: This is my husband who has returned from a 13 month tour in Tikrit.

BUSH: Oh yeah, thank you buddy. Welcome back!

WOMAN: His job while serving was as a broadcast journalist and he has brought back several DVDs full of wonderful footage of reconstruction, of medical things going on, and I ask you this from the bottom of my heart for the solution to this. Because it seems that our major media networks don’t want to portray the good, they just want to focus –

[tremendous applause from audience]
——on another car bomb or they just want to focus on the more bloodshed, or they just want to focus on how they don’t agree with or what you’re doing when they don’t even probably know how you’re doing what you’re doing anyway. But what can we do to get that footage on CNN, on FOX, to get it on Headline News, to get it on the local news because you can send it to the news people, and I’m sorry I’m rambling on like I have –

BUSH: So was I though, for like an hour –

[laughter]

WOMAN:——can use this and it’ll just end up in a drawer because it’s good and it portrays the good and if people could see that, if the America people could see it, there would never be another negative word about this conflict.

BUSH: Well I appreciate that. No it’s –

[applause]

BUSH: Before I come out and speak, I’ve spoken in Cleveland, gave press conference yesterday. Spoke in Cleveland Monday, press conference yesterday, here today. I’m going to continue doing what I’m doing to try make sure people can here there’s – why I make decisions and as best as I can explain why I am optimistic we can succeed. One of the things that we have to value is that that we do have a media, free media that’s able to do what they want to do and I – you ask me to say something in front of all the camera here [laughter]. Help over there will ya? I just got to keep talking and word of mouth, there’s blogs, there’s internet, there’s all kinds of way to communicate which is literally changing the way people get their information and so if you’re concerned I would suggest that you reach out to some of the groups that are supporting the troops, that got internet sites and just keep the word moving.

Keep it moving…

Denmark has been weighed in the scales of royalty and found wanting. And the whole world knows.

Two main events regarding the Denmark cartoon debate have come up recently. One is that Prince Charles has publically criticized Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad as well as the “ghastly” violence that followed their publication.

The prince toured Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the foremost Islamic institution in the Sunni Muslim world, on the second day of his visit to Egypt. Charles and Camilla were hosted by the grand sheik of Al-Azhar, Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, the top Islamic cleric in Egypt, who awarded the prince an honorary doctorate in recognition of his work to promote the understanding of Islam.

I wonder how much he truely is against the Danish people in this debate, or if he is merely trying to protect the relationship with the Muslims to avoid riots from the Muslim population in Britian.

Such thoughts aren’t possible in the other case as UN Special Rapporteur Doudou Diéne Calls Danes Racists, Xenophobes.

On Saturday, March 18th, Jyllands-Posten broke the story about an attack Doudou Diéne made on Denmark. The report was leaked by the UN to press sources in Denmark. Although available in full form, a complete translation is not available in English. Excerpts from the report are below:

III. THE MATTER OF THE CARICATURES OF PROPHET MUHAMMED PUBLISHED BY A DANISH NEWSPAPER

23. The most serious demonstration of the deterioration of the situation of the Arab and Moslem populations in general and of the resurgence of islamophobia in particular is illustrated by the publication of some caricatures of the Prophet Muhammed by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. This newspaper published, September 30, 2005, 12 caricatures of the Prophet Muhammed. Inter alia, three of these caricatures show: the head of the Prophet wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb with a lit wick, the Prophet in the likeness of a devil holding in his hand a grenade, and the Prophet offering virgin girls to committers of suicide bombings. This constitutes an illustration of three significant tendencies at the heart of the recrudescence of islamophobia. The publication of the caricatures is, in its chronology, its initial motivation and with regards to the public concerned, revealing of the vulgarizing of defamation of religions. The caricatures published are the result of a contest launched by the newspaper in answer to allegations according to which the Danish cartoonists were so frightened by fundamentalist Moslems that they wouldn’t illustrate a biographical work on Muhammed. Thus the original motivation of the contest is the expression of a challenge and of an opposition to a group, the fundamentalist Moslems, suspected of causing an atmosphere of self-censorship. The identity of the public aimed at by the biographical work, children, reveals a concern for influencing the perception of a religion by a particularly significant and vulnerable age group. The object of the publication, a biography, showed the intention to present not a fiction but the life of the Prophet. The dominating message of the caricatures was therefore to associate Islam with terrorism. The caricature relating to the sexual gratification of suicide bombers with virgin women suggests the return of a age-old historical islamophobic Western imagery: the association of Islam and its prophet with sexual depravity. The way in which these caricatures defames Islam has now been defined.

24. Finally, the initial reaction of the Danish Government[1], refusing to take an official position on the contents and the publication of the caricatures while referring to respect for the freedom of expression, and the non-reception of the ambassadors of Moslem countries, is revealing not only of the political vulgarizing of islamophobia but also, by its consequences, of the central role of political leaders in the national arena and the international repercussions of the demonstrations and expressions of islamophobia. On the legal level, the government of each State which is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is bound, with regard to the relation between Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Thought and Expression, by three articles: article 18, which protects Freedom of Religion, but whose paragraph 3 poses limitations with regards to, inter alia, the protection of the law and order and safety as well as the rights and fundamental freedoms of others; article 19, which protects the freedom of expression and opinion, but whose paragraph 3 interjects, inter alia restrictions, the “respect for the rights or the reputation of others”; and, finally, article 20, which states the principle of prohibition by law of any call to hatred on the grounds of nationality, race or religion which constitutes an incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. The fundamental principle which these articles express is the founding principle of all legal systems: any freedom or right finds its limit in the respect and the right of the other. Therefore, on the legal level, in particular with regard to its international commitments, the Danish Government was under an obligation to give its opinion, always respecting Freedom of Expression, not only on the impact the caricatures had on the liberties and rights of its community of 200,000 Moslems, but also on the impact on protection of law and order.

25. On the political level and with regards to the ethics of international relations, the Danish Government has not shown in this question, in the alarming context of the recrudescence of the defamation of religions, in particular of islamophobia as well as anti-semitism and christianophobie, the engagement and vigilance which it usually shows with regards to counter-acting religious intolerance, counter-acting religious hatred and promoting religious harmony. These values are precisely those which give direction, legitimacy and opportunity to the recent launching by the Secretary General of the initiative for an “Alliance of civilizations”.

A. Political and ideological context of the publication of caricatures

26. The special Rapporteur cannot avoid the question of the political and ideological national context in which the publication of the caricatures occured as well as the position of the Danish Government. This context is, first of all, marked by an agreement signed on December 8, 2005 between the Government and the Danish People’s Party, an extreme-right party, to tighten the conditions for access to citizenship in a country considered as having an immigration policy among the most restrictive of Europe, a country where 13% of the seats of the Parliament are occupied by the Danish People’s Party, of which one of the spokesmen, Søren Krarup, described “Moslem immigration as a means to overrun Europe, the same as they’ve been doing the last 1.400 years.” According to the French newspaper L’Monde of December 11, 2005, an imam filed a complaint against a deputy of the Danish People’s Party who, in Parliament, compared Moslem women wearing scarves to the motorcyclists who raise a swastika. The Special Rapporteur has indicated to the Commission and the General Assembly, in all his reports, one of the principal causes of the vulgarizing of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia: the increasing infestation of the political programs of the traditionally democratic parties with the racist and xenophobic platforms of the parties of the extreme right.

27. The special Rapporteur noted with interest, while finalising this report, the evolution of the position of the newspaper and government concerned. The editor in chief Monday January 30 “apologised” not for the publication of the caricatures, which he continues to deem “sober”, but “for having offended” the Moslems. But the nature of the consecutive publication of the caricatures by several European newspapers, in spite of the strong emotions caused by these drawings in the Islamic world, is beyond the legitimate defense of the Freedom of Expression, and tends to affirm Samuel Huntington’s thesis of a “Clash of Cilizations”. By publishing the caricatures of the Danish newspaper at a time when this newspaper had presented its apologies for the offence they caused, these newspapers favored a posture of confrontation and not of dialogue towards the domestic and foreign Moslem communities, which were offended by these caricatures.

28. Their uncompromising defense of a Freedom of Expression without limits or restrictions does not conform with international standards which keep a necessary balance between Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion, in particular non-initiation of religious and racial hatred, agreed upon by all the Member States of the United Nations in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This position is indicative of an alarming lack of sensitivity and comprehension of the religious convictions and the significant emotions of the communities concerned. Because of this attitude, these publications consolidate criticisms which have been formulated especially by certain mass media, and in particular since the tragic events of September 11, which associate Islam with terrorism and which is a central explanation for the recrudesence of islamophobia in the world and in particular in their own countries. However, it’s precisely this amalgam which is at the core of the criticisms formulated against the caricatures of the Danish newspaper. The consecutive debate about the publication of the caricatures revealed in a more worrying way the emergence, from certain intellectuals, media and politicians, of a rhetoric of conflict of cultures and civilizations dividing the world between civilized secular democracies characterized by defense of Freedom of Expression and retrograde and backwards closed countries identified by the defense of religious freedom and insisting on their religion’s place in their societies. The debate would be reduced in this spirit to an irreducible conflict between “our values” and “their values”. This kind of dialectics, which is in the same black and white spirit as the Danish newspaper’s caricatures, identifying the West with the first group and the Moslem countries with the second group, thus presenting two opposing worlds, antagonistic cultures and civilizations, obscures not only the diversity of opinions, policies and individuals on this debate in the European countries and the United States, but especially the great multiculturalism of their own societies which is illustrated by the importance of their own national Moslem communities. The critical reaction towards the caricatures expressed by leaders of Jewish and Christian communities is not only the expression of their feeling that these caricatures illustrate the recrudescence of the slandering of all religions and the dominating ideological climate of intolerance as demonstrated by facts and practice. This response also constitutes the most effective defense against the risk of a clash of religions which these caricatures can cause. Their exemplary reaction confirms the fundamental fact that the contemporary islamophobia, like anti-semitism and christianophobia, owes more to politics and ideology than to religion. The Special Rapporteur notes with satisfaction the reactions of the leaders of various religions, illustrated also by the statement made by the European Council of Religious Leaders[2]. This declaration invites all religious leaders to do their utmost to reject and stop the acts of violence and terror which are carried out in the name of God, and condemns the use of the Freedom of Expression for blasphemous ends, which is seen as a violation of this freedom when it is exerted without taking into account the detrimental effects on individuals and groups.

29. Lastly, the special Rapporteur deplores the violent reactions which followed the publication of the caricatures in question, and in particular the threats and attacks against people were in no way related to the publication of them and which were targeted only on the basis of their nationality, as well as the attacks against diplomatic representations. The Special Rapporteur deplores also the violence exerted towards places of worship of other religions, such as was done against a catholic church in Beirut. This constitute a lack of respect and an attack towards other religious communities and does not help the fight against defamation of religions, quite the contrary.

[1] With regard to the later evolution of the Danish position, see the section “Position of the Danish and Norwegian Governments”.

[2] Declaration of the Executive Committee of the European Council of Leaders of Religions, Oslo, Februrary 6, 2006.

(The racist part is in section 26.)

Sammenhold!