 |
   |
|
In this mailing:
OIC Blames Free Speech for "Islamophobia" in West
by Soeren Kern
December 11, 2013 at 5:00 am
  Be the first of your
friends to like this.
The common thread that binds the
entire document together is the OIC's repeated insistence that the main
culprit responsible for "the institutionalization of Islamophobia"
in Western countries is freedom of speech.
"The Istanbul Process started
with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the EU High Representative for
Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton.... We need to build on
it." — OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Isanoglu
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, an influential bloc of 57 Muslim
countries, has released the latest edition of its annual
"Islamophobia" report.The "Sixth OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia: October 2012-September 2013" is a 94-page document purporting to "offer a comprehensive picture of Islamophobia, as it exists mainly in contemporary Western societies." But the primary objective of the OIC—headquartered in Saudi Arabia and funded by dozens of Muslim countries that systematically persecute Christians and Jews—has long been to pressure Western countries into passing laws that would ban "negative stereotyping of Islam." In this context, the OIC's annual Islamophobia report—an integral part of a sustained effort to prove the existence of a "culture of intolerance of Islam and Muslims" in the West—is in essence a lobbying tool to pressure Western governments to outlaw all forms of "Islamophobia," a nebulous concept invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1990s.
But the common thread that binds the entire document together is the OIC's repeated insistence that the main culprit responsible for "the institutionalization of Islamophobia" in Western countries is freedom of speech, which the OIC claims has "contributed enormously to snowball Islamophobia and manipulate the mindset of ordinary Western people to develop a 'phobia' of Islam and Muslims." According to the OIC, freedom of expression is shielding "the perpetrators of Islamophobia, who seek to propagate irrational fear and intolerance of Islam, [who] have time and again aroused unwarranted tension, suspicion and unrest in societies by slandering the Islamic faith through gross distortions and misrepresentations and by encroaching on and denigrating the religious sentiments of Muslims." Chapter 1 of the report deals with "Islamophobia, Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims," and purports to reveal the "unabated rise of Islamophobia in Western countries, thereby exacerbating tensions at all levels and constituting additional obstacles to the diversity and multicultural fabrics of the societies." According to the OIC, freedom of speech is to blame for the "perpetuation of Islamophobia," which: "…has become increasingly widespread, which, in turn, has caused an increase in the actual number of hate crimes committed against Muslims. These crimes range from the usual verbal abuse and discrimination, particularly in the fields of education and employment, to other acts of violence and vandalism, including physical assaults, attacks on Islamic centers and the desecration of mosques and cemeteries." "In this context, acceptance of various forms of intolerance, including hate speech and the propagation of negative stereotypes against Islam and Muslims in some western countries contribute towards proliferation of intolerant societies. This process is further supported by… the exploitation of freedom of expression and perpetuation of an ideological context advocating an inescapable conflict of civilizations." Another factor favoring "the climate of intolerance" is: "…the negative role played by major media outlets who not only propagate stereotypes and misperceptions about Islam, but also undermine and usually keep shadowed any meaningful instance of individuals or groups speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred and violence. This biased approach of the media has helped drawing an emphatically demonized, sometimes dehumanized, image of Muslims in the minds of a certain class of people which is predisposed to xenophobic feelings due to the increasingly dire economic situation, or the simply to the irrational fear of the other." Chapter 2 of the report deals with "Manifestations of Islamophobia in the West." According to the OIC: "The number of Islamophobic incidents continues to rise in the US, as a result of anti-Muslim propaganda. It is particularly alarming that anti-Muslim sentiments are taking deeper roots infiltrating further in the educational system. Notable among several other worrying trends/cases are: the initiatives taken by a leading and powerful US legislator [US Representative Peter King] to convene special Congressional Hearings on Radicalization of Islam in the US... In the same vein, the Republican Party in the recent 2013 [sic] US Presidential elections also used the anti-Islam card as a strategy." "With regard to Islamophobic trends in Europe, various reports and polls have revealed growing misperception vis-à-vis Islam and Muslims. Among the most common and recurring… are the ideas that Muslims are inclined to violence including revenge and retaliation; that Islam is an inherently expansionist religion, which strives for political influence, and whose followers are obsessed with proselytizing others, and more generally that Islam deprives women of their rights and encourages religious fanaticism and radicalism. According to the same polls, only a minor portion of the public tends to see Islam in a more positive light, as being a religion of peace that preaches love for neighbors, charity, openness and tolerance… Muslims who live in xenophobic environments are more exposed to daily stress and other forms of moral prejudice." The OIC concludes that "journalists and media organizations have a responsibility to avoid promoting rhetoric of hate by acting as a platform for its widespread dissemination." Chapter 3 of the OIC report highlights "Some Positive Developments" in terms of initiatives and other steps and positions taken to combat Islamophobia, including: "…the condemnation of anti-Muslim hate speech by various quarters, including non-Muslim religious leaders; the barring from entry of certain Islamophobes to a number of countries where they intended to take part in anti-Muslim rallies or deliver inflammatory lectures; the recognition of Muslim holidays and other strict sanctions taken against acts of manifest religious intolerance. It was noted with satisfaction that a number of international organizations, including UNSECO, the OSCE and the Council of Europe, have recognized the danger posed by Islamophobia and have taken concrete steps to combat it, notably by laying down Guidelines for Educators on Countering Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims." Chapter 4 of the report, "OIC Initiatives and Activities to Counter Islamophobia," focused on the OIC's ongoing efforts to promote the so-called Istanbul Process, an aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam. The explicit aim of the Istanbul Process is to enshrine in international law a global ban on all critical scrutiny of Islam and Islamic Sharia law. In recent years, the OIC has been engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of… religion and belief." (Analysis of the OIC's war on free speech can be found here and here.) Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011 (with the support of the Obama Administration)—together with the OIC-sponsored Resolution 66/167, which was quietly approved by the 193-member UN General Assembly on December 19, 2011—is widely viewed as marking a significant step forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam. According to the OIC report: "In November 2012, a special ministerial barnstorming session was convened on the sidelines of the 39th session of the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers, which aimed at devising an OIC Approach for Combating Discrimination and Intolerance against Muslims…The session… called for constituting a panel of eminent persons including renowned legal experts and human rights practitioners to offer its expert view on the issue of religious intolerance and incitement to hatred to the 12th Islamic Summit. The panel, which was held in Istanbul, in January 2013, expressed support for the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, on combating intolerance, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence on the basis of religion or belief." "The OIC also hosted the 3rd Meeting of International Experts on the Implementation of UNHRC Resolution 16/18, under the framework of the Istanbul Process… The meeting… attended by delegations from over sixty countries… reaffirmed the international community's commitment to Resolution 16/18 and the need to focus on its implementation." Chapter 5 of the OIC report provides a set of conclusions and recommendations, which call on Western governments, international organizations and non-state actors to: "Take all necessary measures within their power and legal/jurisdictional systems to ensure a safe environment free from Islamophobic harassment… by strictly enforcing applicable hate crime and discrimination laws; "Create, whenever necessary, specialized bodies and initiatives in order to combat Islamophobia… based on internationally recognized human rights principles and standards; "Combat Islamophobic hate crimes, which can be fuelled by Islamophobic hate speech in the media and on the Internet; "Take all necessary measures to ensure that the media refrains from serving as a platform for the dissemination of hate speech… by associating extremism and terrorism to Islam and Muslims… and presents the true positive nature of Islam. "Implement provisions of UNHRC Resolution 16/18 through the Istanbul Process mechanism as it offers a positive platform for debate, exchange of best practices and maintaining of a common and unified stance." The report states that "the OIC and the Member States should not be complacent in underscoring the fact that our present day world is gradually being driven towards the dangerous precipices of growing intolerance of religious and cultural diversity. This is the clear and present danger that the OIC has been consistent in warning the international community against. The sooner the phenomenon of Islamophobia is addressed, the better it is for ensuring peaceful coexistence of the present as well for the future generations to come." The report concludes with the transcript of a speech by OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, in which he thanks American and European political leaders for their help (here and here) in advancing his efforts to restrict free speech in the West. "The Istanbul Process initiated with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton to build further on the consensus building that went into Resolution 16/18 must be carried forward. While the resolution forms a triumph of multilateralism, Istanbul Process must also be seen as a poster child of OIC-US-EU cooperation… I appreciate that this Process has come to be recognized as the way forward by all stakeholders… We need to build on it," Ihsanoglu said. Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook. Follow him on Twitter.
Related Topics: Soeren Kern
Exploiting Press Reform
by Samuel Westrop
December 11, 2013 at 4:00 am
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
Speakers at Hacked Off events, for
example, have demanded that a media regulator should encourage the press to
"support" public institutions such as the National Health Service,
effectively turning Britain's free press into cheerleaders for the
government.
"If a minority group (gypsies,
say) is routinely and falsely maligned by a newspaper, it is fair for a
representative organisation to make a compliant on their behalf. If not,
there would be no single voice addressing such a democratic deficit." —
David Hass, spokesperson, Hacked Off Campaign
On the 30th October, the Privy Council of the United Kingdom granted
a new cross-party Royal Charter on press regulation -- the first rules on
state regulation of the press for more than 300 years.The Royal Charter followed ministers' rejection of a proposal for a new self-regulatory body put forward by the newspaper industry, which itself has been described as the "toughest regulatory regime in the free world." In a joint statement, a number of newspaper associations declared that, "Nothing could be more controversial than a Royal Charter imposed by politicians on an industry which is wholly opposed to it and which would fatally undermine freedom of expression." While the media and politicians battle, however, a number of ideologues have grasped that this attack on the free press provides an opportunity to impose their own ideas. In October, during the BBC's popular political television show, Question Time, the audience applauded an impassioned speech by the journalist Mehdi Hasan, as he criticized the Daily Mail for its controversial attack on Ralph Miliband, a Marxist academic who was described by the paper as "The Man Who Hated Britain," and the late father of Britain's Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband. Hasan described the newspaper as "the immigrant-bashing, woman-hating, Muslim-smearing, NHS-undermining, gay-baiting Daily Mail." In response to the attack, Daily Mail journalists noted that Hasan's tune has changed since three years ago, when he wrote an imploring letter to Mail editors requesting a column in the paper. Despite his remonstrations with the Mail, in 2009, Hasan told a small audience at the Al Khoei Islamic Centre that, "Once we lose the moral high-ground we are no different from the rest of the non-Muslims; from the rest of those human beings who live their lives as animals, bending any rule to fulfil any desire." Controversies about the behavior of the free press have allowed particular individuals and organizations to play the victim and, using the cover of press reform, to promote extremist agendas. This practice first became apparent during the Leveson Inquiry, an investigation into the "culture, practises and ethics of the Press," established by Prime Minister David Cameron in the wake of the revelations that a small number of newspapers were responsible for hacking the phones of celebrities and the families of missing persons.
Engage has demanded a cessation of the "Islamophobia" ostensibly promoted by the media's coverage of the Muslim community. It says it believes that possible changes in the law will countenance the use of a new regulatory body to silence critics of Islamism; including anti-Islamist Muslims, who, Engage claims, have vilified Islamist preachers. Lord Leveson afforded these designs to muzzle free speech greater credence when he argued that these "representative bodies are likely to be far better placed to monitor, and complain about, inaccuracies" in the media's reporting. The campaign group, named Hacked Off, behind the proposal for a controlled press has enjoyed unparalleled access to the government. It was Hacked Off, for instance, which helped to draft the proposed press charter during a late night meeting with government ministers and the leader of the opposition. According to the journalist Andrew Gilligan, Hacked Off also is working "to claim the country for the authoritarian Left. " It wants, he said, "to stop newspapers victimising individuals. But it also wants to force the press to serve defined social and political objectives – at the expense, if necessary, of the right to free expression." Gilligan, noting the involvement of Islamist groups such as Engage, has further warned that: "The charter gives 'third parties' – that is, anyone – the right to complain about any story, whether or not they are personally affected by it, opening the sluices to a Niagara of complaints by pedants, commercial lobbyists, pressure groups, angry people on Twitter, or anyone with an axe to grind, particularly since they have nothing to lose by doing so." David Hass, a spokesperson for the Hacked Off campaign, denies that the Royal Charter affords "any third party with an axe to grind to make complaints." Speaking to this author, Hass affirmed that, "a complaint must be serious and well-founded and not a frivolous or time-wasting lobbying exercise." Hass added: "There are reasons why third parties should have the right to make complaints and request corrections. For example, if a minority group (gypsies, say) is routinely and falsely maligned by a newspaper, it is fair for a representative organisation to make a complaint on their behalf. If not, there would be no single voice addressing such a democratic deficit." It would seem to many, however, that the Hacked Off campaign group does have an axe to grind. Speakers at Hacked Off events have demanded that a media regulator should encourage the press to "support" public institutions such as the National Health Service, effectually turning Britain's free press into cheerleaders for the government. The person who established the Hacked Off campaign, Martin Moore, recently shared a platform on "media engagement" with Qudues Zafar, an official from the extremist Engage campaign group, which, in turn, is also a "partner" of the Hacked Off campaign. Zafar has circulated music videos in support of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, has claimed that the "New World Order" is run by a "Zionist Antichrist" and has expressed hatred for homosexuals. Other contributors to the Leveson Inquiry have included the East London Mosque, whose members expressed its backing for Engage's proposal to tackle alleged "Islamophobia" in the free press. The East London Mosque also provides a platform for preachers such as Assim al-Hakeem, who, in July, gave the Friday sermon at the Mosque. Al-Hakeem teaches that apostates must be killed, and advocates the killing of Christians and Jews who are found to be "talking against Mohammed." In May, the Mosque also hosted Abu Abdissalam, a preacher who discourages Muslims from working with the police, who he claims are engaged in a "war against Islam." Abdissalam is also a significant supporter of the jihadist, Ali al Timimi, who advocates the decapitation of Shia Muslims. The East London Mosque's submission to the Leveson Inquiry was penned by its chairman, Muhammad Abdul Bari, a former president of the extremist Islamic Forum of Europe. In 2005, Bari extended an invitation to speak at the Mosque to the Saudi Sheikh Abdulrahman al-Sudais, who has said: "Read history and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil fathers of the Jews of today, who are evil offspring, infidels, distorters of words, calf-worshippers, prophet-murderers, prophecy-deniers... the scum of the human race 'whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs...' These are the Jews, an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil, and corruption." Dr. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, another contributor to the Leveson Inquiry, is the Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Development as well as the Chief Research Officer for Unitas Communications, a "reputation management" and "strategic consultancy." Ahmed claims that the U.S. government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, and that the British Government is responsible for a cover-up over the London tube bombings. He further claims that Israeli operations to stop Hamas rocket fire are predicated on Israel's desire to obtain natural gas that, he claims, belongs to Gaza's Hamas government. Despite these statements, Ahmed claims to be an advisor to the British Foreign Office, the Royal Military Academy and the Metropolitan Police Service, the UK government's "Preventing Violent Extremism" program as well as to the U.S. Department of State. Ahmed's contribution to the Leveson Inquiry warned about the dangers of unfettered free speech being "used to justify the promulgation of false, inaccurate and racist narratives on British Muslims." Ahmed further demands that, "Journalists and editors reporting on issues relating to minorities such as Muslims require appropriate training and education to ensure they have a grounded and valid understanding of these issues in all their complexity and diversity." One of the most serious threats to free speech derives from the bureaucrat with the pen, who applies rules unwaveringly and without regard to circumstance. Such rigidity, sanctioned by the current public scorn for the press, is now at risk of being exploited by extremists whose designs have often only been exposed and obstructed because of a free press. Regulatory control does not just threaten free expression; it risks assisting people whose views threaten us all.
Related Topics: United
Kingdom | Samuel Westrop
|
||||||||||||
|
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment