Comments on: Al Jazeera http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/al-jazeera/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:20:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Detached Observer http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/al-jazeera/comment-page-2/#comment-37893 Detached Observer Sat, 14 Aug 2004 00:59:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1988#comment-37893 momo, This is going to be my last post on this thread - I think we are in a position where we are repeating points we have already made, rather than making new ones. Final thoughts: your posts - the latest and the ones before that - make a large number of irrelevant points: the Allawi government is not democratic, they involved the army in shutting down Al Jazeera, etc etc. The question raised by Chris is whether the shutdown of Al Jazeera is an infringement of liberty. Whether Al Jazeera was shut down by edict or whether it was forced out of its offices by the military, what kind of government shut it down, whether the shut down was performed by the prime minister or a commission appointed by the prime minister, and the other points you made, are not relevant to the question. There is nothing inimical to human rights if Iraq sets a standard for broadcast stations - that they do not incite violence - and enforces it. I made the point that western nations do this as a matter of course. Both Iraq and western nations appeal to the same principles here: that speech which creates violence is not protected by human rights and that government has a role in stamping it out. In response, you were fixated on the fact that this enforcement is done by Allawi himself, and not by an independent commission. Of course, no one is doubting that the system in Iraq is far from perfect at the moment; hopefully, Iraq will become democratic in the near future after the January elections - hopefully. The shutdown of Al Jazeera is this government using its powers - which are, of course, dictatorial at the moment - to enact an action that western governments perform routinely. I do not, of course, pretend to defend the rule that makes "unfair criticism" of Allawi illegal. My case is limited to the shutdown of Al Jazeera. momo, This is going to be my last post on this thread – I think we are in a position where we are repeating points we have already made, rather than making new ones. Final thoughts: your posts – the latest and the ones before that – make a large number of irrelevant points: the Allawi government is not democratic, they involved the army in shutting down Al Jazeera, etc etc. The question raised by Chris is whether the shutdown of Al Jazeera is an infringement of liberty. Whether Al Jazeera was shut down by edict or whether it was forced out of its offices by the military, what kind of government shut it down, whether the shut down was performed by the prime minister or a commission appointed by the prime minister, and the other points you made, are not relevant to the question. There is nothing inimical to human rights if Iraq sets a standard for broadcast stations – that they do not incite violence – and enforces it. I made the point that western nations do this as a matter of course. Both Iraq and western nations appeal to the same principles here: that speech which creates violence is not protected by human rights and that government has a role in stamping it out. In response, you were fixated on the fact that this enforcement is done by Allawi himself, and not by an independent commission. Of course, no one is doubting that the system in Iraq is far from perfect at the moment; hopefully, Iraq will become democratic in the near future after the January elections – hopefully. The shutdown of Al Jazeera is this government using its powers – which are, of course, dictatorial at the moment – to enact an action that western governments perform routinely. I do not, of course, pretend to defend the rule that makes “unfair criticism” of Allawi illegal. My case is limited to the shutdown of Al Jazeera.

]]> By: momo http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/al-jazeera/comment-page-2/#comment-37892 momo Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:11:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1988#comment-37892 detached observer - No, I never pretended you said that 'the Canadian situation is perfectly analogous to the Iraqi one'. I was just trying to highlight the point that the difference is in the nature, purpose and process of these "standards enforcement". The difference between a) an independent regulatory body, acknowledged as authority by all in a democratic manner, responding to complaints from listeners, issuing licenses and applying standards and holding media responsible to what they say, and issuing decisions to which one can appeal via the judiciary, and b) an unelected government and an occupying military leadership directly shutting down media that are critical of them. That is what you're NOT taking into account, not the mere difference between Iraq and Canada's political situation _in general_, but these very procedures towards the media that we're talking about. And when I speak of regulatory bodies, I'm not just talking of Canada, or the US, I'm talking in general of ALL such authorities existing in all democratic countries. "<i>What I claimed, however, was: the principles used by Canada to shut down a radio station are the same principles used by Iraq to shut down Al Jazeera.</i>" I _know_ you claimed that, and that is _precisely_ what I was addressing. What you've been claiming there is pure nonsense, because the principles are *not* the same, the methods are not the same, the parties are not the same (it's not an ordinary regulatory body, it's a military leadership!) and I've already pointed out why, and you can read the previous posts again, and read the RSF article, and maybe start to get it. Although, it should be blindingly obvious, just like the difference between democracy and non-democracy. To recap briefly, amongst other differences, a military leadership sending troops to shut down radio stations based on arbitarily set and arbitrarily interpreted notion of "unwarranted criticism" of a _political_ nature is _not_ the same thing as that radio station being asked to comply with standards that they signed on to in order to get licenses to broadcast from an ordinary regulatory body. And the normal standards and regulations of broadcasting authorities have nothing to do with ambiguous and vague notions of "incitement" and "unwarranted criticism". Imagine if Blair ordered the media to refrain from all "unwarranted criticism" against the government, you'd have to shut down all the media in Britain. Standards are what are necessary to maintain a level of _professionality_ in broadcasting. Their nature and purpose is not political censorship. They _may_ be abused to that end in singular extreme cases, but that's like any law can be abused in a political case, it doesn't make the law abusive in itself - you can sentence someone for a murder they didn't commit, that doesn't make laws on murder unfair, does it? Whereas, when the _only_ "standards" you have are _orders_ to not even dare criticise the government, the concept is already politically manipulated in its origin. "<i>If anything, Canada has a weaker case, you know, not being in the middle of a civil war.</i>" See, you're already taking it for granted that censorship is perfectly ok, just because a country is experiencing a high degree of violence and instability. That is _not_ a self-evident truth, dear detached observer. Especially because Iraq is coming _out_ of a thirty-year long dictatorship that used that very excuse, amongst others, to crush dissent. Like all dictatorships do. Allawi's is not a dictatorship like that, but it's not a democracy, and yet, it's supposed to lead to democracy, and what's the good of shutting down media? I'll tell you what I think. I think it's a useless decision, taken entirely for the purpose of a "show of force", it's entirely political, not practical. You can shut down Al Jazeera in Iraq all you like, there's ten other Arab tv channels that may be even less scrupulous and professional. There's lots and lots of newspapers and published material, that may be even more "inflammatory". There's internet access. All these things cost even less than a satellite dish and an AJ subscription! So, it's entirely a political gesture with no practical use. But I believe it is a dangerous thing to do, not just in principle, but precisely because you're handing it on a plate to the extremists, you're giving them _proof_ that yes, this government is just a puppet government, and yes, it's authoritarian minded, and no, they don't care for real democracy, they only care about power and getting their hands on the country. It's not what I'd call a clever way of reducing hostility to both occupation forces and the interim government. Do you understand now what the problem is? Like I said, the question is not "are these measures democratic and just ordinary regulatory business" - they clearly are not, no matter how stubbornly you refuse to acknowledge that, ask a legal or media expert about this and see what they tell you! - the question is, are they legitimate _precisely_ within the Iraqi context, and are they useful? Like the RSF article said - "Such a measure *may seem necessary* because of current political instability *but it remains to be seen* if the Coalition forces will interpret “incitement to violence” reasonably or excessively." Is that so hard to understand, that that question is very much open? And that in light of new developments after that article was written, the balance for now is not exactly on a "reasonably" scale? "<i>In other words, if you believe that Canada has the right to decide what is acceptable speech (keep in mind that Canada has recently executed a crackdown on anti-homosexual rhetoric - rhetoric that did not incite violence); and if you believe it is acceptable for the United States to censor speech that incites violence - by corollary, you must believe its OK for Iraq to do the same thing.</i>" First, let's make one thing clear - it's not "I believe that", broadcating as well as publishing regulations _do exist_ in any country, and if you think it's a _bad_ thing to have professional standards, and that it'd be a _good_ thing to let any idiot run their show spewing racist and homophobic garbage all the time to complaints from listeners, then raise that issue with your own government and with those regulatory bodies, not with me. Secondly, like I said already (are we a bit deaf here or what?), there may be an excessive interpretation of those standards, in _specific_ cases where hateful speech can also be interpreted loosely, and that is up for discussion in that specific case, which is not the point here (plus, broadcasting standards are not about the kind of allowed speech, they're also about a lot of technical aspects, about the behaviour vis a vis the competition, about advertising, about the basic level of professionalism a broadcasting media should maintain, etc.) - the point is the existence of standards is in no way comparable to censorship within a non-democratic system or to "martial law" measures intent on curbing political criticism. "<i>Your complaint, therefore, is that Iraq is not fully democratic? Thats what you obect to? Thats fine, but thats entirely different from whats being discussed here.</i>" Of course it's different, because that is not what _I_ was discussing either, so no, that is not "my complaint" at all - for someone who says other people set up straw arguments, you should try and practice what you preach, perhaps. The complaint is about the nature, purpose, and use of the measure being discussed in this post as well as in the other about "Only Good News, please". Ok? The complaint is not even "mine", it's not me making up the existence of an issue about these orders. I noticed you didn't even pay attention to that RSF article. <i>The question raised in this post, however, are whether shutting down Al Jazeera action was a fundamental restriction on human liberty. And my answer is, not if you believe the U.S. and Canada place fundamental restrictions on human liberty all the time.</i> That is the height of disingenuity. That's sheer nonsense. The US and Canada and _any_ other democracy in the world do not "place restrictions on human liberty" simply by having regulations and _standards_ requiring a degree of professionalism from broadcasters! In your utterly absurd defense of Bremer and Allawi & co's orders about the media, you're actually qualifying as dictatorial the very basic requirements for media to be authorised to broadcast! Do you even realise what you're doing there? Do you hold democracy in such low regard? <i>Once again: in your three posts, you repeat over and over again procedural indictments against the Iraqi government. They shouldn’t have sent in soldiers! They should have created some sort of appeals venue! etc etc. </i> No, I never said it like that, I said the whole procedure (and purpose, and nature, etc) is _precisely_ what highlights a huge difference with those basic regulatory standards on broadcasting media that exist in any democracy, standards that _you_ brought up and described as equal to the Iraqi government's orders. Which they're *not*. Hence, you cannot claim something as patently absurd as the standards and procedures being the same in a democracy and in a military unelected government adopting extreme measures to silence the opposition. "<i>whether the shut down of Al Jazeera represents an infringement on human liberty.</i>" Yeah, and that's what we've been discussing all along, if you haven't noticed! but human liberty is not the entire point, the point is also how intelligent, how clever, how useful such a measure (as well as the general ban on "unwarranted criticism") can be. All right? Is that clearer? detached observer – No, I never pretended you said that ‘the Canadian situation is perfectly analogous to the Iraqi one’. I was just trying to highlight the point that the difference is in the nature, purpose and process of these “standards enforcement”. The difference between a) an independent regulatory body, acknowledged as authority by all in a democratic manner, responding to complaints from listeners, issuing licenses and applying standards and holding media responsible to what they say, and issuing decisions to which one can appeal via the judiciary, and b) an unelected government and an occupying military leadership directly shutting down media that are critical of them. That is what you’re NOT taking into account, not the mere difference between Iraq and Canada’s political situation in general, but these very procedures towards the media that we’re talking about. And when I speak of regulatory bodies, I’m not just talking of Canada, or the US, I’m talking in general of ALL such authorities existing in all democratic countries. “What I claimed, however, was: the principles used by Canada to shut down a radio station are the same principles used by Iraq to shut down Al Jazeera.” I know you claimed that, and that is precisely what I was addressing. What you’ve been claiming there is pure nonsense, because the principles are not the same, the methods are not the same, the parties are not the same (it’s not an ordinary regulatory body, it’s a military leadership!) and I’ve already pointed out why, and you can read the previous posts again, and read the RSF article, and maybe start to get it. Although, it should be blindingly obvious, just like the difference between democracy and non-democracy. To recap briefly, amongst other differences, a military leadership sending troops to shut down radio stations based on arbitarily set and arbitrarily interpreted notion of “unwarranted criticism” of a political nature is not the same thing as that radio station being asked to comply with standards that they signed on to in order to get licenses to broadcast from an ordinary regulatory body. And the normal standards and regulations of broadcasting authorities have nothing to do with ambiguous and vague notions of “incitement” and “unwarranted criticism”. Imagine if Blair ordered the media to refrain from all “unwarranted criticism” against the government, you’d have to shut down all the media in Britain. Standards are what are necessary to maintain a level of professionality in broadcasting. Their nature and purpose is not political censorship. They may be abused to that end in singular extreme cases, but that’s like any law can be abused in a political case, it doesn’t make the law abusive in itself – you can sentence someone for a murder they didn’t commit, that doesn’t make laws on murder unfair, does it? Whereas, when the only “standards” you have are orders to not even dare criticise the government, the concept is already politically manipulated in its origin. “If anything, Canada has a weaker case, you know, not being in the middle of a civil war.” See, you’re already taking it for granted that censorship is perfectly ok, just because a country is experiencing a high degree of violence and instability. That is not a self-evident truth, dear detached observer. Especially because Iraq is coming out of a thirty-year long dictatorship that used that very excuse, amongst others, to crush dissent. Like all dictatorships do. Allawi’s is not a dictatorship like that, but it’s not a democracy, and yet, it’s supposed to lead to democracy, and what’s the good of shutting down media? I’ll tell you what I think. I think it’s a useless decision, taken entirely for the purpose of a “show of force”, it’s entirely political, not practical. You can shut down Al Jazeera in Iraq all you like, there’s ten other Arab tv channels that may be even less scrupulous and professional. There’s lots and lots of newspapers and published material, that may be even more “inflammatory”. There’s internet access. All these things cost even less than a satellite dish and an AJ subscription! So, it’s entirely a political gesture with no practical use. But I believe it is a dangerous thing to do, not just in principle, but precisely because you’re handing it on a plate to the extremists, you’re giving them proof that yes, this government is just a puppet government, and yes, it’s authoritarian minded, and no, they don’t care for real democracy, they only care about power and getting their hands on the country. It’s not what I’d call a clever way of reducing hostility to both occupation forces and the interim government. Do you understand now what the problem is? Like I said, the question is not “are these measures democratic and just ordinary regulatory business” – they clearly are not, no matter how stubbornly you refuse to acknowledge that, ask a legal or media expert about this and see what they tell you! – the question is, are they legitimate precisely within the Iraqi context, and are they useful? Like the RSF article said – “Such a measure may seem necessary because of current political instability but it remains to be seen if the Coalition forces will interpret “incitement to violence” reasonably or excessively.” Is that so hard to understand, that that question is very much open? And that in light of new developments after that article was written, the balance for now is not exactly on a “reasonably” scale? “In other words, if you believe that Canada has the right to decide what is acceptable speech (keep in mind that Canada has recently executed a crackdown on anti-homosexual rhetoric – rhetoric that did not incite violence); and if you believe it is acceptable for the United States to censor speech that incites violence – by corollary, you must believe its OK for Iraq to do the same thing.” First, let’s make one thing clear – it’s not “I believe that”, broadcating as well as publishing regulations do exist in any country, and if you think it’s a bad thing to have professional standards, and that it’d be a good thing to let any idiot run their show spewing racist and homophobic garbage all the time to complaints from listeners, then raise that issue with your own government and with those regulatory bodies, not with me. Secondly, like I said already (are we a bit deaf here or what?), there may be an excessive interpretation of those standards, in specific cases where hateful speech can also be interpreted loosely, and that is up for discussion in that specific case, which is not the point here (plus, broadcasting standards are not about the kind of allowed speech, they’re also about a lot of technical aspects, about the behaviour vis a vis the competition, about advertising, about the basic level of professionalism a broadcasting media should maintain, etc.) – the point is the existence of standards is in no way comparable to censorship within a non-democratic system or to “martial law” measures intent on curbing political criticism. “Your complaint, therefore, is that Iraq is not fully democratic? Thats what you obect to? Thats fine, but thats entirely different from whats being discussed here.” Of course it’s different, because that is not what I was discussing either, so no, that is not “my complaint” at all – for someone who says other people set up straw arguments, you should try and practice what you preach, perhaps. The complaint is about the nature, purpose, and use of the measure being discussed in this post as well as in the other about “Only Good News, please”. Ok? The complaint is not even “mine”, it’s not me making up the existence of an issue about these orders. I noticed you didn’t even pay attention to that RSF article. The question raised in this post, however, are whether shutting down Al Jazeera action was a fundamental restriction on human liberty. And my answer is, not if you believe the U.S. and Canada place fundamental restrictions on human liberty all the time. That is the height of disingenuity. That’s sheer nonsense. The US and Canada and any other democracy in the world do not “place restrictions on human liberty” simply by having regulations and standards requiring a degree of professionalism from broadcasters! In your utterly absurd defense of Bremer and Allawi & co’s orders about the media, you’re actually qualifying as dictatorial the very basic requirements for media to be authorised to broadcast! Do you even realise what you’re doing there? Do you hold democracy in such low regard? Once again: in your three posts, you repeat over and over again procedural indictments against the Iraqi government. They shouldn’t have sent in soldiers! They should have created some sort of appeals venue! etc etc. No, I never said it like that, I said the whole procedure (and purpose, and nature, etc) is precisely what highlights a huge difference with those basic regulatory standards on broadcasting media that exist in any democracy, standards that you brought up and described as equal to the Iraqi government’s orders. Which they’re not. Hence, you cannot claim something as patently absurd as the standards and procedures being the same in a democracy and in a military unelected government adopting extreme measures to silence the opposition. “whether the shut down of Al Jazeera represents an infringement on human liberty.” Yeah, and that’s what we’ve been discussing all along, if you haven’t noticed! but human liberty is not the entire point, the point is also how intelligent, how clever, how useful such a measure (as well as the general ban on “unwarranted criticism”) can be. All right? Is that clearer?

]]> By: Detached Observer http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/al-jazeera/comment-page-2/#comment-37891 Detached Observer Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:17:27 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1988#comment-37891 momo, In your three posts, you have imputed a straw man argument to me and then succefully rebutted it. That is, you've pretended I said that the Canadian situation is perfectly analogous to the Iraqi one. And you've correctly pointed out in response that there are important differences between Canada and Iraq. What I claimed, however, was: the principles used by Canada to shut down a radio station are the same principles used by Iraq to shut down Al Jazeera. If anything, Canada has a weaker case, you know, not being in the middle of a civil war. In other words, if you believe that Canada has the right to decide what is acceptable speech (keep in mind that Canada has recently executed a crackdown on anti-homosexual rhetoric - rhetoric that did <strong>not</strong> incite violence); and if you believe it is acceptable for the United States to censor speech that incites violence - by corollary, you must believe its OK for Iraq to do the same thing. Your complaint, therefore, is that Iraq is not fully democratic? Thats what you obect to? Thats fine, but thats entirely different from whats being discussed here. I think everyone reading this wants Iraq to be fully democratic as soon as possible. The question raised in this post, however, are whether shutting down Al Jazeera action was a fundamental restriction on human liberty. And my answer is, not if you believe the U.S. and Canada place fundamental restrictions on human liberty all the time. Once again: in your three posts, you repeat over and over again <strong>procedural</strong> indictments against the Iraqi government. They shouldn't have sent in soldiers! They should have created some sort of appeals venue! etc etc. If this is your real beef...then its quite different from whats being discussed here, which is, again, whether the shut down of Al Jazeera represents an infringement on human liberty. momo, In your three posts, you have imputed a straw man argument to me and then succefully rebutted it. That is, you’ve pretended I said that the Canadian situation is perfectly analogous to the Iraqi one. And you’ve correctly pointed out in response that there are important differences between Canada and Iraq. What I claimed, however, was: the principles used by Canada to shut down a radio station are the same principles used by Iraq to shut down Al Jazeera. If anything, Canada has a weaker case, you know, not being in the middle of a civil war. In other words, if you believe that Canada has the right to decide what is acceptable speech (keep in mind that Canada has recently executed a crackdown on anti-homosexual rhetoric – rhetoric that did not incite violence); and if you believe it is acceptable for the United States to censor speech that incites violence – by corollary, you must believe its OK for Iraq to do the same thing. Your complaint, therefore, is that Iraq is not fully democratic? Thats what you obect to? Thats fine, but thats entirely different from whats being discussed here. I think everyone reading this wants Iraq to be fully democratic as soon as possible. The question raised in this post, however, are whether shutting down Al Jazeera action was a fundamental restriction on human liberty. And my answer is, not if you believe the U.S. and Canada place fundamental restrictions on human liberty all the time. Once again: in your three posts, you repeat over and over again procedural indictments against the Iraqi government. They shouldn’t have sent in soldiers! They should have created some sort of appeals venue! etc etc. If this is your real beef…then its quite different from whats being discussed here, which is, again, whether the shut down of Al Jazeera represents an infringement on human liberty.

]]> By: momo http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/al-jazeera/comment-page-2/#comment-37890 momo Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:22:01 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1988#comment-37890 ... and in your equating of the Canadian commission with the Iraqi commission - please, every official authority or commission on anything is "appointed" by a government, certainly not by random people gathering in the street. Does the Canadian Prime Minister _run_ that commission entirely at his own discretion? do they send troops to threaten journalists? Let's assume for the sake of argument that that one particular case you quoted about the Canadian radio station is exceeding the bounds of standards enforcenment and extending into unjustified censorship. Is it the norm? In Canada? And in all other democratic country with a parliamentary system? Is censorship the entire purpose of democratic broadcasting standards? Is the process entirely imposed from above, with no chance of appeal? Are the standards defined only on a political basis? The Iraqi situation is being justified in the name of emergency and instability, _not even Allawi_ would dream of comparing his orders to the standards of a regulatory body in a peaceful democracy. The difference there is evident, the debate is not on wether these measures are democratic or not, they're clearly not, just like the government is clearly not democratic itself - the debate is on whether the state of instability justifies the specific measures being taken (just like it arguably justifies the existence of a temporary unelected non-democratic government), whether those measures are clearly defined and applied fairly and coherently even within a non-democratic context, whether they are actually useful, or perhaps counterproductive in reducing tensions in a civil war zone, and whether they can be a temporary thing only or perhaps seriously endangering the development of a democratic political public debate conducive to free elections, which is the aim the occupation and this interim government is supposed to lead to. … and in your equating of the Canadian commission with the Iraqi commission – please, every official authority or commission on anything is “appointed” by a government, certainly not by random people gathering in the street. Does the Canadian Prime Minister run that commission entirely at his own discretion? do they send troops to threaten journalists? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that that one particular case you quoted about the Canadian radio station is exceeding the bounds of standards enforcenment and extending into unjustified censorship. Is it the norm? In Canada? And in all other democratic country with a parliamentary system? Is censorship the entire purpose of democratic broadcasting standards? Is the process entirely imposed from above, with no chance of appeal? Are the standards defined only on a political basis? The Iraqi situation is being justified in the name of emergency and instability, not even Allawi would dream of comparing his orders to the standards of a regulatory body in a peaceful democracy. The difference there is evident, the debate is not on wether these measures are democratic or not, they’re clearly not, just like the government is clearly not democratic itself – the debate is on whether the state of instability justifies the specific measures being taken (just like it arguably justifies the existence of a temporary unelected non-democratic government), whether those measures are clearly defined and applied fairly and coherently even within a non-democratic context, whether they are actually useful, or perhaps counterproductive in reducing tensions in a civil war zone, and whether they can be a temporary thing only or perhaps seriously endangering the development of a democratic political public debate conducive to free elections, which is the aim the occupation and this interim government is supposed to lead to.

]]> By: momo http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/al-jazeera/comment-page-2/#comment-37889 momo Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:02:23 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1988#comment-37889 detached observer: the concerns are not "mine" and it's not about me "feeling better". I do understand what you're saying very well, but it doesn't take into account the huge differences between the two things you're comparing. Just to be clear, I'm not _defending_ the decision you quoted about suspending the Canadian radio license. I don't know all the details of it beyond what was quoted in the article, and normally even complaints about offensive comments made by radio presenters are not enough to shut down a radio. But leave that particular instance aside - you cannot ignore the difference between broadcasting commissions in democracies, and the kind of authoritarian control that's in place in Iraq. I can perfectly understand, and even accept, up to a point, a justification of Bremer's and Allawi's system as a _tempoary_ measure because Iraq, unlike Canada, is in a situation of instability, etc. etc. Up to a certain point, that argument is sensible. But it does depend on what exaclty are the standards applied and how they're applied and how the procedure works. In Canada, the radio station will be able to appeal to a court. In Iraq, you can't do that. In Canada, even if that decision about that radio station was entirely unfair, it is not politically motivated. And from what I read in the article you quoted yourself, it's a very rare occurrence. In Iraq, on the other hand, the definition of "incitement" is very vague, there are no precise broadcasting standards as yet, and the sole judge and juror is the CPA and the provisional government. The military command has the power to decide what qualifies as incitement against said military command. Please, detached observer, I really cannot believe you can be so obtuse you can't see the difference. "<i>The restrictions Iraq applied to Al Jazeera are no different than restriction normally applied to speech by western democracies.</i>" Of course they are different! and this is not just about Al Jazeera but the order that allows the military to shut down stations and _detain journalists_ without even a formal legal process, as it doesn't yet exist in Iraq. Read the RSF article. Again, name one instance of a tv or radio station in a democracy that was shut down directly by the military, or that had its journalists detained with no trial, based entirely on accusations that said broadcasting media was inciting against the military and political leadership itself. <a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/codes_guidelines/broadcasting/standards/?a=87101">This is what the British commission does</a>, for instance. Can you find any similiarity with the Iraqi government measures? It's not just a matter of having a commission vs not having one - there is a commission in Iraq too, it's just not independent and its whole purpose is to censor "inimical media". Democratic, indpendent broadcasting commissions are not doing the same thing, there's a difference in structure, independence, judicial process, motivations, and definitions of those standards. As well as wider context, obviously. There's not even a comparison at all. "<i>The United States censors speech that incites violence. Canada shut downs radio stations that, ahem, “insult people.”</i>" Does the United States military and government _shut down_ and censor radio and tv stations that engage in "unwarranted criticism" of the President? Did the Canadian commission shut down that radio station because it broadcast "unwarranted criticism" of the Prime Minister? Does any democratic _government_ simply censor based on a notion of "inimical media" and "incitement" against said government, notion that will loose enough to be open to all sorts of political interpretations? "<i>The point is that neither Iraq’s shutting down Al Jazeera nor Canada’s enforcing its own standards on speech are, by themselves, “dictatorial.”</i>" You may think the difference is all about a formal superficial aspect, but I don't know how you can consider the difference between independent judicial process and military-enforced orders a mere matter of form. The media situation in Iraq is not dictatorial, ok, if that word is too strong, let's not use it. It's definitely NOT democratic, either. If you don't have an _independent_ regulatory body, you don't have an independent process. If you have the military and unelected government to enforce "standards" - they're not standards here, they're orders! - they themselves define, interpret and enforce at their own will, by sending troops, it's a huge difference with democracies. Democracies are not perfect either, you can still get debatable cases where real freedom of the media can be compromised, in many ways, but the whole system is definitely not based entirely on what an unelected government and military force can decide at their own discretion only and with no chance of appeal and no commonly shared standards other than politically-motivated ones. Come on, seriously, I cannot believe you cannot comprehend all that yourself. detached observer: the concerns are not “mine” and it’s not about me “feeling better”. I do understand what you’re saying very well, but it doesn’t take into account the huge differences between the two things you’re comparing. Just to be clear, I’m not defending the decision you quoted about suspending the Canadian radio license. I don’t know all the details of it beyond what was quoted in the article, and normally even complaints about offensive comments made by radio presenters are not enough to shut down a radio. But leave that particular instance aside – you cannot ignore the difference between broadcasting commissions in democracies, and the kind of authoritarian control that’s in place in Iraq. I can perfectly understand, and even accept, up to a point, a justification of Bremer’s and Allawi’s system as a tempoary measure because Iraq, unlike Canada, is in a situation of instability, etc. etc. Up to a certain point, that argument is sensible. But it does depend on what exaclty are the standards applied and how they’re applied and how the procedure works. In Canada, the radio station will be able to appeal to a court. In Iraq, you can’t do that. In Canada, even if that decision about that radio station was entirely unfair, it is not politically motivated. And from what I read in the article you quoted yourself, it’s a very rare occurrence. In Iraq, on the other hand, the definition of “incitement” is very vague, there are no precise broadcasting standards as yet, and the sole judge and juror is the CPA and the provisional government. The military command has the power to decide what qualifies as incitement against said military command. Please, detached observer, I really cannot believe you can be so obtuse you can’t see the difference. “The restrictions Iraq applied to Al Jazeera are no different than restriction normally applied to speech by western democracies.” Of course they are different! and this is not just about Al Jazeera but the order that allows the military to shut down stations and detain journalists without even a formal legal process, as it doesn’t yet exist in Iraq. Read the RSF article. Again, name one instance of a tv or radio station in a democracy that was shut down directly by the military, or that had its journalists detained with no trial, based entirely on accusations that said broadcasting media was inciting against the military and political leadership itself. This is what the British commission does, for instance. Can you find any similiarity with the Iraqi government measures? It’s not just a matter of having a commission vs not having one – there is a commission in Iraq too, it’s just not independent and its whole purpose is to censor “inimical media”. Democratic, indpendent broadcasting commissions are not doing the same thing, there’s a difference in structure, independence, judicial process, motivations, and definitions of those standards. As well as wider context, obviously. There’s not even a comparison at all. “The United States censors speech that incites violence. Canada shut downs radio stations that, ahem, “insult people.”” Does the United States military and government shut down and censor radio and tv stations that engage in “unwarranted criticism” of the President? Did the Canadian commission shut down that radio station because it broadcast “unwarranted criticism” of the Prime Minister? Does any democratic government simply censor based on a notion of “inimical media” and “incitement” against said government, notion that will loose enough to be open to all sorts of political interpretations? “The point is that neither Iraq’s shutting down Al Jazeera nor Canada’s enforcing its own standards on speech are, by themselves, “dictatorial.”” You may think the difference is all about a formal superficial aspect, but I don’t know how you can consider the difference between independent judicial process and military-enforced orders a mere matter of form. The media situation in Iraq is not dictatorial, ok, if that word is too strong, let’s not use it. It’s definitely NOT democratic, either. If you don’t have an independent regulatory body, you don’t have an independent process. If you have the military and unelected government to enforce “standards” – they’re not standards here, they’re orders! – they themselves define, interpret and enforce at their own will, by sending troops, it’s a huge difference with democracies. Democracies are not perfect either, you can still get debatable cases where real freedom of the media can be compromised, in many ways, but the whole system is definitely not based entirely on what an unelected government and military force can decide at their own discretion only and with no chance of appeal and no commonly shared standards other than politically-motivated ones. Come on, seriously, I cannot believe you cannot comprehend all that yourself.

]]> By: momo http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/al-jazeera/comment-page-2/#comment-37888 momo Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:29:53 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1988#comment-37888 There you go, I'm quoting here the same article quoted in the "Only good news, please" thread: <a href="http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=7583">The Iraqi media three months after the war : A new but fragile freedom</a> Here's the relevant part on how Canadian-like the whole process of enforcing "broadcasting standards" is: <blockquote>"We want a free media," a CPA spokesman said on 11 June, saying the order [Bremer's order number 7 on "inimical media activity"] was not intended to curb freedom but to rein in violence and preserve security. <b>Such a measure may seem necessary because of current political instability but it remains to be seen if the Coalition forces will interpret "incitement to violence" reasonably or excessively</b>. In the absence of a legal system, the US army and the CPA have the authority to prosecute and punish the media. The CPA monitors, prosecutes and sometimes punishes offences committed against it. <b>The appeal procedure is hardly credible, since it rules out any independent body</b> and simply consists of sending a protest letter to the CPA. Two media outlets have been suspended so far under the order. ... <b>Criteria for registration and issue of broadcasting and publishing licences are very unclear. </b> ... hostility towards the press has been noticed. The Iranian public TV station Al-Alam protested on 11 June against the detention by US soldiers of two of its journalists for several hours after they had been filming in central Baghdad. Their film was confiscated. Other foreign reporters, photographers and cameramen have been obstructed covering such things as Iraqi demonstrations against the occupying forces. Iraqi police arrested reporter Abdel Azim Mohammed, of the satellite TV station Al-Jazeera, in Ramadi (west of Baghdad) on 17 and 18 July, along with another journalist and a cameraman, and held them for several hours, accusing them of "inciting violence." ... <b>Incitement to violence against Coalition forces or incitement to ethnic or religious hatred is not clearly defined</b> and <b>the Coalition military commander has the sole power to decide what it is.</b></blockquote> There you go, I’m quoting here the same article quoted in the “Only good news, please” thread: The Iraqi media three months after the war : A new but fragile freedom Here’s the relevant part on how Canadian-like the whole process of enforcing “broadcasting standards” is:
“We want a free media,” a CPA spokesman said on 11 June, saying the order [Bremer’s order number 7 on “inimical media activity”] was not intended to curb freedom but to rein in violence and preserve security. Such a measure may seem necessary because of current political instability but it remains to be seen if the Coalition forces will interpret “incitement to violence” reasonably or excessively. In the absence of a legal system, the US army and the CPA have the authority to prosecute and punish the media. The CPA monitors, prosecutes and sometimes punishes offences committed against it. The appeal procedure is hardly credible, since it rules out any independent body and simply consists of sending a protest letter to the CPA. Two media outlets have been suspended so far under the order. … Criteria for registration and issue of broadcasting and publishing licences are very unclear. … hostility towards the press has been noticed. The Iranian public TV station Al-Alam protested on 11 June against the detention by US soldiers of two of its journalists for several hours after they had been filming in central Baghdad. Their film was confiscated. Other foreign reporters, photographers and cameramen have been obstructed covering such things as Iraqi demonstrations against the occupying forces. Iraqi police arrested reporter Abdel Azim Mohammed, of the satellite TV station Al-Jazeera, in Ramadi (west of Baghdad) on 17 and 18 July, along with another journalist and a cameraman, and held them for several hours, accusing them of “inciting violence.” … Incitement to violence against Coalition forces or incitement to ethnic or religious hatred is not clearly defined and the Coalition military commander has the sole power to decide what it is.

]]> By: Detached Observer http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/al-jazeera/comment-page-2/#comment-37887 Detached Observer Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:10:46 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1988#comment-37887 momo, Perhaps you should carefully reread my earlier posts since you seem to be in doubt about the point I am making. This point is: The restrictions Iraq applied to Al Jazeera are no different than restriction normally applied to speech by western democracies. The United States censors speech that incites violence. Canada shut downs radio stations that, ahem, "insult people." The point is that neither Iraq's shutting down Al Jazeera nor Canada's enforcing its own standards on speech are, by themselves, "dictatorial." In response, you make the point that Canada has a commission (appointed by the prime minister's cabinet by the way) that does this whereas in Iraq the prime minister issues an order, and the former seems a lot more democratic to you than the latter. The question remains, therefore, whether your concerns would be assuaged if Allawi appointed a commission that issued this order for him rather than ordering it himself. momo, Perhaps you should carefully reread my earlier posts since you seem to be in doubt about the point I am making. This point is: The restrictions Iraq applied to Al Jazeera are no different than restriction normally applied to speech by western democracies. The United States censors speech that incites violence. Canada shut downs radio stations that, ahem, “insult people.” The point is that neither Iraq’s shutting down Al Jazeera nor Canada’s enforcing its own standards on speech are, by themselves, “dictatorial.” In response, you make the point that Canada has a commission (appointed by the prime minister’s cabinet by the way) that does this whereas in Iraq the prime minister issues an order, and the former seems a lot more democratic to you than the latter. The question remains, therefore, whether your concerns would be assuaged if Allawi appointed a commission that issued this order for him rather than ordering it himself.

]]> By: momo http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/al-jazeera/comment-page-1/#comment-37886 momo Wed, 11 Aug 2004 07:41:06 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1988#comment-37886 detached observer: let's see, are you saying that broadcasting regulations such as those existing in Canada and in every other democracy in the world are dictatorial measures on a par with Castro-like prohibitions of unwarranted criticism and police forcing journalists to leave? Can you name me one instance of a country that doesn't have regulations and laws and standards on radio and tv broadcasts, as well as publishing? Can you also explain what exactly do you see in common between Iraq and Canada? Or are you just being silly on purpose? detached observer: let’s see, are you saying that broadcasting regulations such as those existing in Canada and in every other democracy in the world are dictatorial measures on a par with Castro-like prohibitions of unwarranted criticism and police forcing journalists to leave? Can you name me one instance of a country that doesn’t have regulations and laws and standards on radio and tv broadcasts, as well as publishing? Can you also explain what exactly do you see in common between Iraq and Canada? Or are you just being silly on purpose?

]]> By: Antoni Jaume http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/al-jazeera/comment-page-1/#comment-37885 Antoni Jaume Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:50:09 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1988#comment-37885 I'm not aware that Canada is in the middle of a Civil War and that the differing political parties have to man militia. DSW I’m not aware that Canada is in the middle of a Civil War and that the differing political parties have to man militia. DSW

]]> By: Detached Observer http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/al-jazeera/comment-page-1/#comment-37884 Detached Observer Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:29:56 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1988#comment-37884 momo, Would it make you feel better if, instead, Allawi formed an "independent commission" which announced that each television station must get a license and comply with vaguely defined "broadcast standards," and then followed it up by granting licenses to everybody except Al Jazeera, claiming it was in violation of these standards? momo, Would it make you feel better if, instead, Allawi formed an “independent commission” which announced that each television station must get a license and comply with vaguely defined “broadcast standards,” and then followed it up by granting licenses to everybody except Al Jazeera, claiming it was in violation of these standards?

]]> By: momo http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/al-jazeera/comment-page-1/#comment-37883 momo Tue, 10 Aug 2004 08:55:56 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1988#comment-37883 Also, further reading comprehension help, here's from the article you quote about Canada, again, consider carefully: <i>The broadcast regulator says remarks by the pair included harassing a rival radio host, making disparaging comments about African students at Laval University, and calling for the euthanizing of psychiatric patients. "...The station’s hosts were relentless in their use of the public airwaves to insult and ridicule people," the regulator said in its decision. CHOI-FM has received dozens of complaints since 1997. In 2002, the CRTC gave the station two years to clean up the quality of its programming. But 45 new complaints have been filed since. The CRTC says Genex has ignored its repeated warnings. "The seriousness and frequency of the violations noted, the fact that they were not first violations, the licensee’s general attitude of denial, and the stall tactics that the licensee used in dealing with complaints throughout the current licence term have persuaded the Commission that Genex does not accept its regulatory obligations and is not committed to meeting them," the commission said.  Five other radio stations have been denied license renewals for varying reasons. The CRTC pulled the plug because the stations either broke from the format specified on their licenses, or did not complying with advertising restrictions.</i> Apart from the glaring differences with the Iraqi case outlined previously, I don't see _any_ item of politically-motivated "censorship" in what's quoted above, it's just a regulatory body demanding its standards, to which said stations had signed up to get a license!, are respected. Jeez. I cannot believe anybody could be so obtuse as to think that is _worse_ than a non-elected government directly shutting down a tv station and then demanding all media do not broadcast material that is _critical_ of said unelected government. I cannot believe the length to which some people go to justify dictatorial actions just because they come from the pro-american side. Would you defend the same thing if it was about North Korea? or Iran? Iraq was supposed to be the beacon of democracy in the Middle East, ha, its media now are less free than in all the other Middle Eastern countries, how about that. What a shining example to set. Replace anti-american regime with pro-american regime, oh we've never seen that before! it's so the "NEW American project", yeah, exporting democracy since 1973. But I'm sure it'll only be a temporary thing. And it's so justified by the fact there is violent opposition to the regime. I think even Saddam would approve, from the height of his experience in governing Iraq for so many years, the man surely has taught the new government a few lessons in how to handle "unwarranted criticism". I'm sure the new order will do a lot of good to the purpose of NOT inciting more terrorism and violence and hostility among the population, oh yes. Also, further reading comprehension help, here’s from the article you quote about Canada, again, consider carefully: The broadcast regulator says remarks by the pair included harassing a rival radio host, making disparaging comments about African students at Laval University, and calling for the euthanizing of psychiatric patients. “…The station’s hosts were relentless in their use of the public airwaves to insult and ridicule people,” the regulator said in its decision. CHOI-FM has received dozens of complaints since 1997. In 2002, the CRTC gave the station two years to clean up the quality of its programming. But 45 new complaints have been filed since. The CRTC says Genex has ignored its repeated warnings. “The seriousness and frequency of the violations noted, the fact that they were not first violations, the licensee’s general attitude of denial, and the stall tactics that the licensee used in dealing with complaints throughout the current licence term have persuaded the Commission that Genex does not accept its regulatory obligations and is not committed to meeting them,” the commission said.  Five other radio stations have been denied license renewals for varying reasons. The CRTC pulled the plug because the stations either broke from the format specified on their licenses, or did not complying with advertising restrictions. Apart from the glaring differences with the Iraqi case outlined previously, I don’t see any item of politically-motivated “censorship” in what’s quoted above, it’s just a regulatory body demanding its standards, to which said stations had signed up to get a license!, are respected. Jeez. I cannot believe anybody could be so obtuse as to think that is worse than a non-elected government directly shutting down a tv station and then demanding all media do not broadcast material that is critical of said unelected government. I cannot believe the length to which some people go to justify dictatorial actions just because they come from the pro-american side. Would you defend the same thing if it was about North Korea? or Iran? Iraq was supposed to be the beacon of democracy in the Middle East, ha, its media now are less free than in all the other Middle Eastern countries, how about that. What a shining example to set. Replace anti-american regime with pro-american regime, oh we’ve never seen that before! it’s so the “NEW American project”, yeah, exporting democracy since 1973. But I’m sure it’ll only be a temporary thing. And it’s so justified by the fact there is violent opposition to the regime. I think even Saddam would approve, from the height of his experience in governing Iraq for so many years, the man surely has taught the new government a few lessons in how to handle “unwarranted criticism”. I’m sure the new order will do a lot of good to the purpose of NOT inciting more terrorism and violence and hostility among the population, oh yes.

]]> By: momo http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/al-jazeera/comment-page-1/#comment-37882 momo Tue, 10 Aug 2004 08:35:51 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1988#comment-37882 detached observer: like I said, good luck, if you can't see the difference. Every country I know of has a broadcasting standards commission. I don't know the particulars of that radio station case about Canada. The charges may be unfair, though the article does seem to point out the main issue is probably the harassment of the competition, as well as the _listener's complaints_ throughout years and years. But, just to help you with a basic recap of how media in democracies work, the main difference with Iraq is a) Iraq is not a democracy b) the "broadcasting commission" is NOT independent c) the decision was made entirely by the PRIME MINISTER and d) they sent the police in. Oh, e) latest news, this Iraqi commission, set up directly by the interim non-democratic government, wants to prohibit any "unwarranted criticism" of said Prime Minister. You happy with that too? If this was going on in Canada, you would see riots in the streets. But it couldn't happen unless that "Prime Minister" was a dictator. The sort of thing like this Iraqi "High Media Commission" and Allawi's decision to shut down the local AJ and directly impose conditions on them is the sort of thing that happened in former Soviet Union, in Cuba, and... in Saddam's Iraq. How you can defend it or even compare it to the ordinary broadcasting standards authorities of any democracy is beyond me. detached observer: like I said, good luck, if you can’t see the difference. Every country I know of has a broadcasting standards commission. I don’t know the particulars of that radio station case about Canada. The charges may be unfair, though the article does seem to point out the main issue is probably the harassment of the competition, as well as the listener’s complaints throughout years and years. But, just to help you with a basic recap of how media in democracies work, the main difference with Iraq is a) Iraq is not a democracy b) the “broadcasting commission” is NOT independent c) the decision was made entirely by the PRIME MINISTER and d) they sent the police in. Oh, e) latest news, this Iraqi commission, set up directly by the interim non-democratic government, wants to prohibit any “unwarranted criticism” of said Prime Minister. You happy with that too? If this was going on in Canada, you would see riots in the streets. But it couldn’t happen unless that “Prime Minister” was a dictator. The sort of thing like this Iraqi “High Media Commission” and Allawi’s decision to shut down the local AJ and directly impose conditions on them is the sort of thing that happened in former Soviet Union, in Cuba, and… in Saddam’s Iraq. How you can defend it or even compare it to the ordinary broadcasting standards authorities of any democracy is beyond me.

]]> By: Robin Green http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/al-jazeera/comment-page-1/#comment-37881 Robin Green Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:07:41 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1988#comment-37881 Sure Al Jazeera is deliberately inflammatory. It's a necessary part of free speech that you are allowed to say things that inflame people. Even deliberately so! Gosh, how radical! If "deliberately inflammatory" is the new "incitement to violence" - when are Fox News going to be shut down? Sure Al Jazeera is deliberately inflammatory. It’s a necessary part of free speech that you are allowed to say things that inflame people. Even deliberately so! Gosh, how radical! If “deliberately inflammatory” is the new “incitement to violence” – when are Fox News going to be shut down?

]]> By: Chris Bertram http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/al-jazeera/comment-page-1/#comment-37880 Chris Bertram Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:05:58 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1988#comment-37880 For the record: Russkie [to me, many comments back]: "Did you read the “Jews plot against al-aqsa article”?" Russkie [last comment] "Chris Bertram is the one who pulled the discussion in this direction." For the record: Russkie [to me, many comments back]: “Did you read the “Jews plot against al-aqsa article”?” Russkie [last comment] “Chris Bertram is the one who pulled the discussion in this direction.”

]]> By: Russkie http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/al-jazeera/comment-page-1/#comment-37879 Russkie Mon, 09 Aug 2004 21:55:04 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1988#comment-37879 Chris Bertram is the one who pulled the discussion in this direction. And the topic had moved to whether AJ is "deliberately inflammatory" or malicious. So yes you are being an ass. Chris Bertram is the one who pulled the discussion in this direction. And the topic had moved to whether AJ is “deliberately inflammatory” or malicious. So yes you are being an ass.

]]>