Al Jazeera

by Chris Bertram on August 8, 2004

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” So said George Orwell, in a quote adopted by British blog “Harry’s Place”:http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/ . It is a quote worth recalling in “the light of the decision of the Iraqi government”:http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9C888134-9481-485A-A675-DD3C50DA224D.htm “to close”:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3545514.stm down “Al Jazeera’s”:http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage Baghdad offices for a month. The new “Iraqi foreign minister justified the closure”:http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A3BF4F15-97CC-4B0B-BAFE-55A1CB3D859F.htm in these terms:

bq. Hoshyar Zibari accused Aljazeera, along with other Arabic language satellite channels, of “incitement” and hiding behind media freedoms.

bq. Zibari said the channel’s coverage of Iraq was “one-sided” and “distorted”.

bq. He made the comments in an interview with an Aljazeera correspondent during an offcial visit to Moscow on Sunday.

bq. “They [Aljazeera and other Arabic channels] have all become incitement channels which are against the interests of security, the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people,” Zibari said.

bq. He added “the new Iraqi government will not tolerate these kinds of intentional breaches and violations”.

Looks like the new Iraqi government doesn’t think people should have the right to tell them what they don’t want to hear.

UPDATE: “This piece”:http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=549052 on Al-Jazeera by David Usborne in the Independent is worth reading.

{ 57 comments }

1

Russkie 08.08.04 at 9:52 am

I’m not so certain that one can so simply dismiss the concern about incitement – especially during wartime.

Is it unjustified for people in France or Canada to feel uncomfortable about licensing the Hezbollah channel al-Manar for cable distribution?

Granted that these days it’s impossible to control the flow of information over the internet or satellite – but TV is still a mass medium.

2

Giles 08.08.04 at 11:37 am

Given that Orwell informed on people during the war, I think its safe to say that he understood that liberties had to be curtailed during times of conflict. So I don’t think he’d be happy with your use of his quote.

3

Robin Green 08.08.04 at 11:59 am

When reporting the truth – without any kind of call for people to commit violence – is deemed “incitement”, that’s when you know you’ve descended into some kind of fascist police state.

So, the question is, what specific instances of incitement by Al-Jazeera can be found, and are they simply instances of reporting the truth in a slanted way, or are they calls to arms?

4

Russkie 08.08.04 at 12:35 pm

The article from the Independent sounds like it was spit out by the same computer program that writes everything else in that newspaper.

Here’s a different perspective, from an Arabic speaker who actually watched Al-Jazeera for a long period of time (instead of just quoting a few predictable people like the Independent):

http://www.udel.edu/global/agenda/2002/readings/nytjazeeraview.html

5

Chris Bertram 08.08.04 at 1:02 pm

It _is_ a different perpective, Russkie, but not one that provides any support for the state closing down a tv channel. And it is good to get different perpectives, isn’t it, rather than only ones approved by the government as “fair and balanced”? Which is precisely the point.

6

Russkie 08.08.04 at 1:45 pm

>And it is good to get different
>perpectives, isn?t it, rather than
>only ones approved by the
>government as ?fair and balanced??

We all believe in a free press and are familiar with the arguments of JS Mill. And we admire your learnedness and virtuousness in repeating these arguments on the behalf of the Iraqis.

The point that needs debating however is “what constitutes incitement” in the Iraqi context.

7

peter ramus 08.08.04 at 3:15 pm

The point that needs debating however is “what constitutes incitement” in the Iraqi context.

—russkie at 1:45 pm

Invading the country might qualify for starters.

Sifting through the resulting rubble of details is what we expect from a free press, isn’t it? Although, as the ever-timely Fafblog notes, incitement’s no problem here in the US.

8

momo 08.08.04 at 3:25 pm

Al Qaeda must be so grateful. They’re doing their recruitment job for them.

The most ironic thing is, the last time Al Jazeera was unwelcome in Iraq was… by Saddam, during the war, last year. (If I don’t recall wrong. I do recall the AJ reporters being sent out).

I heard on the news that the motivation this time had something to do with the terrorist videos that Al Jazeera receive and broadcast.

Funny that didn’t prevent the western media (and governments too!) re-broadcasting those very same videos, ever since Osama’s announcements all through to the recent decapitations series.

Does indirect incitement – broadcasting someone else’s incitement – constitute a form of direct incitement of its own? If so, why should this apply only to Al Jazeera?

If they have not been guilty of overt and direct incitement themselves, then, should the definition of “incitement” simply be understood to be broad enough to include reporting things in a way that puts an unfavourable spin on the US and the current Iraqi government? but… if the very same things can be shown and reported with a favourable spin, it’s ok?

9

Robin Green 08.08.04 at 6:47 pm

Of course. And that’s a fascist logic: that is to say, fascism, understood as the merger of state and corporate power.

10

roger 08.08.04 at 6:50 pm

Orwell was no saint, and who knows, he might have countenanced closing Al Jazeera — sometimes, Orwell liked to play the tough. But the validity of the point of view in Chris’ citation stands apart from the man’s personality. In fact, since Iraq is going to have an election in six months, and since — by polls run by the CPA — the Americans and their puppets — the Governing Council and their successor, the Allawi gov — are very unpopular, it would seem that, contra Ruskie, the real incitement involved here is inciting people to make rational judgments about their rulers. The stance of Orwell’s that should count, in this instance, is the stance about colonial regimes. As I dimly recall, he protested about the BBC’s treatment of some Indian nationalists during WWII, who were considered insufficiently supportive of the British effort. His point was that Indian nationals had every reason to be insupportive of the effort of a country that was trying to impose its autocratic rule on India while at the same time fighting Nazis and Japanese in the name of keeping those powers from imposing autocratic rule on others.

Anyway, here’s another Orwell quote that seems appropriate:

Indifference to objective truth is encouraged by the sealing-off of one part of the world from another, which makes it harder and harder to discover what is actually happening. There can often be a genuine doubt about the most enormous events. For example, it is impossible to calculate within millions, perhaps even tens of millions, the number of deaths caused by the present war. The calamities that are constantly being reported — battles, massacres, famines, revolutions — tend to inspire in the average person a feeling of unreality. One has no way of verifying the facts, one is not even fully certain that they have happened, and one is always presented with totally different interpretations from different sources. What were the rights and wrongs of the Warsaw rising of August 1944? Is it true about the German gas ovens in Poland? Who was really to blame for the Bengal famine? Probably the truth is discoverable, but the facts will be so dishonestly set forth in almost any newspaper that the ordinary reader can be forgiven either for swallowing lies or failing to form an opinion. The general uncertainty as to what is really happening makes it easier to cling to lunatic beliefs. Since nothing is ever quite proved or disproved, the most unmistakable fact can be impudently denied.

11

Detached Observer 08.08.04 at 10:03 pm

There are many legitimate reasons why Al-Jazeera’s Baghdad office was closed down – note that Western countries do the same to those that produce hate speech.

And thats what Al Jazeera produces: most of their news programming is dedicated to airing the viewpoint of terrorists. From repeated showings of Bin Laden videos, to constant interviews with Taliban and Iraqi rebels, to talk shows where the guests rail about the control of the world by warmonger Jews and glorify Bin Laden – the end result is a constant stream of coverage designed to inflame anti-Western anger and glorify terrorism. If thats not incitement, what is?

12

Russkie 08.08.04 at 10:54 pm

I’ve heard that AJ’s english web site is toned down compared to the Arabic one. But here’s an article from today that’s pretty inflammatory:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/66E32EAF-0E4E-4765-9339-594C323A777F.htm

“Iraqi group claims over 37,000 civilian toll”

Tangentially: here’s a very creative article that’s pandering to/stirring up anti-Jewish sentiment:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/58087655-FE76-4764-9598-A952E08FEFC8.htm

“Jewish groups: Raze mosques, rebuild temple”

Mill gave various good reasons why falsehoods must be permitted in democratic society. Nevertheless, if it’s acceptable to kill “militants” then its permissible to regulate their speech and the speech of their cheerleaders.

13

momo 08.09.04 at 12:03 am

detached observer: no democratic country simply _closes down_ an entire tv station based on a government allegation that it produces “hate speech”, or a requirement that it complies with government requests or else, send in the police.

Usually, depending on the legislation, there is a judicial process to establish whether the allegation is true.

I don’t speak Arab, and don’t watch Al Jazeera every day, so, I cannot really know what exactly they produce “most of the time”. I only hear what’s filtered through our media. Maybe it’s jihad central, maybe it’s the Arab BBC, maybe it’s something in between. I don’t know. I only watched it a couple of times, last year during the attack on Iraq, and what they showed a lot was the footage of the victims of the bombings. It didn’t put a favourable spin on the war, for sure! (It didn’t even put a favourable spin on the Iraqi minister of information’s claims they were winning the war, and that’s why they kicked Al Jazeera out)

It just strikes me as interesting that it was a precious channel for the US to get bin Laden’s messages when they were needed to justify war(s). Again, I guess that kind of re-broadcasting of original terrorist material was OK.

But the question is not primarily about how manipulative Al Jazeera is. It’s about how useful this intervention is. You got a channel that has been broadcasting for a while now all across the world and every time this American administration and their emissaries bitch about it, it goes up in popularity. In Iraq, with Saddam, they only had state tv and weren’t allowed to get satellite. Now, with the supposed Iraqi democracy work in progress, one of the first things the new government does is shut down the main Arab tv channel! Thereby instantly making it even more of a legend to its target audience! And single-handedly justifying its antiamerican position about the Iraqi government being an authoritarian US puppet! Very very clever.

Incitement. Right. Now it’s Al Jazeera that’s turning parts of Iraq into new Ramallahs. If only it was that simple.

It is really NOT so unthinkable that a person in a country occupied by American troops with results that are not exactly awe-inspiring (apart from the amazing success in raising the danger of being killed by terrorists coming in from every frontier) might have REAL motives to be pissed off with the American handling of regime change. I wouldn’t think that person would need to watch tv for that. And I wouldn’t think their watching a talk show where their anger gets an outlet would be enough to drive them in the arms of highly trained terrorist groups, either.

But hey, the Iraqi government must know better. They also complained about other three Arab channels apart from Al Jazeera. It’ll be interesting to see what happens to them. I think it’ll be simpler if they brought back the old Iraqi state tv. With all that glorious self-celebratory footage…

14

praktike 08.09.04 at 1:15 am

Look at it this way.

Jihadi groups get money from the Gulf states. Jihadi groups commit acts of violence in order to get play on Al Jazeera to prove their worth. Rinse, Repeat.

This isn’t about freedom of speech — it’s about yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

15

Detached Observer 08.09.04 at 2:22 am

momo wrote: ‘…no democratic country simply closes down an entire tv station based on a government allegation that it produces “hate speech”, or a requirement that it complies with government requests…’

I hope Canada qualifies as democratic by your standards because recently it did exactly that.

16

ChrisPer 08.09.04 at 6:03 am

It is perfectly legitimate in times of instability to close media outlets that act in a way that legitimates violence or perpetuates violent attitudes. This is why ‘state of emegency’ legislation exists in many democratic countries, and it justified the state ‘control’ of speech in many Socialist states of the last hundred years.

I have read accounts of witnesses that they were paid by Al-Jazeera journalists to demonstrate carrying pictures of Saddam Hussein. People with direct experience such as Omar at Iraq the Model are sure that Al-Jazeera is acting as a collaborator with the international jihadis trying to destabilise Iraq.

17

ChrisPer 08.09.04 at 6:03 am

It is perfectly legitimate in times of instability to close media outlets that act in a way that legitimates violence or perpetuates violent attitudes. This is why ‘state of emegency’ legislation exists in many democratic countries, and it justified the state ‘control’ of speech in many Socialist states of the last hundred years.

I have read accounts of witnesses that they were paid by Al-Jazeera journalists to demonstrate carrying pictures of Saddam Hussein. People with direct experience such as Omar at Iraq the Model are sure that Al-Jazeera is acting as a collaborator with the international jihadis trying to destabilise Iraq.

18

alan 08.09.04 at 6:45 am

chrisper:
“It is perfectly legitimate in times of instability to close media outlets that act in a way that legitimates violence or perpetuates violent attitudes”.

I disagree – for the same reason that the US Constitution enshrines the right to free speech. Extreme and biased media can be countered by quality media and by media of opposite extreme and bias.

If I didn’t disagree about the importance of free speech, I’d be pointing out that Fox in the US also broadcasts “in a way that legitimates violence or perpetuates violent attitudes”.

19

ChrisPer 08.09.04 at 7:52 am

Absolutely free speech is important. As an Australian I note that this ‘right’ had to be implied into our constitution in the same way gay marriage has been in the US. It is not an absolute value, and hate speech supporting murder and civil warfare is not protected even in the US. That is what Al Jazeera is said to have done.

20

Chris Bertram 08.09.04 at 8:29 am

This isn’t about freedom of speech — it’s about yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

No, when you assimilate the transmission of news and opinion (however odious) to whole countries to the fire-theatre model, you’ve lost a grip on the importance of freedom of speech.

But just to be clear, I have no problem with the Iraqi government taking action against Al Jazeera if they can demonstrate *specific acts* of incitement. But my impression here is that news and opinion that is considered as unfair and unbalanced by the Iraqi government and the US is being represented by them as incitement.

Ditto for some commentators here, who seem to believe that if a transmission “legitimates violence” in some non-specific way, perhaps (I don’t know) by describing the Iraqi government as illegitimate puppets, then it is ok to close or harrass the station.

21

Russkie 08.09.04 at 8:53 am

>Ditto for some commentators here,
>who seem to believe that if a
>transmission ?legitimates
>violence? in some non-specific
>way, perhaps (I don?t know) by
>describing the Iraqi government as
>illegitimate puppets, then it is
>ok to close or harrass the
>station.

In a _specific_ example linked above, AJ publicized a grossly inflated statistic on civilian casualties in Iraq. When this type of thing is done on a regular basis (as it is by AJ) – it’s clear that the intent is to use lies and incendiary material to pander to/ stir up anti-coalition sentiment.

In a non-war situation, this is the price that is paid for freedom of expression. When there is lack of civil order, elements like AJ can prevent civil order from coming into place.

An unfettered media is not some Kantian categorical imperative as some people here seem to think. Freedom of media has been abrogated in situations less far less extreme than this one – eg. the War Measures Act that was activated in Canada in October 1970.

22

momo 08.09.04 at 9:15 am

detached observer: I don’t know if you’re kidding me, but compare –

Iraq – The *Iraqi interim government has ordered* the closure of the Baghdad office of Arabic television station al-Jazeera for the next four weeks.
*Prime Minister* Iyad Allawi accused the satellite station of inciting hatred and racial tension.
On Saturday evening, Iraqi *police* entered the station’s Baghdad offices.
They were seen arguing with al-Jazeera employees inside the building before *ordering them all to leave*.

Canada – The *Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission* is refusing to renew a Quebec City radio station’s licence to broadcast.
The CRTC says the station is in violation the *broadcast standards act*…
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.

If you don’t see the difference, then I don’t know what to say to you.

The second case – which is still rare – is the ordinary procedure in any nation where there is a *regulatory commission* on broadcasting media, with precise standards, which can be violated, so sanctions and fines can be imposed and licenses can be refused. The station will be able to go to *court* anyway to protest the commission decision. If there is a precise violation of broadcasting standards then there are consequences. Just like for the press. That’s within the ordinary basic level of responsibility of any media. Also, it seems to me the complaints come from listeners, not from political leaders. So I don’t quite see the element of politically-driven censorship.

The first case is like Bush sending the marines in CNN offices. If you consider that normal in a democracy, then, good luck.

23

momo 08.09.04 at 9:29 am

chrisper – It is perfectly legitimate in times of instability to close media outlets that act in a way that legitimates violence or perpetuates violent attitudes.

No it’s not legitimate, unless you precisely define what exact acts of incitement of violence have been directly perpetrated by said media. Otherwise, “in a way that legitimates violence” can become very vague. I get angry sometimes watching the news. I’m not inclined to violence, but if I were, I could argue that it’s what I saw on tv that incited me. If it’s a government claiming that, and one that is not even democratic to boot, then that loose interpretation of incitement is even less legitimate.

Chris Bertram explained it very clearly –
But just to be clear, I have no problem with the Iraqi government taking action against Al Jazeera if they can demonstrate specific acts of incitement. But my impression here is that news and opinion that is considered as unfair and unbalanced by the Iraqi government and the US is being represented by them as incitement.

russkie – In a specific example linked above, AJ publicized a grossly inflated statistic on civilian casualties in Iraq.

Oh you mean like the grossly inflated figures about mass graves that Blair cited before the war, and later acknowledged as purely drawn out of his hat? Or the grossly inflated estimates about Iraq’s weapons capabilities?

When this type of thing is done on a regular basis (as it is by AJ) – it’s clear that the intent is to use lies and incendiary material to pander to/ stir up anti-coalition sentiment.

I don’t think so. There are principles, russkie, you don’t just make up your own notion of what falls within freedom of speech and what is incitement. Having an anti-coalition position, ie. a position critical of the US policy, is a legitimate right. The incendiary material is THE SAME we see in all our media. Some argue even the pictures of Abu Ghraib were incendiary anti-coalition material. How do you draw the line? Surely not by means of ideological motivations.

24

Chris Bertram 08.09.04 at 9:34 am

In a specific example linked above, AJ publicized a grossly inflated statistic on civilian casualties in Iraq.

So, you mean to say that AJ reported that someone else (not-AJ) was claiming that there have been more civilian deaths than you believe credible? And you think that reporting such a claim (or enough of such claims) is sufficient grounds for government action against AJ (and other independent news sources, btw)?

You and other commenters of like mind seem to have no problem with pressing the emergency-justifies-suppression-of-speech button. Have you forgotten that this is also supposed to be the run-up-to-democracy phase?

25

Russkie 08.09.04 at 10:17 am

>So, you mean to say that AJ
>reported that someone else
>(not-AJ) was claiming that there
>have been more civilian deaths
>than you believe credible?

“What I believe” is not the issue. It’s necessary to make reference to objective facts (though facts are increasingly ignored by Bush-haters). Even the preposterous “Iraq Body Count” site lists a maximum casualty total of around 13000 (which includes victims of the Mujahadin etc.)

Did you _read_ the AJ article that reported the 37000 figure? Did you read the “Jews plot against al-aqsa article”?

>And you think that reporting such
>a claim (or enough of such claims)
>is sufficient grounds for
>government action against AJ (and
>other independent news sources,
>btw)?

This is misrepresenting what I said. “Reporting such claims” is one thing – trumpeting them is something else.

How do we ensure that there is no abuse of power by the person who decides what is “trumpeting” and what is reporting? The fact that there’s no easy answer does not mean that there is no distinction.

Moreover, reasonable people like you and I should be able to agree that there is a pronounced difference, and also about what kind of reporting is directly incendiary and what kind is innocuous or borderline.

>You and other commenters of like
>mind seem to have no problem with
>pressing the
>emergency-justifies-suppression-of
>-speech button.

Again that’s a misrepresentation. There are shades of grey here, as even you acknowledge.

Western TV networks decided to broadcast images from Abu Ghraib, but not to broadcast images of Jihadi beheadings. In doing this they were clearly conscious of how these things affect their audiences.

>Have you forgotten that this is
>also supposed to be the
>run-up-to-democracy phase?

It doesn’t bother me if the “run-up-to-democracy phase” involves “Canada 1970”-style measures.

Heck, if 3 years from now Iraq’s level of democracy resembles that of Canada following the FLQ “crisis” (which I doubt it will), it would be a tremendous accomplishment. Wouldn’t you agree?

26

Chris Bertram 08.09.04 at 10:42 am

I don’t think that the article you linked to offers much support for your position.

First, the headline, is not “Jews plot against Al-Aqsa”, but rather “Jewish Groups: Raze Mosques, Rebuild Temple”:http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/58087655-FE76-4764-9598-A952E08FEFC8.htm .

Second, the story makes clear the opposition of Israeli politicians and authorities to those very groups.

If the story is objectionable, it is insofar as it gives the impression (note: rather than says) that the particular extremist groups it discusses (especially the Temple Mount Faithful) are other than a tiny extremist minority.

27

Chris Bertram 08.09.04 at 10:49 am

For comparison, here is “Haaretz coverage”:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/457458.html of the same story.

28

Russkie 08.09.04 at 11:03 am

>If the story is objectionable, it
>is insofar as it gives the
>impression (note: rather than
>says) that the particular
>extremist groups it discusses
>(especially the Temple Mount
>Faithful) are other than a tiny
>extremist minority.

It’s full of other inaccuracies, misparaphrases, and deliberate slants also. People disagree about what’s “objectionable” (your word) – but surely we can agree that the article is deliberately inflammatory. Right?

I’m not sure what to make of the fact that you chose to respond to this specific point of my reply (which has little to do with Iraq).

29

Chris Bertram 08.09.04 at 11:13 am

I responded to that specific point because we’ve covered the other ground ad nauseam and because you specifically asked me if I’d read it!

Did you also think the Haaretz coverage was inflammatory? The point is that you cited that particular story in support of your claim that AJ regularly broadcasts hate speech. It may well do so, but the article you cited in support of that proposition doesn’t, in fact, support it.

30

Russkie 08.09.04 at 12:25 pm

>Did you also think the Haaretz
>coverage was inflammatory?

No I did not.

I take it that you mean that neither AJ article I listed was “deliberately inflammatory”, but merely expressed points of view that I (Russkie) happened to disagree with.

>The point is that you cited that
>particular story in support of
>your claim that AJ regularly
>broadcasts hate speech. It may
>well do so, but the article you
>cited in support of that
>proposition doesn?t, in fact,
>support it.

Hm. Didn’t say “hate speech”; said various other things including “pandering to / stirring up anti-Jewish sentiment” (on that particular article).

Again, it’s hard for me to see why you disagree that trumpeting anti-US rumors, or painting a deliberately false picture (using fabricated quotes) of Jewish groups conspiring against al-aqsa, is deliberately intended to stir up sentiments against the US or against Jews.

What would be your view of LGF if it deliberately faked articles about Muslim extremism?

31

John Quiggin 08.09.04 at 12:27 pm

Supposing that the report of 37 000 civilian deaths was proved to be true, would russkie and other pro-war commentators change their view about the desirability of the war?

Just asking.

32

Chris Bertram 08.09.04 at 12:43 pm

Russkie,

I’m obviously being thick here. But I just tried googling for the various quotes from the AJ piece, and it wasn’t hard to find them. You obviously know the facts of the case better than I do, so perhaps you could itemize the inaccuracies and fabrications in that piece. You aren’t saying that AJ has simply made up the existence of extremists like the Temple Mount Faithful are you? Because they seem to have “a website”:http://www.templemountfaithful.org/ and “a list of objectives”:http://www.templemountfaithful.org/obj.htm including the destruction of the mosques.

33

roger 08.09.04 at 2:04 pm

Al Jazeera’s distortions have been mentioned here as a reason for shutting it down. But we should balance those distortions against what it has gotten right, and what the U.S. media has gotten wrong.

In fact, in terms of inciting violence, the U.S. media’s complacent acceptance of almost all of the Bush administration’s lies before the war, and its cheerleading during the war, and its refusal to report on such things as casualties to Iraqis, or to question the consequences of being forced to “embed” with the troops, pretty much violate the whole spirit of freedom of the press — which, after all, is about freeing information from the state’s control.

The closing down of Al Jazeera is simply another in the long series of decisions that have made fighting for “democracy” in Iraq a joke. The refusal to hold elections or contemplate holding elections, the takeover by Americans of the major Ministries and the directing of the economic makeover of the country to the advantage of American companies, the misuse of Iraqi oil revenue to swell the coffers of American companies, the joke “appointment” of Allawi as president (a man whose qualifications include, surprise, planning car bombings against Saddam’s regime), the use of the court system as a frivolous tool of the executive, and on and on.

Those who favor the shutting down of Al Jazeera by citing inaccuracies in its reporting, or biases against Jews (biases against Jews? since when has the Iraqi government had such sensitivity to anti-semitism?), etc., are generally saying this: freedom of information should never threaten the state. There is nothing different, here, than the usual reasons for censorship. The Russian government uses this principle to crush reporting about Chechnya, the Iranians use it to crush reports about student unrest, the Cubans use it, etc., etc.
Let’s just throw in one instance of Al Jazeera’s usefulness. When the U.S. bombed and killed a wedding party in Western Iraq, it was accepted without question by the U.S. press that it had destroyed a “terrorism” encampment. It was news reporting that showed that, no, these were women in wedding dress, children, and — most inconveniently — one of the most famous Iraqi wedding singers that lay in piles as toasted corpses.

I do have to laugh at the idea that Al Jazeera is exaggerating Iraqi casualties on a weekend in which the American military is proudly claiming 300 militia were killed in Najaf (or excuse me, Iraqis), while the hospitals report 47 dead.
That U.S. military. Always distorting things. I think they should be shut out of Iraq for a cooling period of 30 days.

34

Russkie 08.09.04 at 2:25 pm

I’ve got more important things to do than fisk Al-Jazeera.

I also have the feeling that CTers don’t have patience for details, and will point to one or 2 issues and then dismiss all this as “different narratives”.

To emphasize: my point is not that AJ should be shut down, but that this is an example of how AJ disregards the truth in order to be deliberately inflammatory.

But here goes – a fisking of the Al-jazeera article claiming that Jewish groups are plotting against al-aqsa ( http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/58087655-FE76-4764-9598-A952E08FEFC8.htm )

>Al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock
>mosques have come under several
>attacks since 1967 as Jewish
>groups prepared for construction
>of the Third Temple.

One attack really, by a Christian in 1969. Jews “prepare” for the 3rd temple by praying for it every day. But the implied causal connection between the 2 halfs of the sentence is fictional and inflammatory.

>The al-Haram al-Sharif – or the
>Noble Sanctuary – the compound
>housing Al-Aqsa Mosque, also
>contains the Dome of the Rock
>Mosque and is referred to by Jews
>as the Temple Mount.

>Israeli politicians in recent
>weeks have warned that extremist
>Jews wish to destroy the Noble
>Sanctuary with the aim of
>rebuilding a temple – also known
>as the Second Temple – which was
>destroyed by the Romans in CE70
>(AD70).

No. Israeli politicians said that there were warnings that extremist Jews would launch an aerial attack on the mosque in order to torpedo the Gaza withdrawal (search Google news).

>The building of the Third Temple
>would signal the coming of the
>Messiah.

>Jewish organisations have sought
>to undermine Palestinian control
>of the Noble Sanctuary since 1967,
>shortly after Israel captured
>control of East Jerusalem from
>Jordan.

Not really. But let’s see AJ’s evidence ….

>In 1967, a Jewish group tried to
>lead prayers within the Sanctuary
>despite a Rabbinate prohibition.

In 1967 Israel banned Rabbi Shlomo Goren from the Mount plaza area, which is open to tourists (this hardly would have been “undermining Palestinian control” and anyway Israel prevented him, which AJ doesn’t mention).

>Two years later, the entire south
>wing of the mosque was burned,
>including a pulpit commissioned by
>the Muslim leader Salah al-Din
>al-Ayubi some 700 years earlier.

“The fire was put out by Israeli firemen, despite attacks upon them by Muslim bystanders, who also cut some of the fire hoses.” (Times of London, September 2, 1969) quoted at http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=190&x_context=2

Mentioning that Israelis put out the fire would undermine the innuendo that the Israelis were responsible for the attack.

>Israeli authorities claimed the
>perpetrator – Australian Dennis
>Michael Rohan, a tourist belonging
>to an evangelical group who hid
>out in an illegal Israeli
>settlement – had been mentally
>imbalanced.

What “illegal settlements” existed in 1969?

And of course the innuendo is that he wasn’t imbalanced but had been put up to the act by the Israelis.

>By his own admission, he claimed
>that he was trying to hasten the
>return of the Messiah by
>destroying the mosque and
>rebuilding the temple in its
>place.

I couldn’t find any indication that Rohan was planning on rebuilding the temple, and I doubt AJ did either.

>Controversial claims

In the next section AJ treats the the historical presence of the Temple as “controversial”.

>Rohan’s actions may have alluded
>to research conducted by Israeli
>archaeologist Benjamin Mazar,

Oh I’m sure Rohan was “alluding” to Israeli archaeology.

>who claimed that the Second Temple
>stood on the very grounds of
>al-Aqsa Mosque and the Noble
>Sanctuary.

I assume that CT people know that the Temple’s existence and location is accepted historical fact, and not an “Israeli claim” as AJ makes out.

>Tunnels have undermined the
>structure of the mosque

Nonsense. Prove it.

>Mazar’s theories fuelled more
>calls for tearing down al-Aqsa
>Mosque and the Noble Sanctuary and
>rebuilding the Jewish temple.

BS.

Few Israelis have ever heard of Mazar. Let alone called for tearing down the mosque because of him.

>Mazar himself supervised the
>excavating of tunnels under
>al-Aqsa Mosque, which would last
>until 1988.

1978 actually ( http://www.bibarch.com/Biographs/Contemporary/Mazar-Benjamin.htm )

> The use of mechanical
>excavators caused damage to the
>mosque, giving rise to cracks and >loss of structural integrity.

Again BS. Prove it.

>Although Israeli authorities
>denied Palestinian claims of
>damage, a 1996 Jerusalem Post
>report by Abraham Rabinovitch
>said: “There was no penetration of
>the Mount itself or danger to holy >places, but midway in the tunnel’s
>progress large cracks appeared in
>one of the residential buildings
>in the Muslim Quarter, 12 metres
>above the excavation. The dig was
>halted until steel buttresses
>secured the building.”

That quote actually affirms the Israeli position, but AJ tries to imply otherwise.

> In 1970, an Israeli activist
>group, called the Temple Mount
> Faithful, tried to ram through
>the mosque aiming to destroy it
> and resurrect the temple.

Never heard of this, and I couldn’t find a reliable reference that claimed this.

It seems to be made up.

>In 1982, a former Israeli soldier
>shot and killed two worshippers at
>the Dome of the Rock.

Outside of it, not in it.

> Two months
>later, an Israeli trying to blow
>up the mosque was arrested.

He had been plotting, but he never actually attempted to blow up the mosque.

>He was later released.

He was released by the Rabin gov’t because it was hard to justify keeping him locked up after hundreds of Palestinian terrorists were released as part of Oslo.

>Tunnels reopened

>In 1992, Israeli archaeologist
>Leen Ritmeyer expanded Mazar’s
>theories of the location of the
>Second Temple by claiming that it
>stood directly below the Dome of
>the Rock mosque in the Noble
>Sanctuary.

>He furthered his claims in his
>1996 book, The Ark of the
>Covenant: Where it Stood in
>Solomon’s Temple, by stating that
>the Ark – housing the Ten
>Commandments – was located in a
>chamber under the Dome of the Rock
>mosque.

>His claims sparked a renewed
>interest in tunnelling under the
>Noble Sanctuary. Violent clashes >broke out in Jerusalem between
>Muslim protesters and the Israeli
>occupation army. Seventy-three
>Palestinians were killed.

Actually, the Palestinian Authority “police” were the ones who started the shooting and constituted most of the casualties. There were Israeli casualties also.

And the tunnel (“Hasmonean Tunnel”) didn’t even go underneath the Sanctuary. This was a rumor that had been broadcast of Voice of Palestine.

All this, with footnotes, at http://www.meforum.org/article/426

>Hardliners in position

>In 1996 the Temple Mount Faithful
>conducted a Gallup poll seeking a
>referendum on rebuilding the
>temple over al-Aqsa Mosque.

TMF running a “Gallup poll”??? Don’t think so.

>More than 58% of polled Israelis
>supported such action.

And therefore, says AJ, be _mad_ at them.

>”More than ever, the Temple Mount
>and the vision of the rebuilt
>Temple have become the focus of
>Israel,” the group’s website says.

And AJ wants you to believe the TMF.

>Jews believe biblical prophecy
>dictates rebuilding of the temple

Distinctly not true. The rabbinic establishment strenuously condemns the TMF.

>The goal of the Temple Mount
>Faithful “is the building of the
>Third Temple on the Temple Mount
>in Jerusalem in our lifetime in
>accordance with the Word of God
>and all the Hebrew prophets and
>the liberation of the Temple Mount
>from Arab (Islamic) occupation so
>that it may be consecrated to the
>Name of God”.

>In 1997, a red heifer ? cow ? was
>born in Jerusalem and hailed by
>Jews as a sign of the “messianic
>age” prompting the building of the >Third Temple.

Again: by the TMF types only,.

>The red heifer is to be used in an
>ancient Jewish purification ritual
>which cleanses Jews who are to
>begin constructing the temple.

>However, within the following
>year, the heifer was found to be
>unclean ? a white spot was found
>on its body ? thereby dashing
?hopes for messianic times.

>Blueprints drawn

>In October 2001, the Temple Mount
>Faithful marched to the Dome of
>the Rock and anointed two 4.
>5-tonne marble blocks as the
>cornerstones of the Third Temple.

>In May 2003, Rabbi Zalman Baruch
>Melamed urged US President Bush to
>support the building of the Third >Temple.

Nonsense. Melamed’s letter to Bush is here: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2251

>”The toppling of his [Saddam’s]
>regime opens a window of hope for
>a new era in the Middle East and
>the entire world. This, then, is
>the hour to right the terrible
>wrong that has been done to the
>Jewish nation over the past 2000
>years,” he said.

Melamed wrote that, but he wasn’t talking about the Temple. Sheer distortion by AJ.

>The Temple Institute in Jerusalem,
>a Jewish organisation dedicated to
>the reconstruction of the temple,
>has carried out blueprint studies
>of the structure, which is to be
>built once the Dome of the Rock
>and al-Aqsa Mosque are removed.

See http://www.templeinstitute.org/about.html

Unlike the TMF,this group seems to just be studying and passively “getting ready” for the 3rd temple.

>The institute dedicated a patch of
>Jerusalem property to begin
>assembling cornerstones for the
>building of a “mini-temple”
>offsite and transferring to the
>Noble Sanctuary once the area has
>been cleared of al-Aqsa and the
>Dome of the Rock mosques.

Not according to the website of these people:

The restored Temple vessels, pending service in the rebuilt Holy Temple, may be viewed by the public at our headquarters in Jerusalem. Since 1989, over 100,000 visitors from all over the world have visited the Institute each year. Through the renewal of these sacred vessels, some of the light of the Holy Temple has begun to return. See contact information (below) for tour details, scheduling and directions.

>Members of the institute have also
>been assigned with training young
>rabbis in ritual sacrifices, which
>are supposed to be conducted
>within the temple grounds.

So what.

> The Temple Institute says it has
>recreated the types of vases,
>pottery and utensils used in
>Biblical times, which are to be
>placed inside the Third Temple.

Again: so what.

I’d write a bit more, but it’s time to go.

35

Chris Bertram 08.09.04 at 3:05 pm

Thanks for your efforts, Russkie. I’m sure you are right about many of the inaccuracies. I wasnt’ completely convinced, though, by your gloss on this part of the AJ report:

They write:

Two months later, an Israeli trying to blow up the mosque was arrested.

You comment:

He had been plotting, but he never actually attempted to blow up the mosque.

Which seems an unwarranted minimization (distortion?) of the facts in the light of “this Haaretz report”:http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/455707.html about the plot. (The report refers to 1984, but I assume that this is the same plot). The Haaretz article also voices similar concerns to those voiced by AJ, that extremist groups may try to attack the mosques. It doesn’t seem remarkable or objectionable to me that AJ, as the leading Arab and Muslim broadcaster, should give voice to the concerns of their audience about this, nor that those concerns are illegitimate. Of course, I agree with you, that inaccuracies in AJ’s reporting of these matters are to be deplored.

36

Frank 08.09.04 at 3:58 pm


I’m sure you are right about many of the inaccuracies

That’s a bit too much.

The AJ text about the Temple Institute is closer to reality than that what russki makes out of it.
From the referred to about page:
Our long-term goal is to do as much as possible to bring about the building of the Holy Temple in our time.

The major focus of the Institute is its efforts towards the beginning of the actual rebuilding of the Holy Temple. Towards this end, the Institute has begun to restore and construct the sacred vessels for the service of the Holy Temple.

That is passive according to russki.

Unlike the TMF,this group seems to just be studying and passively “getting ready” for the 3rd temple.

So what?

I also have the feeling that CTers don’t have patience for details, and will point to one or 2 issues and then dismiss all this as “different narratives”.

That’s right. When the details don’t add anything to a story, what’s the need?

37

Sebastian Holsclaw 08.09.04 at 5:26 pm

Wow, a story which is clearly intended to incite hatred against Jews is completely torn into shreds and your response it to complain that on a single point, russkie may have made a single “unwarranted minimization”.

If you remove that unwarranted minimization don’t you still have a story that obviously distorts and clearly attempts to stir up hatred against Jews?

38

Chris Bertram 08.09.04 at 5:37 pm

Um no, Sebastian (trolling again, I see). My response was to say that the story, though perhaps flawed, voiced legitimate concerns. And I pointed out that the same concerns are, in substance, echoed by a prominent Israeli newspaper.

I’m all in favour of exposing anti-Jewish hate speech, incitement to hatred etc, by Al Jazeera. But this article, despite your description of it, just isn’t a good example of that.

Russkie gave some reason to think the article was marred by shoddy research, but none to think that this was a good example of hate speech.

39

J. Christie 08.09.04 at 6:22 pm

shoddy research

That’s it, Chris, just “shoddy research”!

40

dsquared 08.09.04 at 9:38 pm

Pardon me for perhaps acting the ass on this, but there are very few Jews in Iraq, but loads in Israel. Therefore, in a world in which Al-Jazeera had been shut down by the government of Israel, but remained open in Iraq, it would make a whole lot of sense for us to be discussing whether the quality of AJ’s reporting on Jewish/Palestinian issues in Israel was sufficient reason for it to be shut down. This is not such a world, so I confess to being a little bit unsure as to whether Sebastian and “russkie” are not exhibiting a bit of Carly-Simon-syndrome-by-proxy.

41

dsquared 08.09.04 at 9:41 pm

FWIW, by the way, Al Jazeera continues to broadcast in Israel.

42

Detached Observer 08.09.04 at 9:54 pm

momo,

No, I don’t see much difference between Iraq closing down Al Jazeera’s office and Canada shutting down a radio station. If anything, Iraq has a better case: Iraqi authorities claim that Al Jazeera incites violence while all that is said about CHOI (the radio station in Quebec shut down a couple of weeks ago) is that the shows it produced “insulted people.”

Rather than working yourself up into a righteous rage, you should consider that there is not much difference between establishing a commission to enforce a certain standard and having the head of the executive authority issue orders enforcing the same standard.

You seem to lay stress on the point that, in Canada, it is well-defined what is acceptable to broadcast (at least, you put “broadcast standards” and “clear” in boldface). Not true! CHOI is controversial precisely because it falls on grey lines no one thought had even existed previously.

43

Russkie 08.09.04 at 9:55 pm

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.

44

Chris Bertram 08.10.04 at 12:05 am

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.”

45

Robin Green 08.10.04 at 1:07 am

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?

46

momo 08.10.04 at 8:35 am

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.

47

momo 08.10.04 at 8:55 am

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.

48

Detached Observer 08.10.04 at 8:29 pm

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?

49

Antoni Jaume 08.10.04 at 10:50 pm

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

50

momo 08.11.04 at 7:41 am

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?

51

Detached Observer 08.11.04 at 9:10 am

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.

52

momo 08.11.04 at 9:29 am

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.

53

momo 08.11.04 at 10:02 am

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.

54

momo 08.11.04 at 10:22 am

… 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.

55

Detached Observer 08.11.04 at 10:17 pm

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.

56

momo 08.12.04 at 11:11 am

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?

57

Detached Observer 08.14.04 at 12:59 am

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.

Comments on this entry are closed.