Arab League: Reject Proposal to Restrict Satellite Broadcasts
 
(New York, February 26, 2008) – Arab governments should publicly reject those elements of a proposed regional policy on satellite television broadcasting that would seriously restrict freedom of expression and information, Human Rights Watch said today. 

During their meeting in Cairo on February 12, Arab ministers of information adopted “Principles for Organizing Satellite Broadcast and Television Transmission and Reception in the Arab Region.” The document, introduced by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, calls on the regulatory bodies in Arab League member states to ensure that satellite channels broadcasting from their jurisdictions do not “negatively affect social peace, national unity, public order, and public morals” or “defame leaders, or national and religious symbols [of other Arab states].”  
 
Only Qatar and Lebanon publicly opposed the document and its proposed restrictions.  
 
“Arab League governments are trying to stifle one of the few relatively uncensored forms of mass communication in the region,” said Joe Stork, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “Egypt and Saudi Arabia should be ashamed for sponsoring a proposal that would extend repression of free speech to airwaves across the region.”  
 
The vaguely worded restrictions that this document places on freedom of expression would seriously impede the right of people in the region to express views critical of the governments and to receive news and commentary reflecting critical opinions. For example, article 5 obliges broadcasters to “protect the supreme interests the Arab states,” and “respect the principle of national sovereignty.” Devising legislation and regulations detailing the implementation of these principles would be left up to individual member states.  
 
The document, intended as guidelines that carry no legal obligations, recommends that the regulatory bodies of Arab League members states confiscate equipment, impose fines, and suspend, refuse to renew or withdraw licenses from satellite channels that authorities deem to have violated those “principles.”  
 
“Many Arab states routinely use this language of ‘state interests’ and ‘national sovereignty’ as an excuse to imprison journalists and intimidate critics,” Stork said. “These so-called principles are nothing but a crude assault on free speech.”  
 
Domestic laws in most Arab states severely restrict freedom of expression and the media. Jordan is the only country with a law guaranteeing freedom of access to information, but even there the Ministry of Interior decides what information is excluded from this freedom of access under broadly worded national security exemptions. On December 12, 2007, Jordan’s Court of Cassation upheld a State Security Court sentence of two years in prison for former parliamentarian Ahmad Oweidi al-‘Abbadi for “disseminating ... news he knows to be false or exaggerated which undermine the psychology of the [Islamic] nation.”  
 
Egypt, one of the document’s sponsors, has repeatedly prosecuted reporters under its penal code for broadly worded “crimes.” On September 13, 2007, a Cairo court sentenced four editors of independent and opposition newspapers for publicizing “false news, statements or rumors that are likely to disturb public order.” In early February 2008, an appeals court upheld the conviction of Al Jazeera reporter Huwaida Taha for “possessing and giving false pictures about the internal situation in Egypt that could undermine the dignity of the country” with a documentary about torture in Egyptian police stations.  
 
Saudi Arabia, the other sponsor, has no written penal code and routinely imprisons dissidents for broadly worded charges such as “going beyond the realm of obedience to the ruler.” On December 10, 2007, authorities arrested Saudi blogger Fu’ad al-Farhan, apparently for criticizing the earlier arrest of reform activists in February 2007. He remains in incommunicado detention in Dahban prison in Jeddah without, so far as is known, having been charged.  
 
In Syria, authorities have similarly prosecuted human rights defenders and bloggers on charges of “spreading false news that weaken the spirit of the nation,” for disseminating articles “that harmed the image and security of Syria.”  
 
Iraq has closed down at least three satellite TV stations’ operations since 2004, when it permanently denied Al Jazeera to have a presence in the country. In November 2006, authorities closed al-Zaqra and Salah al-Din stations’ offices because they allegedly incited sectarian tensions following their coverage of the verdict against former president Saddam Hussein. A spokesman for the interior ministry justified the January 2007 closing of the office of al-Sharqiyya satellite station and the September 2006 closing of al-Arabiya satellite channel on similar grounds, without recourse to the courts or publicly demonstrating that these broadcasts led to violence.  
 
Last year authorities in Tunisia refused to accept the accreditation of Lotfi Hajji as correspondent of Al Jazeera. Hajji is also president of the independent Tunisian Journalists Syndicate, which the government has refused to legalize.  
 
Implementing the document’s operative articles would violate international law and standards on freedom of expression, in particular article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protect the “right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”  
 
Exercise of this right cannot be restricted on grounds such as “national security,” “public order,” or the “respect for the rights and reputations of others” when these restrictions are defined in an overly broad way. The Johannesburg Principles on freedom of expression clarify that such restrictions on freedom of expression are only legitimate where they “protect a country’s existence or its territorial integrity against the use or threat of force, or its capacity to respond to the use or threat of force,” but not “to protect interests unrelated to national security, including, for example, to protect a government from embarrassment or exposure of wrongdoing, or to conceal information about the functioning of its public institutions, or to entrench a particular ideology, or to suppress industrial unrest.”  
 
“Qatar and Lebanon have shown that Arab support for tight restrictions on satellite broadcasting is not unanimous,” said Stork. “Other Arab states should follow their example and speak up for media freedoms by publicly opposing this document.” 
 

 

PLEASE

PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOU DID IT

WHY DID YOU HURT HIM

HE WAS SO PEACEFULL

HIS EYES WAS WATERING WHEN HE SAW HIS OWN BABY BOY DEAD

HIS HANDS TOUCH WAS GENTLE SO HE NEVER BEAT A WOMAN OR A SERVANT

HIS YOUNGEST WIFE WAS A CHILD AND HE TREATED HER AS ANY WIFE DREAMS NOW

HE DIDNT EVEN SAW HIS FATHER..

HE HAD TO WORK SINCE HIS VERY EARLY CHILDHOOD

HE DIDNT MIND THAT

HE LOVED HIS UNCLE SO MUCH THAT HE TOOK ONE OF HIS BOYS TO BE RAISED AND FED IN UNDER HIS CARE

HE APPEALED SO LONG TO HIS GOD TO JOIN HIM AND HIS UNCLE AFTER DEATH

HE IS NOT THE BEST HUMAN ON EARTH EVER

HE IS ONLY....MOHAMMAD

 

Islam & Peace

Muslim propagandists are nowadays making extraordinary efforts to change the image of Islam by reintroducing it to the Western society as a religion that calls for peace and rejects violence. One of the new theories that they are trying to sell is that the name of their religion Islam implies the meaning of ‘Peace’, which in Arabic is Salam. The grounds for their theory is that both words are derived from the same root in the Arabic language!

While it may be possible to deceive those who do not speak Arabic or those who do not know much about Islam, propaganda like this does not fool someone who knows the Arabic language and the teaching of Islam, a religion that was established by violence and still believes in violence as a principal and as a way of life. The relationships between Muslims themselves and between them and all other nations have always been based on terror and still is. Islam and Salam are two incongruous words that share no common ground either in name or in substance.

In order to find the meaning of a certain word in the Arabic dictionary, it is essential to search for the three letter infinitive verb which is called the root. Many words can be derived from the same root, but they don't necessarily have to have any similarity in their meaning. The word Islam, which means ‘submission’, is derived from the infinitive Salama. So is the word Salam which means ‘peace’ and so is the verb Salima which means ‘to be saved or to escape from danger’. One of the derivations of the infinitive Salama means ‘the stinging of a snake’ or ‘The tanning of the leather’. Hence, if the word Islam has something to do with the word Salam i.e. ‘Peace’, does that also mean that it must be related to the ‘stinging of the snake’ or ‘tanning the leather’?

Muhammad used to send letters to the kings and leaders of the surrounding countries and tribes, inviting them to surrender to his authority and to believe in him as the messenger of Allah. He always ended his letters with the following two words: "Aslem, Taslam!". Although these two words are derived from the same infinitive Salama which is the root of Salam, i.e. ‘Peace’, neither one of them implies the meaning of ‘peace’. The sentence means ‘surrender and you will be safe’, or in other words, ‘surrender or face death’. So where is the meaning of ‘Peace’ in such a religion that threatens to kill other people if they don't submit to it?

On the other hand, the Qur'an and other Islamic books like Al-Hadith and Al-Sira, i.e. the life of Muhammad, are full of evidence which proves that had it not been for violence, Islam wouldn't have existed or wouldn't have survived until today. A good example to mention would be The Wars Of Al-Riddah, i.e. ‘the wars against the apostates’, that began immediately after the death of Muhammad. Feeling relieved by the disappearance of the strong fearful leader Muhammad, the tribes which have been forced to embrace Islam, revolted and began, one after another, to renegade and to refuse paying the taxes imposed on them by the Prophet's government. In response to the revolution, the first Caliph, Abu-Bakr, ordered his army to fight the apostates. It took him almost two years of fighting to force the tribes back into the fold of Islam. These wars were not ordered only by the first Caliph, but they were also instructed by Allah and his messenger Muhammad. The Qur'an states clearly that those who go back from Islam are to be punished by death: "But if they turn renegades seize them and slay them wherever ye find them and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. Al-Nisaa 4:89." Muhammad also said, as narrated by Al-Bukhari, "If somebody - a Muslim - discards his religion, kill him."

The Qur'an not only ordered the killing of those who embraced Islam and afterwards decided to renegade, but also commanded the followers to fight all nations until they either believe in it, pay the Jizya or face death:

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth of the people of the Book (the Jews and the Christians) until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. Surat At-Tauba 9:29"

And in the same Sura, verse 5, the Qur'an also states: "Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem ..." Now doesn't the image of Islam as a religion of peace sound, after all, a little bit hard to believe? ...

This weekend, five Iraqi women arrived in New York City for a speaking tour to tell Americans about the true extent of their government crimes in Iraq and meet with UN and U.S. officials to call for a peace plan. Speaking on Democracy Now, two of them, Faiza Al Araji is a civil engineer and blogger, whose family has just fled to Jordan after her son was temporarily kidnapped, and Eman Ahmed Khamas, a journalist, translator and human rights activist, describe their lives under the occupation of the U.S. and its war allies who claim they went to Iraq to bring prosperity, “democracy” and “freedom” and clear up the devastation inflicted upon the Iraqis as a result of the “brutal regime” of Saddam Hussein.

 

AMY GOODMAN: "Back in Washington, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, was asked by Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press how things are going in Iraq."

 

TIM RUSSERT: "If you were to be asked whether things in Iraq are going well or badly, what would you say? How would you answer?"

 

GEN. PETER PACE: "I’d certainly say they are going well. I wouldn't put a great big smiley face on it, but I would say they are going very, very well."

 

AMY GOODMAN: "General Pace's comments come as Amnesty International releases a new report condemning what it calls the “arbitrary” detention of tens of thousands of people in Iraq. In this new report, the human rights group says the situation has become "a recipe for abuse." Amnesty International’s UK Director, Kate Allen, said, "As long as U.S. and UK forces hold prisoners in secret detention conditions, torture is much more likely to occur, to go undetected and to go unpunished."

 

"Today, we will talk about Iraq with Iraqis. This weekend, seven Iraqi women arrived in New York City, or at least were supposed to, to begin a speaking tour to educate Americans about the reality in Iraq and meet with UN and U.S. officials to call for a peace plan. We will be joined by two of them, but before we go to them, I wanted to turn to Medea Benjamin, who is organizing this tour around the country, founder of Code Pink Women for Peace. Medea, I said seven women came into the country or were supposed to, because, in fact, only five made it."

 

MEDEA BENJAMIN: "Two of the women who we wanted to bring here were women whose entire families were killed by the U.S. military. As they were driving in their cars to get away from the violence, the tanks came and shot into their cars. One woman talks about her little boy on her lap and seeing the bullet go right through his forehead, her other two children killed, her husband killed, and her left in the car with the bloody bodies. We thought it was important to bring these women to meet with Cindy Sheehan, other U.S. mothers who have lost their children. And yet, when these women went to apply for their visas, they were denied. When I called the State Department to find out why, they said they had no compelling family ties left in Iraq that would ensure that they would return home, so they were at risk of staying in the United States."

 

AMY GOODMAN: "So, they were denied entry into the United States because the U.S. military had killed their families?"

 

MEDEA BENJAMIN: "They could not prove that they would want to go home. So, yes, we killed their families and then denied them the right to come to the United States to tell what the U.S. had done to their families."

 

AMY GOODMAN: "So, the five women who are here, what are your plans? Where are you going starting today?"

 

MEDEA BENJAMIN: "This is part of Code Pink's campaign called “Women Say No to War.” And we have a rally today at noon in front of the United Nations. We are calling on the UN to stand up and do something, to call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and send in UN peacekeepers. Any New Yorkers listening please join us at noon, and then on Wednesday, International Women's Day, we will be meeting with Congress, we’ll be doing briefings at Congress, and we will be marching from the Iraqi embassy to the White House with our call for peace. Our call for peace has so far been signed by tens and tens of thousands of women and men around the world."

 

AMY GOODMAN: "About 70,000?"

 

MEDEA BENJAMIN: "About 70,000 to date, and if there’s one thing I’d ask your listeners, Amy, to do is get online now, go to WomenSayNoToWar.org, whether you’re a woman or a man, and sign up so we can count you in with us when we march to the Iraqi embassy, to the White House, and go through the halls of Congress, turning in our urgent call for peace. "

 

AMY GOODMAN: "Well, we are also joined by Faiza Al-Araji, who has just come into the United States as part of this tour. She did make it, and you came from Amman, is that right?"

 

FAIZA AL-ARAJI: "Yes."

 

AMY GOODMAN: "You just heard the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, when asked how things are going, saying they were going very well, but he wouldn't put a smiley face on it, but that things are going very well. What is your response?"

 

FAIZA AL-ARAJI: "I'm watching the documentary on the TV now. I’m Iraqi. I left Iraq because of the kidnapping of my son in the last summer and stay in Jordan as refugee. You know, the story went out; living there is different. It’s completely different about the story your media is sending you or the message the media is sending you. When somebody telling you those things is going on in Iraq well and everything is fine, please ask him, “What is your evidence? What is your proof? What is your clue? Give me. Give me something on the ground."

 

"I can make a kind of debate. I'm ready to have a debate with the American leaders, to sit with them in front of the American people. I want to hear from them, and I will give them the answers for everything they are talking about, because we have the real story on the ground. After three years of evaluation, I think Iraqis have the right to talk about the evolution of the war, not the American leaders, because we are who are suffering here and we are -- we lost the money of Iraq, we lost the souls of Iraqis, we lost the souls of loved ones in Iraq. We have -- our kids have been kidnapped. Our neighbors have been killed. We lost everything. But what about the leaders? They are sitting in their chairs, and they have the power. And they did nothing for the Iraqi people to help the Iraqi people. I'm not telling this from my mind. It is facts on the ground."

 

AMY GOODMAN: "What happened to your son?"

 

FAIZA AL-ARAJI: "My son was in the college. My son is not the only story. It is a familiar story for the Iraqi families nowadays. My son was going to the college in the morning. He finished his exam, and he went to continue his operation in their office, you know, in the college. The security man faced him, and he was a new one. And that’s a new government, you know, how the style of security man. He asked him, “Where are you going?” My son was not very friendly. He asked him, “It is not your work. I'm going to finish my work in there. I’m familiar here, and this is my college.” When he finished his work with the employee, and he went out, the security man stopped him, and he said, “I want to open your wallet, and I want to check your identity.” He said, “Let me see your boss.” Khalid asked him. And he said, “Okay. You have to wait here.” He was sitting to wait, and they got a bag. "

 

"They put it on his head, and they arrested him and put him in the pickup and get him out of the college to the Interior Ministry, put him in the seventh floor, like this is the zone of the terrorist people. And he saw the people who were there. There were about 50 or 60 people sitting in that floor. Nobody -- they have been there in this room since three or four months. Their families don't know about them, if they are alive or they are dead. They have no right to contact their families. They have no right to have a lawyer. They are just suspected people. And after that, they told him that “You are innocent. We have nothing against you, but you have to tell your parents to pay money.” We have to pay money to get your innocent son from their hands. I will pay a thousand of dollars and get our son out of Iraq, and the whole family went out of Iraq. We closed the house. And this is the familiar story in Iraq now. "

 

"Every day, stories of horrible – the life is horrible for Iraqis now. Iraq now is the hell. It is the land of hell. There is nothing. There's no electricity. There’s no water. There's no security. You can’t send your boy to the school, because you are scared. You have to change the priority of your life. What is the priority? The education of my son or the life of him? Yes, sure. The life of my son. So the people are putting their son in the houses. They will never send them to the schools or to the universities. And you can imagine what kind of life, if you want to move to your job or to your school, and there’s curfew or there is blocks of concrete barriers for the occupation and checkpoints everywhere. It is a kind of hell. You can’t go out for shopping. You can’t go for the hospital. Everything is -- everything is destroyed in Iraq now. And this is for the services or the conditions on the ground."

 

"And what about the civil war? Somebody is pushing the country to, you know, to get the option of civil war. Why? Who is the benefit? Iraqis are against civil war. If you have the chance to go to move in the streets of Iraqis and asking everyone, “Are you with the civil war?” they will say, “No.” Okay, if you have like official meeting with the leaders of religion and political parties and social parties and everything, they will say, “No.” So the question is: Who is pushing the country to choose civil war? It’s just to taunt the society and to destroy the race of Iraq. This is strange point, but the people thought that. The only one who will benefit from this civil war is the occupation force, because it will give them the justification to stay forever in Iraq. They are building army bases to stay in Iraq. So, we have no other explanation. "

 

Most of the news reports circulating among Western media outlets, yet not all of them, are filtered by politicians and are presented in a way that doesn’t give people the true extent of devastation and brutality going in Iraq. Most of them fail to send the true image and the sufferings the Iraqis are facing. But today, to get the true picture is either through clean journalism, very rare though, or through the Iraqis themselves, via online journals or blogs.

 

Before the war in Iraq, the world had only heard of one blogger, who went by his online name of Salam Pax. Now many Iraqis joined Salam Pax, among them is Faiza Al-Araji.

 

Al-Araji started keeping an off-line diary just before the war started.

 

"I feel it is two things in one," she said. "Just to clean my soul, and to get the pain out of my heart. And number two, to show people in the world, how is our daily life."

 Source: AlJazeera