Dalia Mogahead: Advocating for Palestine

 

People who don’t visibly advocate for Palestinian rights have no idea the way anyone who does is quite literally *terrorized*. I have never spoken about this in public, mostly because I know real activists for Palestinian rights have it so much worse. But I thought I would share part of my story just to illustrate the way speech about Palestinian humanity is suppressed, silenced and sanctioned. 

The first time I experienced this reality I was 17 years old, a freshman in college, and the only engineering major on the staff of my university newspaper. I wrote a *response* to a long article by a student who had spent the summer in the IDF and recounted their experience with the “faceless soldiers who were defending the only democracy in the Middle East.” The article had countless factual errors about the history of the occupation, as well as the current (at the time) reality. I did a point by point rebuttal and my editor said it was a masterpiece. He ran the piece prominently. 

I started getting hate mail. I was called a terrorist whore. I was called a killer of Israeli children. The responses to my article poured in in a seemingly coordinated campaign. They were all published in my paper’s opposition newspaper. Like 5 a day! About my article. For at least two or three weeks. For about a month I was the most famous person on my campus of 40,000 students. The irony was that the onslaught backfired.  Alot of my professors had not read my article, but saw the avalanche of responses, which lead them to read it, and told me it was very persuasive. 

Then my editor started getting calls. Not from students or faculty, but from big donors and advertisers warning him to issue a recant of the article or apology or they would pull their funding and ads, blackmailing a 20 year old with literal bankruptcy of his college paper if he didn’t make sure the opinion section had the proper views about Palestine. 

What happened? I was 17 and alone and terrified. My parents were terrified for me (they worked at the same university). I stopped writing about Palestine. I stopped writing about anything for months despite my editor begging me to come back. To my amazement and eternal gratitude, instead of apologizing, he published a piece exposing the threats he was getting. He told me later he had never seen or experienced that kind of bullying and censorship about anything he had ever worked on.  
This is a very small window into one tiny incident where the stakes were so low. Imagine what it looks like when you’re a member of Congress, a writer for a major newspaper, or anyone else with influence.
We simply are not able to speak freely about Palestine in this country without facing very real negative consequences. Our media has a documented and severe bias.

 Link.

Tariq Ramadan: 'Double standard of freedom of expression'

Paris Attacks: Not About Islam or Free Speech | Weapons of Mass Distraction

Exploring Freedom of Speech by Sheikh Hamza Yusuf

Combating Religious Intolerance When Freedom of Speech Enables Hate Speech

Religious pluralism, versus the defamation of religion and freedom of speech have become an increasing source of conflict in international politics and interreligious relations. Preachers of hate and activists in America, Europe, and many Muslim countries are engaged in a culture war. Far right anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim political leaders and parties warn of the Islamization of America and Europe to garner votes. The acquittal on June 22, 2011 of Dutch politician Geert Wilders on charges of "inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims," is a political victory for Wilders but also a sign of the times, growing normalization of anti-Islam bashing in the West.

The OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference which represents some 57 countries) lobbied the United Nations for more than a decade to address this issue. Initially targeting Islamophobia, it broadened its request to a resolution on "defamation of religions" that would criminalize words and actions perceived as attacks against religion.

Opponents, in particular the U.S. and E.U., maintained that the resolution could also be used to restrict religious freedom and free speech, and foster religious intolerance and violence against religious minorities Indeed, in recent years attacks against Christians and other religious minorities have risen in Egypt, Malaysia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan. These conflicts have varied from acts of discrimination to the bombing and burning of churches and murder.

Pakistan's blasphemy law exemplifies the issue. In 2009 Asia Bibi, a Christian and 45-year-old mother of four was sentenced to death on charges of insulting Islam, a charge she strongly denied. The case sparked international outrage that was heightened in 2011 by the brutal assassination of Salman Taseer -- the governor of Punjab and an outspoken critic of the blasphemy law, and the assassination of Pakistani Chief Minister Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian and outspoken opponent of Pakistan's blasphemy law.

The United Nations Human Rights Council recently ostensibly resolved the conflict over "Defamation of Religions." After close discussions with the U.S. and E.U., Pakistan introduced a compromise resolution on behalf of the OIC, which addressed the concerns of both the OIC and those of member states and human rights organizations, including the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

The "Combating Discrimination and Violence" compromise resolution affirms individual rights, including the freedoms of expression and religion that are part-and-parcel of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. At the same time, the 47-member state body also called for strengthened international efforts to foster a global dialogue and the promotion of a culture of human rights, tolerance and mutual respect.

But will this U.N. resolution prove to be an effective tool in combating the rise of Islamophobia? A clear sign of the limits of the resolution can be seen in the stunning verdict in Geert Wilder's acquittal. Wilders' track record includes the charges that "Islam is a fascist ideology," "Mohammed was a pedophile," and "Islam and freedom, Islam and democracy are not compatible" and warnings of a "tsunami" of Muslim immigrants. Wilders' "missionary" efforts have extended other parts of Europe to the US where his admirers refer to him as a "freedom fighter." Plaintiffs had charged that Mr Wilders' comments had incited hatred and led to a rise in discrimination and violence against Muslims. But Judge van Oosten ruled that although he found Wilders remarks "gross and denigrating", they had not given rise to hatred. Spiegel Online's headline of the acquittal read "Wilder's Acquittal a 'Slap in the Face for Muslims.'"

The exploitation of freedom of speech to promote religious intolerance emerged only days after the Wilders' decision. Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) and Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), a coalition of far right anti-Muslim European and American groups billing themselves as human rights organizations, had scheduled "United We Stand: First Transatlantic Anti-Islamization" in Strasbourg, France on July 2. On June 28, French and EU authorities' cancelled the conference. In response, the Islamophobic cottage industry and their websites' headlines blared: "Free in speech rally cancelled in Strasbourg over Muslim violence threats" and "Democracy Collapses in Europe: EU Cancels SIOA/SIOE Free Speech Rally."

Freedom of speech is a precious right that must be guarded carefully. But what happens when that right is used to incite hatred and to feed religious intolerance, such as Islamophobia, that is spreading like a cancer across the United States and Europe? While some statements may not immediately be the direct cause of a specific act of violence, they spread seeds of intolerance and anger that lead to legitimizing and accepting acts of bigotry and hate, like the "Burn a Quran day" that took place in Florida, the desecration of mosques, physical attacks against Muslims including women and children. As a result, the public slowly becomes inured to Islamophobic actions and statements. At the same time, this ideology of hatred has a very real effect on the everyday life of Muslims and Arabs: issuing in verbal attacks from their community members, Islamophobic statements by political candidates, or law-enforcement policies that target Muslims and Arabs.

The issue of freedom of speech and the rights of hate groups is not new in American history. Even today, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic organizations are allowed to express their disdain for certain ethnic and religious groups, regardless of how distasteful their ideologies may be. However, their power to attack has greatly diminished and their words have become a social taboo in the public square because our country has created a social environment where racism and anti-Semitism are loudly condemned and discredited in public life and in media. Muslim Americans and Europeans are entitled to the same treatment, rights and protections.

Islamophobia and its impact, like racism and anti-Semitism, must be countered by creating a climate in which hate speech and discrimination in the public square are not tolerated even when bigots exploit freedom of speech. Today, one can engage in anti-Islam and anti-Muslim hate speech and threats in print, media, and protest rallies that promote a popular culture that paints the religion of Islam, not just terrorists, as a threat to America. These preachers of hate and Islamophobia must be rejected and marginalized. Their mission to polarize our society must not be allowed to threaten our belief that religious tolerance and free speech are indeed compatible.

source

Zakir Naik doesn't preach hate shock

Controversial Islamic preacher Dr Zakir Naik addressed the Oxford Union on Friday despite the exclusion order against him entering the UK.

Naik gave a speech and answered questions via video link from India to a crowd of students and other onlookers at the event, organised by the famous debating society.

In his speech, Naik blamed the “virulent propaganda” in the media for the “misconception of Islam” and for his own ban on entry to the UK.

He claimed the media printed portions of his speeches “out of context” and so portrayed him as a “preacher of hate”.

Home Secretary Theresa May excluded Naik from the UK last June after his “unacceptable behaviour”, referring to comments he made in speeches, which were then posted as YouTube videos.

Naik defended himself during his address, declaring himself on a “mission is to spread peace”.

“Unfortunately today the media portrays Islam as a religion which promotes terrorism”, Naik said. “The media picks up on the black sheep of the Muslim community and portrays them as though they are exemplary Muslims.”

Despite the ban – a decision made as Naik’s presence in the UK “might not be conducive to the public good”, according to the Home Secretary – the controversial preacher was confident it would be temporary.

“I have full faith that very shortly this exclusion order will be reversed”, he said. “I hope that I will have the chance to meet the Home Secretary personally and explain to her the peaceful message of Islam.”

During the hour-long talk, Naik referenced the Koran and Islam’s message of peace, and declared: “The only solution to the problem of humanity is peace. Irrespective of the differences, one common factor between all the people of the world is that all want peace.”

After the talk, members of the audience queued to put questions to the speaker.

Over the course of the question-and-answer session, Naik responded to queries about Islamophobia and hijabs, among other topics.

He said that although the hijab is “prescribed” in the Koran, “Islam can’t force anyone to wear it” but that “if some women want to wear a hijab then no other women should disagree”.

On the subject of Islamophobia, Naik said: “It is the duty of us as Muslims that we should spread the true teachings of Islam.”

Naik was blunt in his statement that “Islam and I, too, condemn all forms of terrorism” and said: “Islam condemns the killing of any human being irrespective of caste colour or race, irrespective of nationality.”

In a speech before Naik’s talk, Oxford Union President James Langman said that the event promoted the society’s tradition of “organising debate and discussion”.

source