My Weblog

July 28, 2006

Hiz and the Media

Filed under: Islam, Media, Mellemøsten, Terror, Ytringsfrihed — limewoody @ 6:43 am

Writing on his blog Wednesday while reporting from southern Lebanon, freelance journalist and Time magazine contributor Christopher Allbritton, in what almost looked to be a throw-away line, relayed that “To the south, along the curve of the coast, Hezbollah is launching Katyushas, but I’m loathe to say too much about them. The Party of God has a copy of every journalist’s passport, and they’ve already hassled a number of us and threatened one.” (Emphasis ours.)

This jogged our memory of some reports earlier in the week about how journalists are getting around parts of Lebanon, and how Hezbollah is trying to shape the coverage.

One was an exchange on Howard Kurtz’s Reliable Sources show on CNN, in which Kurtz interviewed CNN’s Nic Robertson about reporting from Lebanon. Just a few days before, Hezbollah minders had taken Robertson on a tour of a neighborhood in southern Beirut that had been hit by Israeli missiles.

Robertson told Kurtz, “Hezbollah has a very, very sophisticated and slick media operation,” and in southern Beirut, “they deny journalists access into those areas. They can turn on and off access to hospitals in those areas.”

He also said that Hezbollah “designated the places that we went to, and we certainly didn’t have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath … Hezbollah is now running a number of [press tours] every day, taking journalists into this area. They realize that this is a good way for them to get their message out, taking journalists on a regular basis.”

This is a tricky issue, disclosure-wise, but in his initial report of July 18, Robertson did tell viewers at the start that “We went in to those southern suburbs of Beirut with that media representative from Hezbollah. They haven’t let western reporters into some parts of that very, very, very carefully controlled southern suburbs … they took us in because they wanted to show us what was being damaged.” He then ended by again reminding viewers that it was a “very, very brief and swift tour escorted by Hezbollah.” The disclosure that Hezbollah acted as tour guide does put the report into perspective, but still, Robertson could have dwelled a bit more on the calculated photo op CNN’s cameras were provided by an obviously interested party. But given that he filed the report from the middle of a very hot war zone, we’re willing to cut him some slack and give him points for broaching the subject of Hezbollah’s PR initiative at the top, and at the end, of his report.

Anderson Cooper followed up this past Monday with a similar report, telling viewers that “we found ourselves with other foreign reporters taken on a guided tour by Hezbollah … They only allowed us to videotape certain streets, certain buildings.”

“This is a heavily orchestrated Hezbollah media event. When we got here, all the ambulances were lined up. We were allowed a few minutes to talk to the ambulance drivers. Then one by one, they’ve been told to turn on their sirens and zoom off so that all the photographers here can get shots of ambulances rushing off to treat civilians … These ambulances aren’t responding to any new bombings. The sirens are strictly for effect.”

Reporting from a war zone almost invariably entails certain moral or ethical compromises made on the fly that are, more often than not, necessary. If being led around by Hezbollah “press officers” is the only way for reporters to tour bomb-damaged neighborhoods in Beirut, so be it — as long as they disclose as much. Cooper did, and in the process pulled the curtain back on a tragi-comic scene that seems just as PR-savvy as it does sickeningly calculated.

Just as disturbing, and so far flying under the radar, is Allbritton’s report that Hezbollah has copies of reporters’ passports, and may be using that as leverage over them. This in no way means that reporters are being swayed by the terrorist group, but it does bring the question of intimidation, and journalists’ ability to report freely, into focus.


July 3, 2006

Support Oriana Fellaci – NOW

Filed under: Freedom of expression, Western civilisation, Ytringsfrihed — limewoody @ 6:45 pm

June 29, 2006


Filed under: Western civilisation, Ytringsfrihed — limewoody @ 6:40 am

June 19, 2006

Flemming Rose at Oxford

Filed under: Ytringsfrihed — limewoody @ 12:17 pm

The Danish newspaper editor who caused outrage among some Muslims by printing cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad has addressed the Oxford Union. A small protest was held outside as Flemming Rose took part in a debate on free speech on Thursday night.

Security was the tightest it had been in six years and police were present, a union spokeswoman said.

She added it was Mr Rose's first public appearance since the cartoon row broke out sparking worldwide protests.

Demonstrations continued when the cartoons were republished in several European newspapers.

Mr Rose, culture editor of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper, was speaking in opposition to the motion: "This house believes free speech should be moderated by respect for religion", which was defeated by 129 votes to 59.

The union spokeswoman said that during the debate Mr Rose defended his decision to publish the cartoons, saying they in "no way demonised or stereotyped" the Muslim community.

'Must be moderation'

Other speakers included the Labour MPs Nick Palmer and Jamie Reid, the Director General of the Islamic Foundation Dr Manazir Ahsan, Liberal Democrat MP Jo Swinson, the activist Barbara Smoker and Conservative MP Edward Leigh.

The union spokeswoman said Zulfi Bukhari, of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, spoke in favour of the motion and said "if free speech results in the demonisation of a community there must be moderation".

She added that Mr Bukhari was supported, among others, by Mr Palmer who said "people are in favour of free speech as long as they're comfortable with what's said".

President of the Oxford Union, David Powell, said: "It is entirely consistent with the union's founding principle of free speech to hold this debate and provide a forum for Flemming Rose to justify his actions and views."

A Thames Valley police spokeswoman said officers had been monitoring the situation but there were "no problems at all".

High security for Union free speech



Before the event, Flemming Rose said:

I do not regret the publication of the cartoons. Much of the violence and intimidation that has occurred since has put the problems they raised right into focus. People now have more reason to speak out against this kind of extremism. I did not anticipate the kind of response the pictures got at first, but the things we have seen opened our eyes.

After the debate, Barbara Smoker wrote:

It is obviously impossible to genuinely respect an ideology that our reason rejects as superstition – let alone dangerous superstition; so what the precept to respect religion actually means is that we should pretend to respect it, for the sake of political correctness. At the very least, then, as I pointed out in the debate, the motion called for hypocrisy.

But hypocrisy is not the worst of it. When the ideologies that we pretend to respect indoctrinate children, some of whom may even grow up to be suicide bombers because of it, hypocrisy becomes complicity in the mental abuse of children, in the oppression of women, and even in incitement to terrorism.

So, for the sake of Liberty as well as truth, we must resist the indefensible furtherance of hypocritical respect. Far from free speech being moderated by respect for religion, respect for religion should be moderated in favour of free speech. The majority vote was therefore for honesty, not hypocrisy.

And from the other side, here is Nick Palmer:

People are in favour of free speech as long as they're comfortable with what's said.

It's no surprise that the free speech supporters won.


June 16, 2006

Book Jihate in Malaysia

Filed under: Asia, Freedom of expression, Sprog, Ytringsfrihed — limewoody @ 8:47 am

KUALA LUMPUR, June 15 (Bernama) — Eighteen books published locally and overseas have been banned by the Internal Security Ministry under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 as they have been deemed to be able to disrupt peace and harmony.

A copy of the prohibition citation dated June 8 by the ministry was made available to Bernama, here Thursday.

The act prohibits any form of reproduction or distribution of these books, six of which are in Malay and the rest in English.

The following are the books that have been banned:

1. The Bargaining for Israel: In the Shadow of Armageddon authored by Mona Johulan and published by Bridge-Logos Publishers, United States (USA).

2. Islam (Mathew S Gordon, Oxford University Press (OUP))

3. Lifting the Veil (Trudie Crawford, Apple of Gold, United States)

4. A Fundamental Fear of Eurocentrism and the Emergence of Islamism (Bobby S Sayyid, Zed Books Ltd, United Kingdom (UK))

5. Islam Revealed – A Christian Arab's View of Islam (Dr Anis A Shorrosh, Thomas Nelson Publishers, USA)

6. What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam (John L Esposito, OUP)

7. Mini Skirts Mothers & Muslims (Christine Mallouhi, publisher not available)

8. The Battle for God Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Karen Armstrong, Harper Collins, UK)

9. Kundalini For Beginners (Ravindra Kumar, Health Harmony, B Jain Publishers (P) Ltd, India)

10. Sacred Books of the East (Epiphanius Wilson, J-Jeiley Asian Educational Services, India)

11. Sharing Your Faith with A Muslim (Akbidayah Akbar Abdul-Haqq, Bethany House Publishers, USA)

12. Cults, World Religions and The Occult (Kenneth Bon, Chariot Victor Publishings, UK)

13. Petua dan Doa Pendinding, Penawar, Penyembuh Penyakit (Awang Mohd Yahya, Unsie Publisher, Kuala Lumpur)

14. Hakikat & Hikmah 7 Hari Dalam Seminggu (Abu Nashr Al-Hamdanly, Pustaka Ilmi, Batu Caves, Selangor)

15. Pemuda Bani Tamim Perintis Jalan Imam Mahdi (Abu Muhammad, Penerbit Giliran Timor)

16. Kontroversi Hukum Hudud (Kassim Ahmad, Forum Iqra Berhad, Penang)

17. Risalah No.2 Dilema Umat Islam-Antara Hadis dan Quran (Kassim Ahmad, Forum Iqra Berhad, Penang)

18. Siri 7 Amalan-Amalan Bid'ah Pada Bulan Syaban (Ustaz Rasul bin Dahri, Percetakan Putrajaya Sdn Bhd)


June 13, 2006

Free Speech Campaign

Filed under: Freedom of expression, Uncategorized, Ytringsfrihed — limewoody @ 12:13 pm

In light of the recent violent outrage in the Islamic world over the "Danish Cartoon" controversy, and the anemic response to this outburst in Europe and America, the Ayn Rand Institute is pleased to announce a campaign to bring the Danish cartoons to the widest possible audience—and to arrange a series of panel discussions to discuss the vital need to defend free speech.

So long as men are free to criticize, free to dissent, free to present their own ideas without fear of reprisals—the fight for rational culture has a chance. But the crisis over cartoons of Mohammad threatens to wipe out freedom of speech. Our leaders have shamefully sided with the mobs chanting death threats and torching embassies. Free speech, our leaders say, is not an absolute, its exercise must not offend religious beliefs—it is a right, in other words, that we are not free to exercise.

If the threats, riots and killings fomented by Islamic states are allowed to proceed—if they are allowed to compel Western thinkers into self-censorship—the first to be silenced will be the critics of Islam.  And then the critics of religion.  And then everyone else.

The Ayn Rand Institute disseminates the pro-American ideals of reason, egoism, and individualism on your behalf, and our efforts fundamentally depend on the absolute right to free speech. That is why we have launched a campaign to inform the American public about what is at stake in this crisis. In a series of public events on college campuses, ARI speakers will explain: the actual meaning of free speech—and why it must include the freedom to offend; what should have been the reaction of Western governments to the crisis; what reactions to the cartoons in the Islamic world tell us about that culture; and how the Western media ought to defend the right on which its livelihood, and our culture’s survival, depends.

June 4, 2006

‘Hamas’ terror is not a reaction to the occupation

By Assaf Uni

"Israel's right to exist is today the international criterion for distinguishing between the terrorist camp and the camp of life," says Magdi Allam, the Egyptian-Italian journalist and writer who is now visiting Israel.

"On one side, there is the Hamas government, Iran, fundamentalist Islam and even parts of the extreme left and right in Europe." On the other side, he says, are Western countries and "supporters of the right to live." The West, he believes, has consistently failed to grasp its situation: It does not understand that it is under attack, and it is trying to conduct a dialogue with the Muslims attacking it.

Allam, 54 and a native of Egypt, immigrated to Italy some 30 years ago and studied sociology at La Sapienza University in Rome. Today he is the deputy editor of Corriere della Sera, Italy's largest newspaper, and is one of the country's leading journalists. In a series of books, articles and public appearances, Allam has not hesitated to criticize radical Islam openly. He even attacks the weakness he claims the West in general – and Europe in particular – show in the face of the growth of radical Islam.


"The West thinks the Islamic terrorism that struck New York, London and Madrid is a reaction, a kind of uprising of the poor against the wealthy," he says in an interview with Haaretz. According to Allam, the West does not understand that it is facing an organized attack that is gradually gaining supporters around the world. Following September 11, he says, a new and dangerous front has emerged of Muslim radicals and extreme left- and right-wing elements that must be dealt with forcefully.

"Denying the right to exist of Israel necessarily leads to approval of the use of violence and terrorism in order to erase Israel from the map," he notes. "This is the main characteristic of the 'culture of death' that advocates killing those who deny Islam."

Allam says there should be a law that stipulates that any statement against Israel's right to exist – whether made during an imam's sermon in a mosque or in a press statement – should be deemed a criminal offense.

'Exceptional journalistic work'

On Sunday, Allam received the Dan David prize for his "exceptional journalistic work and commitment to freedom of the press." He shared the $1 million prize with three other journalists – Monica Gonzales of Chile (see above article), Adam Michnik of Poland and Goenawan Mohamad of Indonesia. The prizes were awarded at a ceremony, attended by Israeli President Moshe Katsav, at the Tel Aviv University campus. Other prizes were awarded to cellist Yo-Yo Ma and cancer researchers John Mendelsohn and Joseph Schlessinger.

The prize committee, whose members include the head of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and the editor of The New Yorker, commended Allam "for continuously voicing his opinion against extremism and in favor of tolerance." According to the committee, Allam proves that "positive dialogue with moderate Islam is both possible and necessary."

Allam is using his visit to Israel to lecture, visit Yad Vashem and present his views to the Israeli public.

"My goal is to free the West from the nihilism that has spread in its midst, from the lack of values that leads to the growth of radical Islam," says Allam. "In the face of the threat from radical Islam, the West must be united and formulate a shared value system that sanctifies life and denounces the right to kill."

Therefore, he says, there should be sharp criticism of those who argue that the terrorism in Israel and Iraq is legitimate because it is being committed against occupation and in the name of independence. "Whoever says that supports a culture of death," Allam argues. "It may perhaps start with a show of some understanding, but will quickly spread to granting permission to destroy anyone who is not Muslim."

Allam is against any attempt at dialogue with the Hamas government.

"I oppose any middle way," he says. "I oppose any type of dialogue just for the sake of dialogue. Hamas is part of the global Islamic front. It is an organization that prefers to worsen the conditions of its citizens rather than recognize Israel. The terrorism it wages against Israel is ideological terrorism. It would be a big mistake to think that it is resistance, because they are not trying to promote a Palestinian state. They have simply been trying, ever since the signing of the Oslo Accords, to destroy every effort to achieve peace."

Failed integration

Allam's remarks against Hamas in recent years have brought death threats from the organization and require Allam to have bodyguards at all times. But the Palestinian organization is not the only one threatening his life – his criticism of imams and Muslim preachers in Europe has sparked rage in Muslim communities there as well.

"The integration of Muslim immigrants in Europe has failed," Allam says. "The multicultural model that was tried in Britain and Holland led to the creation of Islamic ghettos; the governments that thought granting freedom to their citizens would turn it into a shared value were mistaken. Many Muslims saw freedom as a green light to enforce Islamic law and create their own society within a society."

The French model of assimilation also failed, he says, and the Muslims in the suburbs of the large French cities do not see themselves as citizens of the Republic.

One of the events that illustrated integration's failure, Allam believes, is the Mohammed cartoon affair. This made it possible "to draw the battle lines" between those who advocate Islamic law and citizens of the West – and the picture that emerged, he says, is not encouraging. "Most European governments chose to denounce the publication of the drawings," he says, "and this was a big mistake." This February, Allam published an open letter supporting the right of European newspapers to publish the drawings of the prophet in the name of freedom of expression.

Integration will have a chance only if the European countries change their approach, he says.

"There is an Italian saying, 'Every nation receives the government it deserves.' Along the same lines, it may be said, 'Every state in Europe receives the immigrant community it deserves.'" According to him, the governments must act forcefully against some immigrant groups to make it clear that the laws of the state are above the laws of religion.

"There is no one single way to be Muslim," he says, "there is also no 'right' or 'wrong' Islam. We have the freedom to interpret Islam any way we like. When I grew up in Egypt in the 1960s, Islam was completely different – girls walked around in miniskirts and guys were listening to the Beatles. It's a mistake to say that if you're a Muslim in Europe you have to grow a beard, go to the mosque and wear a galabiya. It's a stereotype that was imposed by Muslim extremists."

On the future of the integration of Muslim immigrants in Italy, Allam says he is disappointed by the election of Romano Prodi's new center-left government.

"They are promising to be 'softer' on the matter of immigration laws, to bring back the soldiers from Iraq and to consider negotiations with Hamas," he says. "This only proves that Italy is going in the opposite direction compared to the rest of the world in dealing with immigration, which will lead to a deterioration of the situation."

He says he hopes that the government does not last long. Then perhaps he may enter politics.

This coming June, his latest book, entitled "I Love Italy – But Do the Italians Love It?" will hit the stores in his country. The Italian journalist, it seems, is positioning himself as someone who knows exactly what the country needs to forge a national identity that will prevent Muslim youths from turning to religious extremism. "In my book, I suggest setting up a ministry to address the matter of immigration and to create a national identity," he says. "In my vision, I see Italy as a picture framed by justice and law. In the center I see different communities that share a unified Italian national identity."

"However," he adds, "I don't think a government ministry of this type is possible these days."

June 3, 2006

Cartoons were an act of inclusion: Danish editor

Filed under: Ytringsfrihed — limewoody @ 12:35 pm

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: Flemming Rose, culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, has said in an interview that he published the cartoons that sent a wave of protest across the Muslim world as an act of “inclusion, not exclusion.”

In an article published in Germany’s leading weekly Der Spiegel, Rose says the worldwide furore unleashed by the cartoons was both a surprise and a tragedy, especially for those directly affected by it. Lives were lost, buildings were torched and people were driven into hiding. “And yet the unbalanced reactions to the not-so-provocative caricatures – loud denunciations and even death threats toward us, but very little outrage toward the people who attacked two Danish Embassies – unmasked unpleasant realities about Europe’s failed experiment with multiculturalism. It’s time for the Old Continent to face facts and make some profound changes in its outlook on immigration, integration and the coming Muslim demographic surge. After decades of appeasement and political correctness, combined with growing fear of a radical minority prepared to commit serious violence, Europe’s moment of truth is here,” he writes.

According to Rose, Europe today finds itself “trapped in a posture of moral relativism that is undermining its liberal values.” He believes that there is an “unholy three-cornered alliance between Middle East dictators, radical imams who live in Europe and Europe’s traditional left wing,” which is enabling a “politics of victimology,” which drives a culture that resists integration and adaptation, perpetuates national and religious differences and aggravates such debilitating social ills as high immigrant crime rates and entrenched unemployment. He writes, “As one who once championed the utopian state of multicultural bliss, I think I know what I’m talking about. I was raised on the ideals of the 1960s, in the midst of the Cold War. I saw life through the lens of the counter-cultural turmoil, adopting both the hippie pose and the political superiority complex of my generation. I and my high school peers believed that the West was imperialistic and racist. We analysed decaying Western civilisation through the texts of Marx and Engels and lionised John Lennon’s beautiful but stupid tune about an ideal world without private property.”

Rose, who spent 10 months as a young student in the Soviet Union in 1980-81 returned with the realisation that Marxism was not the answer to the world’s problems. He writes that his long intellectual journey culminated with the cartoons. “Now, in Europe’s failure to grapple realistically with its dramatically changing demographic picture, I see a new parallel to that Cold War journey. Europe’s left is deceiving itself about immigration, integration and Islamic radicalism today the same way we young hippies deceived ourselves about Marxism and communism 30 years ago,” he writes. He rejects the view that the West exploits, abuses and marginalises the Islamic world. Noting that there are 200,000 Muslims in Denmark today, Rose rejects the left-wing charge that Denmark is “racist and Islamophobic” and that the chief obstacle to integration is not the immigrants’ unwillingness to adapt culturally to their adopted country, but to Denmark’s inherent racism and anti-Muslim bias.

Rose criticises such European Muslim leaders as Imam Ahmad Abu Laban in Denmark and Mullah Krekar in Norway, who called the publication of the cartoons “a declaration of war against our religion, our faith and our civilisation.” He argues that the role of victim is very convenient because it frees the self-declared victim from any responsibility, while providing a posture of moral superiority. It also obscures certain inconvenient facts that might suggest a different explanation for the lagging integration of some immigrant groups, such as the relatively high crime rates, the oppression of women and a tradition of forced marriage. When Westerners criticise the Islamic states’ lack of civil liberties and the oppression of women, they are branded imperialists. He believes it is wrong to give “the same weight to the illiberal values of conservative Islam as to the liberal traditions of the European Enlightenment,” because in time, this will destroy the very things that make Europe such a desirable target for migration.

Rose recommends that Europe must shed the “straitjacket of political correctness, which makes it impossible to criticise minorities for anything – including violations of laws, traditional mores and values that are central to the European experience. He believes that immigrants should be treated the same way as locals, which he cites as his reason for publishing the cartoons, which he argues “in no way exceeded the bounds of taste, satire and humour to which I would subject any other Dane, whether the queen, the head of the church or the prime minister … It was an act of inclusion, not exclusion; an act of respect and recognition.”

May 30, 2006

Deleted from Living Journey.

Filed under: Freedom of expression, Images/Foto, USA, Ytringsfrihed — limewoody @ 6:18 am

I can respect that you delete me in the blogroll for the sake of your daughter.
But if you went through me images of as a whole – some of them with naked women on I admit and some vulgar I will admit as well, but I do this as a question to mussulmen who apparantly is far more appalled of the beauty of the human body than of killing for their honour – as they say – a families honor is between the leg of their women.
I´m sorry to be this blunt, but until one understands that what drives the islamic beast is partly its twisted sexuality – read some of Usama bin Laden speaches and you will find a profound angst of women and what this indicates.
Pax Vobiscum.

You could go to:


The Islamic message when analysed carefully, emerges as a novel doctrine of sexual psychology, which stands on the two pillars of carnal enjoyment and conscience–free violence in the name of Allah, who claims to be the Most Merciful and the Best Judge. Though this faith cannot stand without these props, they have been masterfully camouflaged with Divine Veneer, which loses its lustre when subjected to a rational examination.


From Pakistan Daily Times – today 30/5 2006:

Man, woman shot dead while committing adultery

KARACHI: Gunmen killed a woman and her lover after they were discovered having sex in a field near a tribal village in southern Pakistan, police said on Monday.

Three men opened fire on the victims after spotting them in an “objectionable condition” in the field before dawn on Sunday near Mewa Khan Sunhari village, about 550 kilometres northeast of Karachi, said area police official Abdul Majeed Abro. The 33-year-old man, identified as Hadi Bakhsh Buledi, and the 25-year-old woman, identified by the single name Raji, died at the scene of the shooting, Abro said. Both had been married to other people.

“This is a case of karo-kari,” Abro said, referring to an ancient custom of killing adulterers.

Police were looking for the three suspected attackers and Raji’s husband in connection with the killings, Abro said.

Last year 563 married women, 373 men, 75 unmarried females and six children were victims of honour killings in Pakistan, according Lawyers for Human Rights and Legal Aid, a women’s rights group. ap

May 29, 2006

Non Imprimatur – Deleted from Islamic Evil.

Filed under: Western civilisation, Ytringsfrihed — limewoody @ 9:28 pm

Ken Lydell of Islamic Evil has deleted me from his blogroll.

Because his readers are not in search of pornography – as he say.

It would be nice to get Mr Lydell´s definition on pornography.

Mr Lydell give this blog a piece of advice – to "clean up your site". 

As I have not asked Mr Lydell for his advice nor his opion I should think that Mr Lydell would not mind a piece of advise himself:

Mr Lydell please look above and read what it says on top of this page: Non Imprimatur.

I started this blog as a protest against mussulmen and their effort to make a Danish Newspaper submit to their islamic agenda. I have tried to have a meaning with what I post and if you Mr Lydell doesn´t like it – it is ok with me.

But don´t  try make me submit to your agenda. And don´t make me get the feeling that you are no better than the evil you pretend to fight.


Afghan Blue picture.

Older Posts »

Create a free website or blog at