Doc's Talk: Shadowing Europe with the ‘Islamophobia' Canard

Friday, April 12, 2013

Shadowing Europe with the ‘Islamophobia' Canard

ANDREW E. HARROD April 12, 2013

On March 21, 2013, the United Nation's observed its annual International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, commemorating the anniversary of the 1960 apartheid massacre in Sharpeville, South Africa. Attempting to draw a parallel with the massacre, the Non-Governmental-Organization (NGO) grouping European Network Against Racism (ENAR) issued its Racism in Europe: ENAR Shadow Report 2011-12 on racism in Europe the week earlier. In the report's associated Key Findings on Muslim Communities and Islamophobia, ENAR, an entity linked on its website to George Soros' Open Society Foundations, calls upon European Union (EU) institutions to "recognize Islamophobia as a specific form of racism." ENAR's cavalier invocation as "racism" of what has been analyzed as an Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) developed "thought crime of the totalitarian future" portends problematical developments with respect to the treatment of Islam amidst its critics in Europe.

Relating "racism" to Islam asks the obvious, "are Muslims a race?" The Shadow Report does little to clarify the confusion, stating (page 2) that "Islamophobia describes an irrational fear, prejudice and hatred towards Islam, Muslims or Islamic culture." ENAR thus condemns not just animus against Muslim individuals, but also any undefined "irrational" opposition to Islam as an idea in faith or culture. Accordingly, the report condemns as "Islamophobia" (13) not simply "criminal damage to Islamic buildings and violence against Muslims" but also "opposition to, as well as protests against, the building of mosques," irrespective of any individual criticism of such mosques like the proposed New York City Ground Zero Mosque.
The Shadow Report similarly bemoans the poor public relations (PR) image concerning Islam and Muslims in Europe. While noting (4) that the "news media plays a critical role in shaping public opinion," the Shadow Report declares without any empirical substantiation that "news reporting of ethnic minorities...is generally negative and distorted." The report complains of a "tendency for the media to blame migrants and asylum seekers for high rates of unemployment and criminality."
In contrast, the Shadow Report recommends (5) that supposedly objective journalists "[u]se positive terminology and encourage positive media reporting about ethnic and religious minorities and migrants to emphasize their economic, social and cultural contributions to European societies." This would be part of what the report (5) describes as a desired "ethical journalism, protective of values such as equality and dignity." Similarly (6), the report calls upon authorities to "[r]eview school curricula to ensure that they take into consideration the presence of minorities and migrants and their contribution to culture and society, and contribute to overcoming stereotypes and promoting inclusion."
While promoting positive speech about Islam and Muslims along with other minority groups, the Shadow Report disturbingly calls for restricting negative speech on these matters. The Key Findings and the report (5) both advocate a "courageous approach to tackling hate speech and racist rhetoric in the public discourse" and a "zero tolerance policy to stigmatizing comments and terminology likely to incite violence, racism or other forms of discrimination." While most EU members (4) "have legal provisions in place for tackling hate speech...in some cases they are insufficient or ineffective."
Thus the report, in reiterating this charge on page 30, states that "[i]n some cases measures still need to be brought in." In particular, the report (5) deems "regulation of the internet" as "seriously inadequate and often completely lacking" even though "[s]ocial media and social networking sites have become a growing space for disseminating xenophobic, Islamophobic and racist discourse." EU members should accordingly "[r]einforce legislation to monitor hate on the internet and in the media."
The report (30) identifies Austrian politicians, "particularly from far-right parties," as "regular perpetrators of hate speech." The report references the October 14, 2011, acquittal of the provincial Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partie Österreichs or FPÖ) chairman in Styria, Gerhard Kurzmann, of incitement charges. The Styria FPÖ had posted on its website a game entitled Moschee Baba (Austrian slang for "Mosque Goodbye") in which players targeted mosques, minarets, and muezzins on screen, something that brought prosecution accusations of replicating a shooting gallery. The Shadow Report finds that this case "demonstrates the difficulty in successfully prosecuting hate speech in Austria, especially when the perpetrator is a public figure."

The Shadow Report raises several troubling questions with its vague and often unverified assertions. The report's reference to "positive media" about minorities such as Muslims raises suspicions about journalists going out of their way to spin news in a manner pleasing to Muslims. Such was the case with an October 6, 2001, resolution passed by the National Convention of the Society of Professional Journalists in the wake of the 9/11 attacks the previous month. Among other things, the resolution called for avoidance of "misleading" terms such as "Islamic terrorist" or "Muslim extremist" that "link whole religions to criminal activity" as well as "jihad", a term whose "basic meaning" was "to exert oneself for the good of Islam and to better oneself." The resolution also called for any "writing about terrorism...to include white supremacist, radical anti-abortionists and other groups with a history of such activity." On the other hand, the Associated Press (AP) in 2012 eliminated as inaccurate ENAR's vaunted "Islamophobia" along with other forms of "phobia" such as "Homophobia" from the AP Style Book.
Irrespective of spin, journalists seeking to portray Muslim communities in Europe positively will often have a difficult task. One recent news report, for example, stated that about 80% of Germany's 2.5 million citizens of Turkish ancestry live from state welfare benefits, with most of them poorly integrated into Germany society. Dutch politician Geert Wilders, meanwhile, internationally known for his condemnation of Islam, extensively documents in his book Marked for Death: Islam's War against the West and Me problems of deficient Muslim migrant assimilation into European society.
Careless "inclusion" of Muslims in school curricula can also present problems. The American organization Act for America, for example, has documented in a 229-page report an "historical revisionism" in American school textbooks "that seriously misrepresented the history and doctrines of Islam." A 2007 report on British schools, meanwhile, noted reticence on the part of some British teachers to treat the Holocaust for fear of encountering student Muslim anti-Semitism.
However politically correct, pro-Islam bias might distort academia or the media, in the hands of the law such favoritism can actually result in punishment for individuals not favorably inclined towards Islam. The Shadow Report complains of "insufficient" repression of "Islamophobia", yet recent history shows just how busy European prosecutors have been in pursuing a "zero tolerance policy" against even "stigmatizing" speech concerning Islam and Muslims. Imran Firasat, Lars Hedegaard, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, and Wilders can all personally testify that legal authorities throughout Europe have not been negligent, to quote President Barack Obama, in seeking out those "who slander the prophet of Islam" and his followers. The previous writings as well of this author on individuals running afoul of European law for criticizing Islam (see here, here, here, here, here, and here) also do not indicate any need for stricter restrictions of speech concerning Islam. Rather, they are being used as a weapon as against free and open debate.
Whether intentional or not, the Shadow Report manifests intellectual sloppiness in dealing with European minority communities such as Muslims. Instead of emphasizing academic and media accuracy concerning these communities, the report simply diffusely calls for not necessarily substantiated "positive" coverage of these groups. Nor does the report's treatment of free speech distinguish between statements attacking individual Muslims purely on their religious practices and open debate over the nature of Islam and the role of Muslims along with other groups in Europe. The Shadow Report's recommendations, for example, would only call into question yet more concerning Islam, such as stickers with crossed-out mosque images. Such politically- and legally-authorized feel-good fuzziness can only complicate future discussions of these important matters.
Andrew E. Harrod serves as a Legal Clerk for The Legal Project, an activity of the Middle East Forum. Mr. Harrod is also a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. This article was commissioned by The Legal Project.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk