|
|
Democracy of Ban and Repression
By: Haytham Mann'a
Arab intellectual and human rights activist
On 24 November 2003, the Iraqi Governing Council, that is appointed by the Occupation, issued a decision to prevent the Dubai-based satellite TV news channel Al-Arabiya from operating in Iraq until it gives- reportedly- a written undertaking not to encourage terrorism. Likewise, in February 2004, the last media procedure taken by the Governing Council was to ban al-Jazeera channel from reporting on the council's activities. Later, on 7 August 2004, the Iraqi Interim Government decided to close Al-Jazeera's Baghdad office for a month, could be renewed. The latter decision was accompanied by several articles by renowned Iraqi persons, some of them celebrated the decision, even blamed the government for not taking such step earlier, and others demanded that the decision should be last and not to be a temporary penalty.
In France, and in response to the pressures of the Israeli lobbying and the Israeli government, the Supreme Council of Audio Visual called for preventing Al-Manar broadcast in France, because the channel was broadcasting a series called "dispersion " (Al-Shatat) one year earlier, and also for the claim that the channel is encouraging actions of violence. While I was following up the news about al Manar ban, I found an article written by Aziz Al-Haj, which made me think that if we are living in the media- middle ages, then it is the democracy-stone ages. Al-Haj considers Ramsfield's speech about the satellite channels is unproblematic, and the government's steps against Al-Jazeera are "small steps" in response to "great crimes". The article's title is " Small Iraqi step vis-a- vis Al-Jazeera" and reads as follows:
"The one month-ban decision of Al-Jazeera's office in Baghdad, though positive is very insufficient. The most required step is to close the offices of the straying satellite channels along the transitional phase and till the insurance of Iraq's stability and the maintenance of a real federal, Parliamentary and democratic system in Iraq"
The former representative of Saddam Hussain's regime in UNISCO gives a telling example of the super-capability of some intellectuals to defend, represent, ideologize and reproduce dictatorship. He called for shutting down Al-Jazeera, Al-Manar and Al-Alam channels as a minimum insurance of the media freedom, peace and freedom in Iraq.
Though the dictator had fallen, dictatorship have not collapse yet. We are facing a group of professionals who perceived the limits of the American demands, interests and concepts of the "basic liberties". Some of these professionals rooted back to Stalinism or Islamic fundamentalism. Others were raised on the labs of dictatorships. But all of them understood that the best and easiest way of ruling is to recapture the Tunisian model based on assassinating democracy in the name of democracy, and denying human rights in the name of these very rights. Those professionals do not hesitate to charge anyone who could have a different opinion with involving secretly or publicly in terrorism, "obstructing the democratic political development in Iraq", creating chaos and attempting to create riots". They proceed in a tri-part program: Saddamist, Ladinist and Iranian"
Regardless of the International Human Rights Instruments, the Special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression at the High Commission for Human Rights, and the media freedom organizations, there are many practical and daring questions: What is the real meaning of censorship today? Is the state still able to "protect" or to "disinfect" its people from the satellite air waves. Is it possible to maintain isolated islands and new means of disturbance to obstruct the audio visual reporting for certain groups of people? Is it possible to provide just one intellectual meal for those who are intellectually hungry?
Forty years ago, the Syrian Ba'athi government shot down the "laughable lamentable" caricature magazine, and consequently delayed the Syrian political artistic caricature school to make it behind its parallels elsewhere. Today, no body can prevent any caricaturist from showing his or her work to tens of thousands around the world without censorship. If there is an advantage of the ICT, that would be that it makes the ban and the censorship tools appear stupid, ridiculous and weak, though it fails to maintain equality in access of knowledge.
Practically speaking, Al-Jazeera is till the most viewed channel in the Iraqi society, though not that much viewed by the Kurds of course. According to several media experts, the broadcasting hours and topics of the Iraq coverage were not decreased in Al-Jazeera, it also continued to introduce reasonable space to the non-governmental political landscape. Al-Jazeera also has managed to deal with the ban decision positively, as the decision has became publicly its medal of honor.
In other words, Though the channel has to bear the high costs of the alternative places of broadcast and the photos bought from other channels and agencies, the closure did not result a decrease in viewing, a weakness of performance or an absence of the Iraqi scene.
However, this event tells that censorship and ban in the 21st century are thoughtless and useless, their efficiency are just the delayed outbursts of controlling dying- out minds.
In Paris there were attempts to suppress the space of the Satellite channels . On 2o August 2004, a day after a judicial political countering, the French State Council, which is the only body that has the authority to review the decision of the Supreme Council of Audio-Visual, issued a decision that the SCAA has no authority to close a TV channel. The State council agreed that this decision bears countless dimensions and could be a result of many pressures, not necessarily objective rational pressures. By its decision, the state council has seized the authority to ban the space or confiscate the land of communication from the hands of the lobbying pressures.
On the other side, in Iraq, Offices were closed in Baghdad, and those who expected good from the American occupation demand that only one cyberspace channel and one governmental TV channel should operate in Iraq.
Totalitarianism in Iraq had produced several different groups, all are afraid of the citizens, and think of them as freak that bear all the infections of terrorism, fanaticism and violence. The words that were said by Saddam's followers about the Shiite retardation needs an electroshock to get the Najaf out of the middle ages during the Ragab tremor are repeated currently about Moqtada Al-Sadr followers. It is the relationship with the public, or as they see them, the vagabonds whom the semi elite pursue to grant the title of citizens, but they refuse and prefer to remain a "tool" in the hands of everybody and anybody.
Can't a thief see thievery everywhere?. If any responsible official is appointed by a certain state, so, any Iraqi citizen could be too. The original sin committed by Al-Shalaby is not a personal problem, it is rather a common behavior. Therefore, the Iraqi citizens should be isolated from the outside infections, as not to repeat the story of the fall of Iraq, and not to have the new comers come into Iraq on Iranian, Qatari or Lebanese tanks.
For those who place bans, we say: the aim of media is divulgence . remember that the democratic Chileans did not called for closing the TV of Pinochet's armed forces, they agreed that their duty is just to boycott and criticize it. This is exactly what should we do regarding a channel funded by a humanitarian criminal or another channel produced by the Pentagon, we refused and still refuse to silence any voice, including the channels fabricated by a rich totalitarian or a fanatic administration, not because these channels are not generous enough or because they do not contribute in the process of disgracing awareness, but because of our realization that the censorship scissors are blind, so we do not own the truth, and hence we are not entitled to prevent others from exercising their freedom of expression.
Though it is necessary for journalists and media means to have a code of ethics, it is always the best way to let law determine whether there is any of inciting violence, supporting terrorism or distorting facts.
|
|
|
Search the site |
|
|
|
Join Newsletter |
|
|
|
|
Copyrights© 2003 - 2004 The Arabic Network
for Human Rights Information