Archive for September 27th, 2008

Defending the rights of “terrorists”

Al-Manar is the satellite television channel of Hezbollah (which much of the West regards as a terrorist organisation, a view I do not share.)

The channel is currently available in many Australian homes. The Lebanese community is massive here and many people regard the group as a liberation movement. Others see it as an aggressive force that needs to be eliminated.

The Australian Zionist lobby is currently trying to ban the channel in the belief that its anti-Semitic content is inflammatory. While it is true that some of the programming is indeed offensive, I am strongly opposed to the banning of a channel that represents a legitimate Arab nationalist movement. It’s counter-productive, anti-democratic and pointless.

Sadly, the Zionist lobby refuses to understand that its attempts to ban the station only reinforce the belief that some Jews are opposed to hearing different points of view. As proven by the 2006 Lebanon war between Israel and Hezbollah, the first war that the Jewish state comprehensively lost, the partly Iranian-backed group is now a permanent feature of the Middle East, for better or worse.

The Australian Jewish News editorialised recently:

Tolerance and sensitivity go hand in hand with the notion of free speech and from what we have observed, there is not a lot of tolerance or sensitivity to be found in the vile propaganda spewing forth from Hezbollah’s broadcasting arm.

Iran’s satellite channel PressTV produced a story this week about the Australian angle to this saga and featured an interview with me and others about the pointlessness of trying to ban the station.

I may often disagree with the content of Al-Manar but I’ll publicly defend its right to present alternative points of view to the public. I can’t help but think that the official Jewish community simply doesn’t want the Australian public to consider perspectives that are routinely critical of Israel and its inhumanity in the occupied territories (and Hezbollah endeavours to keep Palestine in the headlines).

After all, we’ll be waiting for a long time to hear Jewish complaints about the incessant anti-Muslim bias on Fox News.

Let one thousand opinions bloom.

Take them all out

How most of the world truly feels about the US election campaign (courtesy of a wondeful blogger, The Cleverest):


Political Ad from Mike Solomon on Vimeo.

The clueless Mahmoud

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on Democracy Now!, expresses his bigoted view of homosexuals:

In Iran, it’s considered as a very unlikable and abhorrent act. People simply don’t like it. Our religious decrees tell us that it’s against our values, and all divine laws, actually, believe in the same. Who has given them permission to engage in homosexual acts? It’s considered as an abhorrent act. It shakes the foundations of a society, the family foundation. It robs humanity. It brings about diseases.

It should be of no pride to the American society to say that they defend homosexuals and support it. It’s not a good act, in and by itself, to then hold others accountable for banning it. And it’s not called freedom, either. Sure, if somebody engages in an act in their own house without being known to others, we don’t pay any attention to that. People are free to do what they like in their private realms. But nobody can engage in what breaks the law in public.

In fact, the web for Iranian gay men and women has been an invaluable gift.

The web won’t set us free

My following article was published by the Washington Post online on September 26:

During China’s milk powder crisis, with tens of thousands of babies affected by the contaminated goods, the country’s blogosphere railed against corrupt officials.

One outraged blogger wrote: “What are the people in the Government doing? They just want mistresses, they want cash, but out here we’re dying!”

Another said: “When they tell us some official is sacked, they are just giving us part of the story. The rest isn’t reported. They just move on to other jobs.”

It was the kind of brutal honesty that the internet has brought to the world’s largest online market. Millions of angry netizens were openly questioning the regime’s ability and willingness to manage the crisis. As it did after May’s Sichuan earthquake, when thousands of citizens used the web to organize protests against shoddy builders, the web is slowly democratizing information flow in the Communist State.

It has become almost accepted wisdom that the web is an automatic democratizer, but I never accepted this doctrine.

That freer flow of information is one of the main reasons the country has implemented The Golden Shield over the last years, the most effective web-filtering program in the world, ably assisted by Western multinationals such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft. Despite the explosion of views on topics as diverse as sex and economic development, the system allows the regime to eavesdrop in ways that were simply impossible before the net’s development.

It is, as Canadian writer Naomi Klein explains, “McCommunism“, a “potent hybrid of the most powerful political tools of authoritarianism communism - central planning, merciless repression, constant surveillance - harnessed to advance the goals of global capitalism.”

It’s not just China. My on-the-ground investigation of the blogging revolution and its influence on the relationship between the West and the rest took me in 2007 to Iran, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and China. In these countries I met writers, bloggers, dissidents, politicians, journalists and average citizens. I wanted to gauge how the web was changing lives and how little we understood about their worlds.

Blogs offered a window into mainly middle-class segments of societies rarely examined in the West. What does a Saudi Arabian woman think about her country’s adherence to Wahhabism? How does the average Egyptian web user cope with the ever-increasing number of arrested online activists? What is Cuba’s likely future under Raul Castro?

In China, where the vast majority of web users are far more interested in entertainment than politics, blogger Mica Yushu told me in Shanghai that most of her financially comfortable friends didn’t crave political change. “We use the internet mostly for entertainment, sharing information, earning money or other fun,” she said. It was a similar message in many states deemed “enemies” or “allies” of the West.

Take Iran. The Islamic Republic, routinely demonized in the Western press as the center of world terrorism, has arguably the healthiest blogging scene in the Middle East. As one blogger explained to me in Tehran: “Most of the people (I know are) in favor of reform, not revolution, because people are too tired to experience another revolution.” I found the same message echoed throughout the countries I visited: the desire to experience incremental change without foreign involvement.

The presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has undoubtedly tightened the screws on political dissent, but despite onerous, Western-assisted web filtering, robust online debate continues. An editor of a leading youth magazine told me that he was constantly amazed that his Iranian friends were blogging about their exploits with sex and drugs. Life goes on in even the most challenging societies.

One point that resonated with virtually every person I met was how it was impossible to generalize about the web’s influence. In Egypt, the U.S.-backed dictatorship is struggling to manage a well-organized insurgency from web-organized activists and Muslim Brotherhood members. Syria increasingly blocks opposition websites, despite the fact that the groups themselves enjoy minimal support in the country itself.

U.S. writer Clay Shirky explains in his book “Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organising Without Organisations” that “communications tools (such as YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and blogging) don’t get socially interesting until they get technologically boring”. In other words, it’s only now becoming possible to find online the words of indigenous communities in Paraguay, dispossessed voters in Fiji or imprisoned bloggers in Morocco.

Ultimately, it is the Western media’s responsibility to engage new voices that are not simply “official” sources. The internet can never on its own bring freedom or Western-style democracy - nor should it. It is the job of reporters to listen to and appreciate the perspectives of individuals with messages that may be unappealing to our ears. The online world is just one way to enter this universe.

Antony Loewenstein is a Sydney-based freelance journalist, blogger and author of The Blogging Revolution (2008) and My Israel Question (2006).





Buy The Blogging Revolution

Buy My Israel Question
This is a non-profit site dedicated to providing timely and challenging material. Any financial contributions would be greatly appreciated, however, to sustain hosting costs and the life of a freelance journalist.
www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from AntonyLoewenstein. Make your own badge here.



Global Voices Advocacy
Dogpile Search