Jennifer Rubin observed last week:
At a signing ceremony for the Freedom of Press Act, it is ironic and shameful that Obama could not bring himself to identify the killers who beheaded the man who fearlessly reported on the jihadist terrorists.
Here are a few data points.
Heather Robinson recalls the plight of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.
However Choudhury, via e-mail from Dhaka, tells me that the government of Bangladesh continues to harass him, using tactics such as summoning him to trial and making him stand for entire days in rooms without air conditioning, only to dismiss him when no “witnesses†show up for the trial.
Most troubling, Choudhury says that, since the election of President Obama, the U.S. Embassy has stopped monitoring his case.
“Though there is a statement in the State Department’s report…the U.S. Embassy has stopped monitoring my case since Mr. Obama became the President,†he writes.
Such an absence of monitoring is especially significant and troubling in a case such as this, because in the past, the Bangladeshi government has arrested, incarcerated, and even tortured Choudhury when the powers that be felt they could get away with it, according to Dr. Richard Benkin, an American human rights activist who helped to secure Choudhury’s release from prison in 2004.
Barry Rubin catches the State Department somewhat less than enthusiastic about fighting Pakistani censorship.
In addition, it’s farcical for Crowley to characterize what is occurring in Pakistan “dialogue and debate†over such matters. This is a country where Christians are persecuted and murdered (with no Western protest, members of the Ahmadis sect are discriminated against, and is a world center of antisemitism. Often, Christians are beaten or murdered for allegedly having done something “offensive†regarding Islam. Unfortunately, in the Muslim-majority world when governments do “outreach to minority religious groups” it’s for the purpose of strangling them.
This question came within a few hours of the president signing a bill claiming to champion freedom of the press against foreign enemies of media liberty. Oh, by the way, has anyone else noticed that in signing a media freedom bill in honor of Daniel Pearl, President Obama never once mentioned that the reporter was murdered by radical Islamists in Pakistan? Here’s a good example of trying not to cause offense curtailing free speech (and the recognition of reality).
Of course, Crowley is right in saying governments should safeguard free speech. But all the meaning is drained out of this since “robust legal protections against…hate crimes†includes in most countries steps that do punish free speech. That goes for Canada, the Netherlands, and many other places. So how can you deal with this very real contradiction unless you acknowledge that the mere act of speech—unless it involves a direct threat of violence or other regular crime—is never a hate crime. By the way, isn’t that what was taken for granted in American law until a few years ago.
Finally there’s the case of Khaled abu Toameh:
The former PLO “ambassador” to Australia, Ali Kazak, believes that an Arab journalist who writes about financial corruption and theft in the Palestinian Authority is a “traitor” who should be murdered the same way as collaborators were killed by the French Resistance.
Kazak told the newspaper, The Australian: “Khaled Abu Toameh is a traitor. Traitors were also murdered by the French Resistance, in Europe; this happens everywhere.”
Asked why he calls the journalist a traitor, the former PLO representative, who lives in Australia, explained: “Palestinians are the victims. He shouldn’t write about them, he should write about the crimes of the Israelis.”
Kazak’s threat does not come as a surprise to those who are familiar with the methods used by Arab dictatorships to silence anyone who dares to demand reforms and transparency.
I don’t expect the administration to do much on this count either.
President Obama said at the ceremony mentioned by Jennifer Rubin:
All around the world there are enormously courageous journalists and bloggers who, at great risk to themselves, are trying to shine a light on the critical issues that the people of their country face; who are the frontlines against tyranny and oppression.
Those are good strong words. But the President’s inaction in the face of specific threats to freedom of speech render these words empty and meaningless.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
