Subject: Jordan prosecutes libel against Islam
Dear Letters editor:
In a recent opinion piece published on line from your WSJ Europe edition
("Criminalizing Criticism of Islam"), Elizabeth Samson bemoans Jordan's
recent move to prosecute foreign speech that "libels" Islam. She notes this
is a growing assault on free speech as this sensitivity to Islam's
sensitivities seems to be reaching deep into Europe and the UN.
The problem with Ms. Samson's 705-word editorial comment, notwithstanding
her moniker as an international legal and constitutional scholar soon to be
resident at the Hudson Institute, is that she misses the elephant in the
room-or more aptly, the shark in the bath tub. In other words, how in the
world did she miss it? It had to have been assiduously.
Jordan's prosecution of slanderers of Islam has little to do with Jordan's
"secular" legal code and everything to do with Shariah or Islamic law. The
prosecution is made possible because Jordan's constitution embraces Islam as
the official religion, establishes Shariah religious courts (for personal
status law and religious institutions), and specifically qualifies every
statement of religious freedom and equality before the law by a neat little
subterfuge, typically worded as "customs observed in the Kingdom", and even
this is further redacted by "public order" and "decorum". What this really
means of course is that no liberty or notion of equality can offend Shariah
(Article 14: "The State shall safeguard the free exercise of all forms of
worship and religious rites in accordance with the customs observed in the
Kingdom, unless such exercise is inconsistent with public order or decorum."
Constitution of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, 1952 [as amended to 1984].)
Thus, the Jordanian Penal Code Ms. Samson writes of as if it were a secular
Arab problem is nothing more than classical, traditional, and pedigreed
Shariah. Under Shariah, "slander" includes truthful statements that offend a
fellow Shariah-adherent Muslim. Slandering (i.e., insulting even if
truthful) Mohammed, Shariah, or Allah is considered apostasy if by a Muslim
and kufr (state of being an infidel) if by a non-Muslim. The penalty for
such offenses under traditional, "moderate" (not "extreme" or "radical")
Shariah is death. (See, chapter 11 in Mufti Usmani's 1999 English
translated, Islam and Modernism or see this rather erudite Internet
discussion: http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/apostasy.htm).
So, it turns out that Jordan, that oh so moderate of Muslim fiefdoms, is
simply applying traditional, pedigreed Shariah but simply using a modern
long-arm jurisdictional notion to prosecute those who might insult Islam
from afar.
And, while Jordan implements traditional Shariah laws against slandering
Islam, the Wall Street Journal is touting Shariah-compliant finance as the
next wunderkind of the global financial world.
DY
The Wall Street Journal <http://online.wsj.com/home>
September 10, 2008
OPINION
Criminalizing Criticism of Islam
By ELIZABETH SAMSON
FROM TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE
September 10, 2008
There are strange happenings in the world of international jurisprudence
that do not bode well for the future of free speech. In an unprecedented
case, a Jordanian court is prosecuting 12 Europeans in an extraterritorial
attempt to silence the debate on radical Islam.
The prosecutor general in Amman charged the 12 with blasphemy, demeaning
Islam and Muslim feelings, and slandering and insulting the prophet
Muhammad in violation of the Jordanian Penal Code. The charges are
especially unusual because the alleged violations were not committed on
Jordanian soil.
Among the defendants is the Danish cartoonist whose alleged crime was to
draw in 2005 one of the Muhammad illustrations that instigators then used
to spark Muslim riots around the world. His co-defendants include 10
editors of Danish newspapers that published the images. The 12th accused man
is Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, who supposedly broke Jordanian law
by releasing on the Web his recent film, "Fitna," which tries to examine
how the Quran inspires Islamic terrorism.
Jordan's attempt at criminalizing free speech beyond its own borders
wouldn't be so serious if it were an isolated case. Unfortunately, it is
part of a larger campaign to use the law and international forums to
intimidate critics of militant Islam. For instance, in December the United
Nations General Assembly passed the Resolution on Combating Defamation of
Religions; the only religion mentioned by name was Islam. While such
resolutions aren't legally binding, national governments sometimes cite them
as justification for legislation or other actions.
More worrying, the U.N. Human Rights Council in June said it would refrain
from condemning human-rights abuses related to "a particular religion." The
ban applies to all religions, but it was prompted by Muslim countries that
complained about linking Islamic law, Shariah, to such outrages as female
genital mutilation and death by stoning for adulterers. This kind of
self-censorship could prove dangerous for people suffering abuse, and it
follows the council's March decision to have its expert on free speech
investigate individuals and the media for negative comments about Islam.
Given this trend, it's worth taking a closer look at the Jordanian case.
The prosecutor is relying on a 2006 amendment to the Jordanian Justice Act
that casts a worryingly wide net for such prosecution. Passed in response
to the Danish cartoons incident, the law allows the prosecution of
individuals whose actions affect the Jordanian people by "electronic means,"
such as the Internet. The 2006 amendment, in theory, means anyone who
publishes on the Internet could be subject to prosecution in Jordan. If the
case against the 12 defendants is allowed to go forward, they will be the
first but probably not the last Westerners to be hit by Jordan's law.
Amman has already requested that Interpol apprehend Mr. Wilders and the
Danes and bring them to stand before its court for an act that is not a
crime in their home countries. To the contrary. Dutch prosecutors said in
July that although some of Mr. Wilders's statements may be offensive, they
are protected under Dutch free-speech legislation. Likewise, Danish law
protects the rights of the Danish cartoonists and newspapers to express
their views.
Neither Denmark nor the Netherlands will turn over its citizens to
Interpol, as the premise of Jordan's extradition request is an affront to
the very principles that define democracies. It is thus unlikely that any
Western country would do so, either. But there is no guarantee for the
defendants' protection if they travel to countries that are more
sympathetic to the Jordanian court.
Unless democratic countries stand up to this challenge to free speech,
other nations may be emboldened to follow the Jordanian example. Kangaroo
courts across the globe will be ready to charge free people with obscure
violations of other societies' norms and customs, and send Interpol to
bring them to stand trial in frivolous litigation.
A new form of forum shopping would soon take root. Activists would be able
to choose countries whose laws and policies are informed by their religious
values to prosecute critical voices in other countries. The case before the
Jordanian court is not just about Mr. Wilders and the Danes. It is about
the subjugation of Western standards of free speech to fear and coercion by
foreign courts.
Ms. Samson, an attorney specializing in international and constitutional
law, will join the Hudson Institute this fall.
See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion
Journal <http://online.wsj.com/opinion> 1.
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122099204692716155.html
Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) http://online.wsj.com/opinion
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and
use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement
<http://online.wsj.com/public/subscriber_agreement> and by copyright law.
For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones
Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com
<http://www.djreprints.com/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.intellnet.org
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods,
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,'
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
