If convicted we can be sentenced to three years in prison, and the iniators behind the case have said that if this happens they will ask Interpol for our extradition so we can serve the sentence behind bars in Jordan.

It sounds crazy and it certainly is, but Jordan does have the backing of the UN Human Rights Council that has passed several resolutions calling on governments around the world to pass laws banning any criticism and satire dealing with Islam and other religions, as they phrase it.

Just to remind you: The UN Human Rights Council is the highest ranking body in the world endowed with the task to protect human rights.

The funny thing is that Jordan is prosecuting Danish editors and cartoonists. It would be of more relevance and to the point, were they to bring charges against Al Arabiya, the Arabic tv-station broadcasting by satellite to the Muslim world. Last year Al Arabiya broadcasted the documentary ”Bloody Cartoons” which shows Mr. Westergaard’s cartoon.

Or what about other newspapers that published the very same cartoon?

The answer is obvious. This has from the very beginning been a political case aimed at teaching Denmark and other possible ”offenders” a lesson. It has very little do to with insulting the prophet. It is about power politics.

This is one of several disturbing findings in a new report by Europol, the European police force.

Welcome to Londonistan.

Britain has emerged as the focal point of Islamist terror in Europe. According to the report last year the UK reported a 30 per cent increase in arrest of terror suspects. Out of 203 persons arrested in 2007 in the UK, a majority was related to Islamist terrorism. In the rest of Europe 201 were detained, 91 of them in France.

The number of suspects under investigation in the UK has risen from 500 in 2004 to 2.000 last year.

What are we to make of this?

Is the threat growing or is the police getting better at seeking out suspects?

Recently Denmark’s Court Agency decided that female judges should have the right to wear the head scarf in court of law.

The Court Agency was established in 1999 by the Ministry of Justice in order to manage and develop Denmark’s courts, and president of the Supreme Court has on several occasions called on immigrants to become judges.

Last summer the Association of Judges made it clear that judges have to appear neutral in court in every possible way. The association added that judges’ physical appearance and behaviour are key to the courts’ credibility in the eyes of their fellow citizens.

Furthermore, Tyge Trier, an expert on the International Human Rights Court in Strasbourg asserted that European parliaments would not be in breach of fundamental human rights, were they to pass a law banning the head scarf in the court of law.

Yesterday the Danish government was expected to make its position clear on the head scarf, but it refrained from making any decision, though reports have indicated that the center right government was in favor of a ban.

The lack of action has prompted political commentator Ralf Pittelkow to criticise the government and the Court Agency for inadequate knowledge about the political and religious implications of the head scarf:

”It should be a very simple matter to decide. The prime minister and the minister of justice have both said that judges have to appear neutral in court of law. Nobody can claim that an Islamic head scarf is religiously neutral. It’s not even politically neutral,” writes Pittelkow in Jyllands-Posten.

Neutrality, he says, ”stresses that the courts in a secular democracy are independent of political and religious interests. A judge who find it necessary to show his religious affiliation in the court of law will call the neutrality of the court into doubt…And the doubt is legitimate. The scarf is not a piece of random clothing. It is closely connected to a certain point of view on the relationship between religion and society.

Contrary to Christianity Islam is a law religion. It demands that one observe certain rules, and within orthodox Islam women have to cover their head in order not to tempt sexual desire in men. This rule is connected to other rules dealing with the rights of women and blasphemy limiting the right to free speech, and rules dealing with the agreement between laws and the Koran that put limitations on democracy. It follows that the Islamic head scarf just isn’t a question of religion, it’s also a question of law and politics.”

Pittelkow concludes:

”You have to choose: Either one is protecting the secular law based state, or one gives in to Islam. It’s the same with the right to free speech (the cartoon crisis): Either you insist on this fundamental right or you submit to Islamic rule. It’s a question of what kind of society you want. It’s a political issue that cannot be left to the Court Association.”

What do you think? Should judges be allowed to wear the Islamic head scarf in court of law or is this a violation of the secular principle of neutrality?   

To manage and develop Denmark’s courts

The Headscarf

Leon Hee converted to Islam at age of 18 and took the name Muhammed. He did so in order to marry his fiancee Fatima. He was recruited to Hizb-ut-Tahrir at the local mosque.

Says Muhammed Hee:

”Typically Hizb-ut-Tahrir goes after young Muslims who have experienced racism or the feeling of being rejected by society or find themselves in an identity crisis. They are the most vulnerable. Hizb-ut-Tahrir in a cynical way exploits any sign of confrontation between Danish society and Islam in order to capture new members who will be taught to reject the basic values of Danish society.”

Muhammed Hee is still a Muslim and now he calls on moderate Muslims to go against Hizb-ut-Tahrir in the public debate. In doing so he is following in the footsteps of British Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz who also left the organization and are campaigning among young Muslims in order to prevent them from joining radical Islamic groups.

Muhammed Hee was asigned a teacher who came to his home once a week. His wife and kids were told to leave the room.

“I was told that it’s completely wrong if Muslims see themselves as belonging to a nation, a fatherland or ethnic group. There is only one right identity for a Muslim: Islam within the Muslim community, the Umma.”

Muhammed Hee broke with Hizb-ut-Tahrir after he began studying Arabic at university. His radical views were challenged by co-students and he learned to ask critical questions.

People like Muhammed Hee represents a very important development. They want to make their faith compatible with a modern, secular democracy, and I can only wish them good luck, though my own point of view is closer to that of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Mina Ahadi, Necla Kelek and others who have left Islam, but both phenomena, radical Muslims turned moderate and Muslims leaving their religion, are crucial examples of what freedom of religion means.

The drop is larger than in Asia, Africa and Latin America, not exactly strongholds of freedom.

Latvia’s score slips from 19 to 21, after the government put pressure on public television to cover Russia in a less critical manner. I wrote about one such example here.

Slovakia’s falls from 20 to 22, Poland’s from 22 to 24 and Slovenia’s from 21 to 23.

One important reason for this development is widening regulation of the media. Slovakia has just passed a law that will give anyone mentioned in an article the right to an equally prominent rebuttal, that cannot be accompanied by editorial comment.

Across the former Soviet bloc insult laws are being used to intimidate the media. In Bulgaria defamation of public figures is considered a crime. In Russia and other countries in the region journalists can be sued for offending somebody’s honour and dignity. When I was a correspondent in Russia dozens of this kind of proceedings took place every other week.

It was never ordinary people who pursued these actions, it was powerful politicians and business people.

In Bulgaria 60 cases went to court in 2006, and a further 100 in 2007.

The Economist writes that the constitutional court in Romania just restored a tough defamation law that criminalises ”insult”.

The paper quotes US ambassador to Romania Nicholas Taubman who has called on the legislators to ”strengthen their own accountability… rather than try to hamper the efforts of a free media to exercise its legitimate role in Romania, either through criminalising journalistic efforts or otherwise intimidating independent media.”

The development in Eastern Europe is another sign that we need a consolidated effort to fight ”insult” laws around the world. As the examples indicate these laws are being used to silence critical voices.

Kabayeva is a member of Putin’s party United Russia and was elected to parliament last year.

The newspaper that published this juicy piece has been closed down for ”pure financial reasons” and the editor-in-chief has resigned.

At a press conference with Italy’s newly elected prime minister Silvio Berlusconi Putin answered a staged question by a Russian journalist touching upon the sensitive matter. There is every reason to believe that this was done to prevent more aggressive and intrusive questions from Italian reporters. Usually questions by Russian reporters are coordinated with the Kremlin’s press office.

Among other things Putin said:

”Society has the right to know how public figures live. But even in this case there is a limit: private life, which no one has the right to trepass. I have always disliked whose who, with their infected noses and erotic fantasies, break into other people’s private affairs.”

Well, this is exactly what Putin did back in the spring of 1999. As head of the security service FSB Putin was behind the broadcasting of a video on Russian state television showing prosecutor general Yuri Skuratov having sex with two prostitutes. This was done in order to discredit Skuratov who was leading an investigation into finanicial embezzlement and corruption by president Boris Yeltsin’s closest relatives and advisors. Skuratov was forced to leave his office and five months later Putin was named prime minister and annoited to take over the presidency after Yeltsin.

So Putin’s comment about respecting the private life of public figures is pure b….

How about the rumours surrounding Putin’s private life?

From a well informed source I heard about Putin’s alleged mistress a few months ago. She was said to be a former Olympic champion who had joined Putin’s party United Russia and was playing an important political role behind the scenes.

Sounds like Kabayeva.

Maybe the rumours about Putin’s divorce and new marriage are untrue, but stories about Putin’s adultery has been circulating for a long time.

Mark Ames, who has covered Russian politics for years, sees a conspiracy behind the publication of the intimate news concering the president’s private life.

He makes the point that the owner of the paper, Alexander Lebedev, is a former KGB-officer and member of parliament with close ties to the liberal camp in the Kremlin. Lebedev didn’t know about the story ahead of publication and Mark Ames suggests that the information was given to the paper by hard liners in the Kremlin in order to discredit Lebedev in the eyes of Putin. He writes:

”What’s more curious is why, in a country where information is hard to come by and wars over assets and power are often fought in the press, Lebedev’s lesser-known Moskovsky Korrespondent would publish such a scurrilous, not to mention dangerous, article about his buddy Vlad. Particularly in a country where The Leader’s private life is not open to scandal and mud-dragging.

Which leads us back to the seemingly bunk Putin rumor. It looks more and more likely that someone from the FSB planted it knowing it would make Lebedev and his paper look foolish. That would be a clear retaliation for Lebedev’s attempts to exonerate Storchak, the FSB’s most valuable captured chess piece in its battle against Putin and the liberals he’s propped up. The FSB’s message is simple: If you fuck with us, we’ll fuck with you, your paper, and Putin—in more ways than you know.”

On the arrest of deputy finance minister Sergei Storchak in November of 2007 as part of the struggle for Putin’s successor:

This may be true: I have heard from a well informed source that Putin was planning to suggest the liberal minister of finance Aleksei Kudrin as his candidate for president. The arrest of Kudrin’s deputy foiled this plan, and so Dmitri Medvedev was chosen as the compromise figure.

According to the UK based Index on Censorship (IOC) the ban may include paintings made in the tradition of eroticism such as the kama sutra style sculpture seen on the temple reliefs in Central Java.

IOC notes:

”Painters have incorporated elements of this into their work, but may now find themselves targeted with ”pornography” charges.”

The country’s leading information technology expert, Zatni Arbi, warns that the new law in the future might be used to shut down other websites carrying information and opinion deemed unacceptable by the government.

Index on Censorship comments:

“Providing for imprisonment and a fine equivalent to £60 million, the law comes into effect against a background of the creeping application of the Islamic sharia legal code. This has seen a growing number of local governments enforce bans of various kinds, such as the one on several performers of the hugely popular dangdut music in the city of Tangerang, west of Jakarta.”

What is dangdut?

Dangdut is a very popular Indonesian music genre derived from Indian, Arab and Malay styles, but it often incorporates a variety of other world influences as well. It has long been associated with the lower-classes of Indonesia (musik pinggiran), and consequently became seen as “the music of the people.” The lyrics often address issues of love, heartbreak, and poverty. Dangdut has long been ripe with sexual innuendos and suggestiveness, but “Inul’s physical portrayal of the words and their meaning was something never attempted by those who came before her” (Jakarta Eye, “Dangdut Comes of Age-Sex and the Village”).
In the 1970s and 1980s, Rhoma Irama popularized dangdut, tamed its sexual attitude, and began to use it to spread the message of Islam – collectively making it fit for mass commercial appeal. Later, “Politicians began using dangdut musicians… to court the lower classes. …the music of the people became the tool of the powerful” (TIME Asia Magazine, 24 March, 2003). By the late 1990s, Rhoma was using his talents to “delight thousands at pro-Suharto rallies… and was rewarded by being nominated for the legislature by Suharto’s Golkar party in 1997” (Christian Science Monitor, 9 May, 2003).
But in the villages, a rawer tradition of dangdut continued - this is the environment where Inul Daratista’s performances began. Her career started around the age of twelve, performing for local audiences in her home community and earning around $US 0.40 per show. By 2003, she had her commercial breakthrough and became Indonesia’s highest paid entertainer, reportedly earning around $US 78,000 per month (Latitudes, June, 2003). Inul had become a ‘rags to riches’ phenomenon.

Critics of the law fear that it might be used to curtail other forms of artistic expression that incorporate any form of eroticism whatsoever.

Feminists of Indonesia are divided: Some have welcomed the law because of the declared intention to protect children. Others like writer and activist Ratna Sarumpaet are critical.

In 1946 the Soviet commissar initiated a vicious attack on the literary magazines Zvezda (The Star) and Leningrad which had published works by the great poet Anna Akhmatova and the satirical writer Mikhail Zoshchenko. Later followed similar attacks on great composers. Zhdanov denounced any disagreement and differing points of views within Soviet culture. As he put it an speech:

”The only conflict that is possible in Soviet culture is the conflict between good and best.”

I was reminded of this disgraceful figure when I learned that Sweden’s Press Ombudsman Yrsa Stenius – a better name would be Press Commissar – has called for a police investigation against Swedish bloggers with whom the commissar happens to disagree.

A few days ago she told Västerbottens Folkblad, a local newspaper, that she is worried about the development of the internet. Apparently she finds free speech to be a disturbing phenomena. In the words of the commissar everyone can say anything about anyone and nobody reacts. Things have gone to far. Yes, that’s really troubling. I am sure that Andrei Zhdanov would agree.

”At the moment I see no other solution than to report these cases to the police. We need to create a precedent.”

The commissar is of the opinion that some blogs and reader comments are lacking reflection and consideration.

Yrsa Stenius was born in Finland and belongs to the Swedish-speaking monority. She has been affiliated with Sweden’s largest newspaper Aftonbladet for the past 20 years. She was editor-in-chief from 1982-1987. She was appointed Press Ombudsman in 2007.

In 2006 she wrote a column about the publication of the cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammed. Any ideological boss in the Soviet Union would be proud to read her. Here is what she said:

”For natural reasons I didn’t see the caricatures published by Jyllands-Posten. But unanimous comments by informed publicists in the West indicate that they were insulting and lacked any serious use of free speech.

In other words it was a huge misjudgement on behalf of the editor-in-chief of Jyllands-Posten to publish those images. And it was an even bigger misjudgedment of Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen not to apologize on behalf of Denmark, when he was granted the opportunity. To apologize is not to introduce censorship.

How does the misunderstanding arise that people in the name of free speech are allowed to offend a culture and a civilization, and that the same freedom does not allow a prime minister to bear responsibility for the political consequenses of what happenend?

I don’t think that we in the name of free speech should be unconditionally loyal to the establishment of Denmark that has abused this freedom.”

Thank you, commissar, I think a lot of people beg that they will never receive your approval of anything. That would indeed make them uncomfortable.