Three different web sources yesterday put three different spins on free speech in Syria. Café-Syria offers its own spin on each viewpoint, and offers you a chance to air your view.
First of all, International lobby group Human Rights Watch yesterday hauled Syria into its protest against the United Nations’ selection of Tunisia to host this week’s World Summit on the Information Society. The group said that in Syria the government freely censors correspondence and information under the terms of emergency legislation enacted more than 40 years ago. Human Rights Watch also contends that Syrian authorities tamper with the Internet, restricting use of electronic protocols that allow people to build websites and send emails. Even more disturbingly, the group says security forces have tortured online writers for reporting stories the government did not wish to have told. Despite these restrictions, says Human Rights Watch, Syrians continue to find new ways to circumvent online surveillance and censorship, and have rapidly taken to the internet as a way to get news in and out of the country.
The United Nations for its part says that holding the conference in Tunisia would help open the ‘marketplace of ideas’ up in that country. Café-Syria notes that this, of course, is the same argument used by the International Olympic Committee when it said that awarding the 2008 games to China would advance human rights there. Whether this occurs remains to be seen.
A second, alternative, take on expression came from Syria's Minister of Higher Education Hani Murtada when he opened an Arabic language conference on Monday. He said the Arabic Language is the “most distinguished way to express what is going around the mind, feeling and senses”. President of the Arabic Language Assembly, Dr. Shaker Faham concurred, citing the important role Arabic has had in nation-building, and maintaining the Arab identity.
While Arabic is no doubt the best way to, “express what is going around the mind, feeling and senses” for an Arabic speaker, Murtada’s implication that it is THE best, presumably in all circumstances, has a touch of imperialism about it. Café-Syria for one would not assume to tell say, speakers of Swahili or Gaelic, that they should use Arabic in order to more eloquently express what is going on in their minds. Of course, if all Murtada is trying to do is preserve his native tongue, then all power to him.
A third spin comes from Mike Whitney of the Dissidentvoice website, who yesterday said that while “the media” have refused to report the devastating siege at Falluja, the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has received front page coverage. Whitney contends that lavish attention has been devoted to Hariri’s murder because it advances the USA’s foreign policy goals. He says “the media” are clearing the path for future imperial conflict by building a case for war against Syria.
Café-Syria thinks Whitney’s juxtaposition is valid, if somewhat conspirational. Yes, media agencies - like all individuals - are biased. Show us somebody who says they’re not, and we'll show you a liar. But, media outlets are primarily biased in a way that sell their product. If the views being pedaled by newspapers or TV stations were suddenly unpopular, they’d quickly go out of business. The notion that a megalithic “media” controls the way people think fails to recognize that every person is an intelligent being, no matter what we may think of their opinions. If I don’t like the selection of news offered by the New York Times, I can always cancel my subscription and log into Whitney’s website. Or better still visit Café-Syria!
What do you think?