Archive for the ‘Defamation’ Category
UK publishers silenced over Muslim book-Telegraph
Britain’s publishers are silenced by Islamist bullies
Telegraph: May 18, 2009
Last October the London home of Gibson Square publisher Martin Rynja was firebombed because they were planning to publish Sherry Jones’s historical novel about the chap the BBC calls simply “the Prophet”.
Guess what? The Jewel of Medina will not be published in Britain. The book is now effectively banned in the country of Tom Paine and George Orwell, not by Government order but by religious bullies. Jewel has already come out in seven other countries, including Denmark and Serbia, but Britain is considered too dangerous for anyone who offends Islam.
So even though Somali minicab driver Abbas Taj and two others have been convicted of the crime, they have still won, through intimidation.
Author Sherry Jones writes on her blog:
“As anyone who has read The Jewel of Medina knows, it does not insult Islam – a fact that enrages Islamophobes enough to have one radio talk-show host calling me a ‘wack job,’ among other flattering names.
“Whether or not my book is respectful, however, has little to do with the real issue here. For, although the extremists lost in court, they have apparently won where it really counts – in the UK’s book stores.
“After Gibson Square’s publisher announced, a couple of weeks after the arson attempt, that he was indefinitely postponing publication of The Jewel of Medina – following in the footsteps of Random House in the U.S. – I awarded world English publication rights to Beaufort Books, my U.S. publishing house whose publisher and small staff have supported my book unwaveringly, despite hate male, lawsuit threats, and Mr. Choudary’s own assertion that not only I, but my publishers, might deserve to die.
“Beaufort publisher Eric Kampmann and associate publisher Margot Atwell headed to the London Book Fair in April with a full display of The Jewel of Medina and confidence that they would find the right distributor to supply stores in the U.K. with the book. But – no. Everyone, it seems, is too afraid.
“Forget the fact that The Jewel of Medina has been published in seven countries, including Denmark, with no threats or repercussions of any kind. Well – OK. In Serbia a conservative mufti protested the book two days after its release last August and issued threats grave enough to cause my publisher there to withdraw it from publication. But that mufti hadn’t read The Jewel of Medina, because he merely repeated false rumors that the book contains ‘brutal acts of pornography’.
“The people of Serbia spoke loudly and clearly against censorship. So did the press, and other groups including moderate Muslims. Beobook re-released the sold-out The Jewel of Medina one month after it discontinued publication, and it rocketed to the top of the country’s best-seller lists, where it remained for at least four months. It’s still selling so well that Aleksandar Jasic anticipates a fifth printing in June.
“What made the difference in Serbia? The memory of facist dictator Slobodan Milosevic apparently remains fresh in the public consciousness. Freedom of speech is the same as freedom: ‘We believe that this kind of censorship is very dangerous – the next step is that any crazy group in the world can threat to kill someone if the book/article/picture is published,’ an editor at the Serbian daily newspaper Blic said to me.
“Despite the efforts of extremist groups, The Jewel of Medina has not been banned in the UK. Nor should it be, in spite of the country’s crackdown on those seen as an insult to Islam. The book isn’t insulting. I had hoped it would be a bridge-builder between non-Muslims and Muslims — something it appears the UK could really use right now.
“These three Muslim thugs who tried to torch the British people’s right to read a book would be easy to shrug off as isolated cases, as simple bullies. The fact is, though, that soon after that attack, extremist groups in the UK exerted an organized effort to keep The Jewel of Medina out of British bookstores. Luke Johnson, chariman of Borders UK, wrote in the Financial Times online that his company had received threats that it would ‘suffer’ if Borders UK sold The Jewel of Medina.
“’Surely, in a civilised society, we cannot allow thuggish behaviour to intimidate us. Otherwise we could all end up being tyrannised by violent and vocal minorities, cowed into submission in pursuit of a comfortable life. How then would humanity and invention progress?’ Mr. Johnson wrote.
The implication is that, given the opportunity, Borders UK would, indeed, sell The Jewel of Medina. Unfortunately, it seems, they won’t have the chance in the near future. The ‘thugs’ have accomplished their task – and freedom of speech, the first freedom to go when fascism gets a foothold, has taken a blow in the western world.”
Censorship & impunity in Malaysia-NutGraph
“Nothing serious” about Perak?
Jacqueline Ann Surin
NutGraph: May 15, 2009
http://thenutgraph.com/article-3689.html
ACCORDING to the Bar Council’s Little Red Book about the police and citizen’s rights, a person is under arrest under the following circumstances:
1) the police says “yes” to the question (asked politely if possible), “Am I under arrest?”, or
2) does not allow you to leave or wants to take you to a police station, or
3) handcuffs you.
The Little Red Book derives its understanding of the rights of citizens and police action from nothing less than the Criminal Procedure Code.
What then does this mean about police action against Perak Speaker V Sivakumar? The video below aside, police held Sivakumar in a room in the state secretariat building for 90 minutes after they violently dragged him out of his chair. He was only allowed to leave the room after the state assembly was adjourned by hastily, and some might add illegally, installed Speaker Datuk S Ganesan from the Barisan Nasional (BN).
By legal definition then, Sivakumar was either unlawfully imprisoned or under arrest for those 90 minutes. Either way, Malaysians have just cause to be alarmed. If the police can so boldly and publicly act in such an unlawful manner against a speaker and an elected representative, we obviously have a serious problem with our police force. Unfortunately, they are not the only ones we should be alarmed by.
Not above the law
When, on the night of 7 May, the police arrested five legal aid lawyers who were only trying to represent the peaceful protesters who had been arrested at the Brickfields police station, both the Bar Council and the MCA expressed outrage. Indeed, the Bar Council is holding an extraordinary general meeting today, 15 May 2009, to protest and condemn such police action.
What, though, was Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein‘s response?
“If they think just because they are lawyers, they are immune to the law, then that is not so,” he said on 8 May when asked to respond to the Bar Council’s outrage that its members had been arrested for trying to do their job.
Indeed, this has been Hishammuddin’s refrain when asked to comment on police action that not only smacks of abuse of power but is also partisan in favour of the BN. For example, despite the heavy-handed police action in arresting scores of people outside the Perak state assembly building and the unlawful imprisonment of Sivakumar on 7 May, Hishammuddin said he was “thankful” that no “serious incidents” occurred in Perak that day.
“I am happy with the action taken,” he said, because, he argued, it averted “chaos on the streets which could threaten public safety.”
Hishammuddin (Pic courtesy of theSun)
It could be that the new home minister is trying to obfuscate the matter in order to justify police action in the interest of the BN holding on to power. Or it could be that Hishammuddin really doesn’t know any better?
Either way, isn’t it problematic that we either have a minister who upholds police abuse of power or who is clueless? Or worse, who may be both?
As former Bar Council chairperson Yeo Yang Poh said in a message circulated on e-mail: “Many were arrested and detained just for advocating a view, denied access to lawyers, and then five lawyers who were trying to provide legal assistance to the detainees were themselves arrested. What’s next? Arrest doctors who try to give medical assistance to opponents of the government?”
Hiding the truth
According to a Malaysiakini report, Media Prima, believed to be linked to Umno, has instructed the four TV stations under its fold — TV3, ntv7, 8TV and tv9 — not to air footage of Sivakumar being forcibly removed from his chair so that Ganesan could take over.
Such censorship is of course rather futile in the age of affordable gadgets, YouTube and the internet. But that doesn’t change the fact that Media Prima’s action, if Malaysiakini’s report is accurate, is about hiding the truth so that those who commit abuses will not be exposed.
In fact, it’s hardly different from the earlier decision to only allow 13 BN-controlled media access to the historic 7 May Perak state assembly meeting. Imagine what citizens would have been denied if that ruling hadn’t been challenged and then reversed so that all media could cover the chaos in the assembly chambers.
Twice in my life, I have seen a man beat up his woman partner in public. In both cases, it left me wondering how much more violence the man was capable of in private if he didn’t have qualms abusing his partner in front of others.
We need to ask this same question of our police, and by extension, the BN government. If the police have no qualms unlawfully detaining or arresting a citizen or lawyers, who should have access to their clients, in full public view, what else is it capable of behind doors? Beatings and torture that led to the kind of death A Kugan experienced in police detention?
(Pic by Mark Coggins / sxc.hu)
For sure, police arrogance and impunity don’t exist in a vacuum. Police abuse of power is made possible because the BN government, as evidenced by Hishammuddin’s justifications, allow for it to happen. Just as the decision by some media to censor what the police have done is also a form of collusion.
This then makes Hishammuddin’s statement about the 7 May state assembly sitting farcical beyond belief. Being thankful that “nothing serious” happened in Perak is like saying “nothing serious” happened to Kugan while in police detention. It’s like saying the police, acting on the BN’s instructions, saved the day in Perak.
Dire events occurred in Perak that day. Dire events continue to happen in Malaysia under the BN’s watch, whether in Perak or elsewhere every time dissent is violently repressed, and then when the repression is denied or justified. If citizens, and the media, allow these events to continue as if “nothing serious” is happening, we can be certain it will only get worse, not better.
Jacqueline Ann Surin subscribes to the Quaker‘s wisdom of bearing witness. She believes that it is only when citizens and the media are watchful of those in power that abuses can be prevented and abusers held accountable.
How to unblock your website in Thailand
How to unblock your website in Thailand
[Note: The ICT ministry has just moved offices on May 11. All of these phone numbers have changed. We shall keep the numbers in this article updated as we verify them. Please check back.]
We have never before been privy to the mechanism of censorship in Thailand. If your website is blocked, here are some steps to follow.
Chances are, your website has been blocked by order of the Royal Thai Police High-Tech Crimes Centre. First contact HTCC’s chief, Yanaphon Yungyuen 02-913-6699 <htcc@police.go.th> and <yanaphon@dsi.go.th>. Your primary questions here are when and why your site was blocked.
The order to block a website then passes to the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology’s IT Regulation Bureau. The Bureau’s chief is Aree Jivorarak 02-505-6213 <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>. Aree actually sends the blocklists to the ISPs.
Under the requirements of the Computer Crimes Act 2007, there must be a court order to block a website, unless government has declared martial law or is under the provisions of an emergency decree issued by the prime minister. Therefore, you may request a copy of this court order and the reasons for blocking. Court orders must be public. Be polite but firm. Remember, these are civil servants and you pay for their kids’ school and wife’s hair perm–you are the boss here.
If Khun Aree is unresponsive, his superior is Deputy Permanent Secretary Angsuman Sunarai <angsumal@mictmail.go.th>
02-505-0588. If the deputy permanent secretary does not offer you satisfaction, his superior at MICT is Su Lo-utai, Permanent Secretary 02-568-2521 <sue.l@mict.mail.go.th>. If you still have no success with the permanent secretary, you must appeal directly to the ICT Minister, Ranongruk Suwanachee <bowbo43@gmail.com> tel. 02-505-8888, 02-505-7370
The Ministry also has a handy complaint form for you to fill out: http://www.mict.go.th/main.php?filename=index_complaint
Internet censorship is only made possible with the cooperation of Thailand’s more than 100 ISPs. Your business is important to your ISP. Remember that many of the ISPs are publicly traded companies on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET); some are even subsidiaries of foreign companies trading on international stock exchanges. They will be inclined toward not offending their shareholders if you start to make a fuss. Use this as leverage when dealing with them. You only need buy a single share to be a shareholder; this is your ticket to ISPs’ annual general meetings to fight censorship policy. Private companies are also more easily sued for damages than government.
Always talk to the top person, someone who is capable of making decisions. CEOs and executive vice-presidents. Hassling office workers makes them feel bad because they can’t help, are afraid of losing their jobs, and a waste of your time. you pay these people’s salaries with your custom so remember who is in charge. Use these phone calls for patient education and consciousness-raising.
You will notice that some of the ISP censors are mobile telephone services, which provide access to GPRS and WiFi. Mobile phone companies are even more responsive than ISPs to losing your business.
Every ISP also has a helpdesk or other phone contact for technical support. Open a complaint with them, too. If your ISP is a university or other academic institution, call its computer centre and talk to the administrators.
Follows a list of the contacts MICT uses at each ISP to effect blocking. Your ISP should have a copy of the court order blocking your website to ensure it is acting legally, know the reasons for the block, and be able to tell you the exact date and time of MICT’s order and the precise date and time the ISP blocked.
101 Global Co. Ltd. <support@101g.com>;
Advanced Datanetwork Communications [Buddy Broadband] <noc@adc.co.th>, <ktnrg@adc.co.th>, <nattapong@adc.co.th>, top kab <top.kab@hotmail.com>;
Advanced Info Service [AIS] <naruepoi@ais.co.th>, <krits@ais.co.th>;
Alltelecom Co. <cindy@alltelecom.co.th>, <BIOICE1981@hotmail.com>, <nocworldweb@hotmail.com>;
ANET Internet <psanti@anet.net.th>, <system@anet.net.th>, <uaichai@anet.net.th>, <premchai@anet.net.th>;
BB Broadband Co. Ltd. [Beenet Broadband Internet] <apinan_k@beenets.com>;
CAT Telecom (CAT Public Co. Ltd., CAT Internet Data Center) “kittipong m” <kittipong.m@cattelecom.com>, <admin-thix@cat.net.th>, <schaka@cat.net.th>, varin c <varin.c@cattelecom.com>, <noc@cat.net.th>, <bkriengsak@cat.net.th>, <suchok@cat.net.th>, <suchok@bulbul.cat.net.th>, suttiporn y <suttiporn.y@cattelecom.com>, wasan s <wasan.s@cattelecom.com>, <support@idc.cattelecom.com>;
CS Loxinfo <webblacklist@csloxinfo.net>, <phup@csloxinfo.net>;
Far East Internet Co. Ltd. <admin@fareast.net.th>, <surasak@fareast.net.th>;
Hutchison CAT Wireless Multimedia Ltd. [formerly Tawan Mobile Telephone Co.] <sariya.s@hcwml.com>, rommuk p <rommuk.p@hcwml.com>;
Infonet Thailand <sarayuth@infonetthailand.com>;
Internet Thailand <chakrit@inet.co.th>, <noc@inet.co.th>;
Inter University Network [UniNet--are these the people responsible for the censorship at Kasetsart University, Mahidol University and others?] <noc@uni.net.th>;
ISP-Thailand (Internet Solution & Service Provider Co. Ltd.) <thaweesak@isp-thailand.com>, <support@isp-thailand.com>, <csupport@isp-thailand.com>, admin issp <admin_issp@isp-thailand.com>, <helpdesk@isp-thailand.com>, <chatree@isp-thailand.com>, <EAK@ISP-THAILAND.COM>;
IT.co.th <kung@it.co.th>;
Jasmine International Net [JI-net] (Jasmine International Public Co. Ltd.) <sathinut@ji-net.com>, <boonma1222@yahoo.com>, <nprattha@jasmine.com>, <noc@ji-net.com>, <taewa.k@jasmine.com>, duangjai s <duangjai.s@jasmine.com>, jirawan c <jirawan.c@jasmine.com>, Nongluck p <Nongluck.p@jasmine.com>, <tsutee@jasmine.com>, <uraiporn.s@jasmine.com>, <mubooh@gmail.com>;
Kirz Communications <thana@kirz.com>, <sarayut@kirz.com>;
KSC Commercial Internet <ictcensor@ksc.net>;
Milcom Systems [WLANNet] <patcharabuls@milcom.co.th>, <tomesiam@hotmail.com>;
NTT Communications (Thailand) Co. Ltd. <channira.no@ntt.co.th>, <kalant@ntt.co.th>, <uthai@ntt.co.th>, <jaroonchai@ntt.co.th>;
Otaro Internet [you may remember they were the first company to delete the website of Same Sky Books/Fah Diew Kan] <noc@otaro.com>;
Pacnet Thailand <noc@pacific.net.th>, <noc.th@pacnet.com>, neeyada sirisampandh <neeyada.sirisampandh@pacnet.com>;
Proen Internet <noc@proen.co.th>, <suvinit@proen.co.th>, <mars2551@yahoo.com>;
Samart Infonet Co. Ltd. [Samtel] prasitchai v <prasitchai.v@samtel.samartcorp.com>, <se@samart.co.th>;
SIPphone Unlimited Communication <info@sipphone.co.th>;
Telephone Organisation of Thailand [TOT] Public Co. Ltd. (TOT ISP, TOT International Gateway) <boonmak@tot.co.th>, <totnoc@tot.co.th>, <noc@totisp.net>, <blockweb@totisp.net>, sittiraj tot <sittiraj.tot@gmail.com>, <noc@totiig.net>;
Total Access [DTAC] <Parinyar@dtac.co.th>;
True Internet ictcensor@trueinternet.co.th, network@trueinternet.co.th, watanyu chu <watanyu_chu@trueinternet.co.th>, Surparsorn Run <Surparsorn_Run@truecorp.co.th>;
TT&T Public Co. Ltd. [Maxnet] narits ss <narits_ss@ttt.co.th>, ekkarachu ss <ekkarachu_ss@ttt.co.th>, surachaiji ss <surachaiji_ss@ttt.co.th>, <matisa@ttt.co.th>, issn ss <issn_ss@ttt.co.th>, <ict@tttmaxnet.com>;
Upload Today, True Corporation Public Co. Ltd. <info@uploadtoday.com>,
World Internetwork Co. Ltd. [INTERNET Thai] <support@internetthai.com>;
Be patient–jai yen yen! But be persistent. Expect this process to take some time.
FIGHT BACK! Take back the power! Freedom NOW!
Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT)
FACT has further questions for MICT over censorship
Follows my email to MICT below, updates in brackets. FACT readers will find my questions and suggestions eminently sensible, reasonable and non-confrontational. MICT is not the enemy.
What is the enemy is the concept adopted by Thai government that censorship serves the public good. Censorship does not create good citizens, a thinking, questioning public. Quite the opposite.
Censorship tells Thai people “You’re too stupid to look at this. Let us do your thinking for you.”
There can never be real democracy in Thailand under the shadow of government censorship.
———————————————————————————————
Most of my earlier questions have been resolved by the ISPs themselves so there is no need for you to reply to my last email. However, more concerns and questions have come to my attention.
Have you yourself looked at FACT’s website? If so, you can see that our goals are not at odds with MICT’s.
One can readily see that FACT is completely non-partisan and non-political. All we try to do is raise public awareness of censorship issues worldwide and in Thailand but viewed from the Thai context, making things better for everyone in a truly democratic society.
Unlike many Thai websites, FACT has never been anonymous. I am the registered owner of FACT’s website. Accordingly, it would far better serve both citizens and government were MICT to request websites, including mine, to simply remove illegal content first, rather than immediately blocking or, worse, arresting website owners. A lot of these problems could be solved by prompt discussion between government and citizens.
I am scrupulously careful not to host or post illegal content or comments, including lese majeste. However, in two and a half years, I have only had to edit three comments and one post! [Obviously, the problem of illegal opinion is not as severe as government would have us believe!] FACT does not promote censored content but simply defends citizens’ rights to express their opinions.
I can accept that there may be a need for some level of censorship. But Internet censorship always overblocks. The censorship of FACT’s website is a perfect example.
FACT wants to encourage transparency and accountability in the censorship process. Censorship should not be kept secret because, for one thing, this makes censored information far more attractive.
One of FACT’s goals is publication of Thailand’s blocklists of banned websites. Were this to happen, I think initially a lot of people would try to access these sites out of curiosity not out of malice. But that initial curiosity would die down quickly and Thailand would take the moral high ground with transparency in government, a novel concept!
MICT should redirect Internet users trying to access a blocked website to a blockpage telling the user who ordered the blocking, why the site is blocked and containing clear and easy instructions for requesting unblocking, anonymously so citizens don’t feel threatened with repercussions. After all, if MICT thinks it’s doing the right thing, a public service, by censorship, it should be open about it.
FACT’s goal was not merely to have MICT unblock our website. The goal is to understand the whole process of Internet censorship.
I have some pertinent questions regarding Internet censorship in Thailand.
1) Do the block orders always come from the Police High-Tech Crimes Centre or does MICT also compile its own lists?
2) Why do the Police not send the block orders to ISPs themselves but forward them to MICT to send to the ISPs?
3) In fact, why does MICT involve the ISPs at all? Why does MICT not order direct blocking at the international Internet gateways?
4) Are the block emails from MICT to the ISPs, government to private companies, official documents, even though they are sent from free, cloudmail services like Yahoo or Hotmail? Are they secret or confidential? (See 9 below).
5) Does MICT review the block orders from Police before sending them to ISPs to ensure that all sites really contain illegal content? This is a crucial point which MICT should implement. If this were done, FACT’s website would never have been blocked.
6) Will you please tell me the precise dates and times of the recent Emergency Decree? If FACT’s website was blocked under the Decree, MICT did not need to seek a court order under the Computer Crimes Act.
7) Why does MICT not make the court orders public, removing the list of blocked websites, if they desire?
8) May an Internet user contact MICT to inquire if a website is blocked?
9) Lastly, why do Thai government email addresses never function? There was some talk of government banning civil servants using cloud email but almost everyone in government uses Hotmail or Yahoo (even to send out block orders, which is extremely insecure, to say the least!) I think MICT might make it a goal making government computers, servers and email actually work.
I have opposed Internet censorship in Thailand since 1997 when the first such law was proposed by Dr. Charmonman Srisakdi. The proposal was quietly dropped.
[UPDATE: Dr. Charmonman did not come up with this idea on his own. He was advised by an international charity, ECPAT International (End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes) <http://www.ecpat.net/EI/index.asp>, which raised the spectre of child pornography on the Internet. ECPAT, of course, owes its budget to the public purse and support of governments in many countries.
At this time, there was much media discussion over the trafficking of women and children, underage prostitution and the sale of Thai village girls, particularly in the North, to brothels.
Economist and former senator Mechai Viravaidya, “The Condom King”, singlehandedly and at great personal risk in stratified Thai society, taught AIDS awareness to sex workers and their customers in Thailand.
The practical result was that poor farmers became aware of the dangers to their daughters and the waiting “AIDS explosion” never materialised here.
Dr. Charmonman styles himself the “Father of the Thai Internet”. FACT readers will enjoy his homepages at <http://www.charm.au.edu/index.htm>, especially the photos of his home <http://www.charm.au.edu/PhotoRes/picture.asp>.]
I am making MICT an offer. I would like to consult with MICT officially to develop a process by which Internet users could request unblocking of MICT. I would also be eager to help MICT make the censorship process more equitable and transparent to serve everyone’s best interests.
Please forward me a copy of the email MICT sent to the ISPs to order UNblocking of FACT’s website.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Best wishes,
CJ Hinke
087-976-1880
How Thailand Censors the Internet
How Thailand Censors the Internet
No. 72 – Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT)
The details of FACT’s website censorship have finally become clear as Thai ISPs have provided FACT with concrete data, including the email requests from both Royal Thai Police and the ICT Ministry. This is the Thai public’s first real look at the implementation of Internet censorship in Thailand which is usually accomplished by government-in-secret.
On April 22, 2009 at 16:45:47 from IP address 124.108.115.147 (ESMTP id 25FD7274C64F) email was sent from the Royal Thai Police High-Tech Crime Center <htcc@police.go.th> to Aree Jivorarak, Chief of MICT’s IT Regulation Bureau <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>. It is certain that a blocklist of banned websites was attached to this email.
On April 23, 2009 06:49:43 Aree forwarded the Police email to 94 ICT contacts at 38 of Thailand’s more than 100 ISPs and mobile telephone providers–CAT Telecom, Pacnet Thailand, ISP-Thailand, Internet Thailand, Advanced Datanetwork Communications [Buddy Broadband], KSC Commercial Internet, True Internet, CS Loxinfo, Telephone Organisation of Thailand [TOT] Public Co. Ltd., Jasmine International Net [JI-net], ANET Internet, Far East Internet Co. Ltd., Milcom Systems [WLANNet], World Internetwork Co. Ltd. [INTERNET Thai], Otaro [you may remember they were the first company to delete the website of Same Sky Books/Fah Diew Kan], 101 Global Co. Ltd., Kirz Communications, TT&T Public Co. Ltd. [Maxnet], Proen Internet, Jasmine International Public Co. Ltd., IT.co.th, Infonet Thailand, Inter University Network [UniNet--are these the people responsible for the censorship at Kasetsart University, Mahidol University and others?], Alltelecom Co., SIPphone Unlimited Communication, TOT ISP, TOT International Gateway, Internet Solution & Service Provider Co. Ltd. [ISP-Thailand], NTT Communications (Thailand) Co., Ltd., BB Broadband Co. Ltd. [Beenet Broadband Internet], CAT Public Co. Ltd., Hutchison CAT Wireless Multimedia Ltd. [formerly Tawan Mobile Telephone Co.], Upload Today, True Corporation Public Co. Ltd., Samart Infonet Co. Ltd. [Samtel], Total Access [DTAC], Advanced Info Service [AIS], CAT Internet Data Center–with a the subject “ส่งต่อ: ขอส่งรายชื่อเว็บไซต์ที่มีผลกระทบต่อความมั่นคง” (” Fwd: We send a list of sites that affect security”). The email’s message was ”เรียนผู้ isp และผู้เกี่ยวข้อง เพื่อโปรดดำเนินการ อารีย์ จิวรรักษ์ ” (“to ISPs and whom it may concern to take action”) followed by ”หมายเหตุ: แนบจดหมายที่จะส่งต่อแล้ว” (“Remarks: Forwarded mail attached”) which is obviously the original Police email. (Full details below.) This message may well have been truncated before it was sent to FACT. Why did Aree send this email before seven a.m.? To take advantage of the government’s Emergency Decree?
Although FACT was not made privy to the ICT Ministry’s blocklist itself, as FACT’s website started to be blocked by some ISPs around noon April 25, 2009 and diverted to MICT’s blockpage at http://w3.mict.go.th, it is safe to assume we were on it!
Further information from another ISP states that FACT’s website was included on the list of 71-plus alleged “Red-shirt” websites blocked.
Of course, FACT is not a Red-shirt (nor any-shirt) front nor do we play partisan politics. One can readily see how easily any website can be swept up by government paranoia. This is the first time FACT’s website has been blocked since our inception on November 15, 2006. We are proud to join the ranks of our colleagues at Midnight University, Sept19,org, Same Sky and Prachatai; we wear our censorship as a badge of honour.
FACT will defend anyone censored in Thailand because the public has a basic human right to freedom of information. We will continue to expose secret censorship in Thailand and provide circumvention strategies and software to enable Internet users to ignore the censorship.
When these 71-plus websites were unblocked by MICT on April 26, why was FACT not included in the list? FACT was finally unblocked by at least one ISP by request of MICT at 01:29 on April 28, 2009. We have yet to receive of copy of MICT’s email to ISPs or order FACT unblocked but we know there to be one.
The email exchange also raises further interesting questions. Who surfs the Internet looking for illegal content? Does Internet censorship always start with the Police or are there censors in other agencies such as the ICT ministry and Ministry of Culture? How many people are employed to censor?
This gives a real glimpse into the shadowy, clandestine world of censorship in Thailand. And it shows that F/freedom is under police scrutiny in Thailand.
Nothing has changed at Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT). We didn’t change, edit, alter or deleted any information, postings or comments on our website before, during or after MICT’s censorship.
So why did they censor FACT in the first place and why did they unblock us so rapidly?
The Prime Minister’s Emergency Decree was in effect April 12 – April 23, so it would appear that legally MICT was not required to seek a court order for blocking under the provisions of the Computer Crimes Act 2007 as normal laws were suspended. For those FACT supporters who were hoping FACT would be the first to challenge MICT in court over Internet censorship, it appears MICT acted legally. We’re saving that fight for next time!
The moral of this story: FIGHT BACK! Take back the power! Freedom NOW!
This has been an interesting and valuable exercise because now we know who the censors are and how they operate. If your website in blocked, notify FACT, call all media you can think of (FACT will help with this) and get in touch with MICT at 02-505-6213 <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th> to request immediate unblocking.
Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT)
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: aree jivorarak <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>
To: kittipong m <kittipong.m@cattelecom.com>, admin-thix@cat.net.th, schaka@cat.net.th, varin c <varin.c@cattelecom.com>, noc@pacific.net.th, thaweesak@isp-thailand.com, support@isp-thailand.com, csupport@isp-thailand.com, noc@adc.co.th, ktnrg@adc.co.th, nattapong@adc.co.th, top kab <top.kab@hotmail.com>, noc@cat.net.th, noc th <noc.th@pacnet.com>, chakrit@inet.co.th, noc@inet.co.th, ictcensor@ksc.net, ictcensor@trueinternet.co.th, webblacklist@csloxinfo.net, network@trueinternet.co.th, watanyu chu <watanyu_chu@trueinternet.co.th>, boonmak@tot.co.th, sathinut@ji-net.com, boonma1222@yahoo.com, nprattha@jasmine.com, noc@ji-net.com, psanti@anet.net.th, system@anet.net.th, admin@fareast.net.th, surasak@fareast.net.th, patcharabuls@milcom.co.th, tomesiam@hotmail.com, support@internetthai.com, noc@otaro.com, support@101g.com, thana@kirz.com, narits ss <narits_ss@ttt.co.th>, ekkarachu ss <ekkarachu_ss@ttt.co.th>, noc@proen.co.th, taewa k <taewa.k@jasmine.com>, kung@it.co.th, sarayuth@infonetthailand.com, noc@uni.net.th, cindy@alltelecom.co.th, BIOICE1981@hotmail.com, nocworldweb@hotmail.com, info@sipphone.co.th, noc@totisp.net, blockweb@totisp.net, sittiraj tot <sittiraj.tot@gmail.com>, neeyada sirisampandh <neeyada.sirisampandh@pacnet.com>, duangjai s <duangjai.s@jasmine.com>, noc@totiig.net, bkriengsak@cat.net.th, chaiwat@isp-thailand.com, admin issp <admin_issp@isp-thailand.com>, surachaiji ss <surachaiji_ss@ttt.co.th>, matisa@ttt.co.th, issn ss <issn_ss@ttt.co.th>, totnoc@tot.co.th, sarayut@kirz.com, channira no <channira.no@ntt.co.th>, apinan k <apinan_k@beenets.com>, suchok@cat.net.th, suchok@bulbul.cat.net.th, helpdesk@isp-thailand.com, suttiporn y <suttiporn.y@cattelecom.com>, wasan s <wasan.s@cattelecom.com>, chatree@isp-thailand.com, sariya s <sariya.s@hcwml.com>, rommuk p <rommuk.p@hcwml.com>, jirawan c <jirawan.c@jasmine.com>, info@uploadtoday.com, Surparsorn Run <EAK@ISP-THAILAND.COM, ict@tttmaxnet.com, Nongluck p <Nongluck.p@jasmine.com>, prasitchai v <prasitchai.v@samtel.samartcorp.com>, se@samart.co.th, tsutee@jasmine.com, suvinit@proen.co.th, mars2551@yahoo.com, kalant@ntt.co.th, uthai@ntt.co.th, jaroonchai@ntt.co.th, uaichai@anet.net.th, Parinyar@dtac.co.th, uraiporn s <uraiporn.s@jasmine.com>, mubooh@gmail.com, naruepoi@ais.co.th, krits@ais.co.th, premchai@anet.net.th, support@idc.cattelecom.com, phup@csloxinfo.net, aree mict <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>
Sent: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:49:43 +0700 (ICT)
Subject: ส่งต่อ: ขอส่งรายชื่อเว็บไซต์ที่มีผลกระทบต่อความมั่นคง
เรียนผู้ isp และผู้เกี่ยวข้อง เพื่อโปรดดำเนินการ
อารีย์ จิวรรักษ์
หมายเหตุ: แนบจดหมายที่จะส่งต่อแล้ว
______________________________________________
Details of original Royal Thai Police email to MICT:
X-Apparently-To: aree.mict@yahoo.co.th via 124.108.115.147; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:45:47 +0800
X-YahooFilteredBulk: 203.144.222.214
X-YMailISG: fp65WQ0WLDvYG3YSo55j2geZUpCKkKvyZloXeOzMEj3eOtRsh2QOnvrJ0j03CBU6aDgqLBis88fT1JETW52gDaisZrdSGx.nUGGanUZ1BE.YX5VGp.dPxT0DnHrzdyOrhfQyznmlWcnZScV2Nnjg0N8ZBozwFbviCjUQAbwDFJ2M9BPOGOzRNSwdvfIALCGObg2ZeRFQEsa9kx7mxqZj1.6pHKnojTI6Fbp6fgAFbY1bHhpJ8gXwGdTPZJO55GShFoGsTflsrnkF9h5wew3E0K1LeL5w7_h_BbTCx3gmNLWn9Y0HTtJtJ9_dRrnG7d5OaFGTnHKO8QXZ9jgSsVyq_1lRp6Cx13VKlQ0gVnyPa2txJsijkfBVcbJFIdC0ac4c9N9Vb0pmzodMPmpFM2h22cLii1TEPn53xR1ACEZ0Ndkg_lw6qpUgEt1NuDsqcgxsZ0PKAB7AU2I_O2zyGcpUQ3Y.4xkca1PmyiUTg8t0CftrR6.rymSSof8e4vYmhdwxKpoDcxgVNXmFWtdQ5YF_zHyi4ygx
X-Originating-IP: [203.144.222.214]
Authentication-Results: mta108.mail.sg1.yahoo.com from=police.go.th; domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=police.go.th; dkim=neutral (no sig)
Received: from 203.144.222.214 (EHLO mail.asianet.co.th) (203.144.222.214)
by mta108.mail.sg1.yahoo.com with SMTP; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:45:47 +0800
Received: from irgb9.truemail.co.th ([203.144.173.225])
(envelope-sender <htcc@police.go.th>)
by mail5.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
for <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>; 22 Apr 2009 15:45:44 +0700
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AggUAOt17kk6YSut/2dsb2JhbAATgTyTToI4lnukZIN2Bg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i=”4.40,229,1238950800″;
d=”scan’208″;a=”449055345″
Received: from mail.police.go.th (HELO police.sran.net) ([58.97.43.173])
by irp4.truemail.co.th with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2009 15:37:50 +0700
Received: from localhost (pmail.police.go.th [127.0.0.1])
by police.sran.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25FD7274C64F
for <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:46:43 +0700 (ICT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Score: -0.952
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.952 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6
tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, AWL=-1.500, BAYES_00=-2.599,
DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.2, MIME_BASE64_NO_NAME=0.224,
SUBJECT_ENCODED_TWICE=1.723, URIBL_PH_SURBL=2.8]
Received: from police.sran.net ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (police.sran.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id fH3fy0iY1wyj for <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>;
Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:46:39 +0700 (ICT)
Received: from police.sran.net (unknown [192.168.1.2])
by police.sran.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFC1D274C64B
for <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:46:39 +0700 (ICT)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:46:39 +0700 (ICT)
From: High-Tech Crime Center <htcc@police.go.th>
To: aree.mict@yahoo.co.th
Subject: =?utf-8?B?4LiC4Lit4Liq4LmI4LiH4Lij4Liy4Lii4LiK4Li34LmI?=
=?utf-8?B?4Lit4LmA4Lin4LmH4Lia4LmE4LiL4LiV4LmM4LiX4Li1?=
=?utf-8?B?4LmI4Lih4Li14Lic4Lil4LiB4Lij4Liw4LiX4Lia4LiV?=
=?utf-8?B?4LmI4Lit4LiE4Lin4Liy4Lih4Lih4Lix4LmI4LiZ4LiE4LiH?=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Originating-IP: [127.0.0.1]
Content-Length: 1516
Censorship Thai-style: The FACT Story
FACT blocked in Cambodia!
I live in Bangkok and my server is TRUE but currently I am in Ratanakiri, Cambodia, and I tried to access your website but could not and I contacted the Cambodian IP server (CAMSHIN) and they told me that all internet communications from their platform are routed via Thailand and perhaps this is the reason I am denied access.
Kind regards,
Shane Tarr, PhD
FACT blocked in Shanghai!
In answer to recent tlc posting, I cannot access your site in China (Shanghai). There is quite often a problem with wordpress sites here, even in Shanghai.
Professor Nicholas Tapp
Censorship Thai-style: The FACT story
How easy to censor, how difficult to unblock!
Monday, April 27, six calls to the ICT ministry. Permanent Secretary Su Lo-uthai refused to take my call. I found this rather typical, insulting abuse of government power considering I had petitioned him personally on behalf of FACT. Su referred me to Deputy Permanent Secretary Angsuman Sunarai. I was given two numbers for him but he did not work at the first office and the second did not answer. I was given his mobile and it was turned off. Angsuman’s secretary didn’t answer hers. Angsuman was reported to be in Khon Kaen so I was given two numbers at the ministry for his deputy, Aree Jivorarak, chief of MICT’s IT Regulation Bureau. Neither number was answered and so I was given his mobile number. He asked for details by email, copied below:
Further to our telephone conversation, it has been brought to my attention that my website, Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) has been blocked by around noon Saturday by at least six ISPs.
The URL is http://facthai.wordpress.com. Internet users trying to access the FACT website are redirected to http://w3.mict.go.th.
I have been the registered owner of this website since November 15, 2006. We definitely do not host, post or tolerate any illegal content on FACT’s website and we have never been blocked before.
Please investigate this matter thoroughly and report your results to me
immediately.
I hope the results of your investigation are such that you will immediately
unblock my website.
However, if MICT wishes for some reason to continue to block access to FACT, I require your reasons in full for so doing and a copy of the court order authorising you to do so under the requirements of the Computer-Related Crimes Act 2007.
My mobile telephone number is below my name.
Thank you.
Two followup calls to Aree but he could not deal with this matter because he was in a meeting. He gave me a mobile number for Nut Payongsri, IT Specialist. Nut replied he would read my email and get back to me today. Nut called back to advise me that he found FACT’s website accessible from his office using TOT ISP (wouldn’t one expect all MICT computers not to be blocked?) and that FACT’s website does not appear on the blocklist for April 24 but this is the latest blocklist he had available.
He promised to contact his superior, Aree, for copies of the MICT blocklists for April 25, 26, and today and to call another office to check using a different ISP.
MICT, at 2 pm April 27, denied blocking FACT’s website despite the fact that users are redirected to http://w3.mict.go.th. This is, of course, simply not credible! Meanwhile, FACT’s website is still inaccessible for me on CAT Hi-net ISP.
All administrative functions for FACT’s WordPress site using https are now blocked. Furthermore, the latest post in which I advised users to switch to HTTPS for access had been modified so the URLs read only HTTP on FACT’s public front page but, on editing, return to HTTPS. Hackers or MICT?
TOT unblocked FACT’s website (“sorry for your inconvenient”) around four PM April 27; CAT unblocked around six PM April 28. (True never implemented blocking.) I have insisted to both ISPs that they provide detailed information on the MICT “request” and the dates of blocking. If this was accomplished during the Emergency Decree, it’s legal; otherwise, MICT needed a court order to comply with the Computer Crimes Act. It is likely smaller ISPs will be slower to unblock.
The very least FACT expects from the ICT minister, Ranongruk Suwanachee, is a formal and public apology. None of the information on FACT has been deleted or altered from the time of blocking to the time of unblocking. This means there never was any illegal content on FACTsite.
This has been a valuable lesson for FACT and shows how completely arbitrary Internet censorship really is, in Thailand and everywhere.
FACT wishes to work with MICT and the ISPs to create a clear and simple procedure for website owners to appeal blocking.
Very few have fought or would fight as hard as I did. Next time, FACT hopes to see them in court!
CJ Hinke
Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT)
Replace NHRC members now!-Human Rights Watch
Thailand: Replace Flawed Rights Panel
Unqualified Candidates Were Selected by Secret and Illegal Process
Human Rights Watch: May 13, 2009
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/13/thailand-replace-flawed-rights-panel
Thailand is facing grave human rights challenges and needs a serious and committed commission to work on them. Instead, inexperienced and unqualified people were placed on this commission in a way that clearly broke the rules. The best thing these members can do for human rights is to step down.
The newly appointed members of Thailand’s National Human Rights Commission, whose selection process violated constitutional requirements and international standards, should resign to restore the commission’s credibility, Human Rights Watch said today. Upcoming constitutional reforms should include a new selection process that will ensure independence, transparency, public scrutiny, and broad-based participation.
The seven new members approved by the Senate on May 1, 2009, in a closed session, include one who was a subject of a commission investigation and several with no experience in human rights. Several highly qualified candidates were rejected.
“Thailand is facing grave human rights challenges and needs a serious and committed commission to work on them,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Instead, inexperienced and unqualified people were placed on this commission in a way that clearly broke the rules. The best thing these members can do for human rights is to step down.”
On March 11, the secretary of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) invited applications for new commissioners after the terms of the previous commissioners had expired. The commission received 133 applications. The selection committee, consisting of five senior judges and the president of the parliament, met to consider the applications on April 8. On April 10, the committee sent seven nominees, including one who has been the subject of a commission investigation, to the Senate for consideration and approval. The Senate effectively rubber-stamped the committee’s nominees.
The seven nominees were: Police General Vanchai Srinuwalnad, assistant commissioner general of the Royal Thai Police; Parinya Sirisarakarn, former member of the Constitution Drafting Assembly of Thailand (2007) and a prominent industrialist; Paibool Varahapaitoorn, secretary to the Office of the Constitutional Court; Visa Penjamano, inspector-general, Ministry of Social Development and Human Security; Taejing Siripanich, secretary, Don’t Drive Drunk Foundation; Nirand Pithakwachara, former elected senator for Ubon Ratchathani; and Professor Amara Pongsapich, former dean, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
The new commissioners do not come from a diverse range of social backgrounds, nor do any of them represent human rights groups. More important, local human rights groups have protested that the new commissioners lack necessary first-hand experience in protecting and promoting human rights. Vanchai, Parinya, Paibool, and Visa, in particular, have no experience at all and have no public record of demonstrating basic understanding of human rights.
In 2007, Parinya was named in a commission investigation as responsible for causing environmental damage in Thailand’s northeastern region, where he holds a license to extract salt. Parinya’s lack of commitment to promoting universal human rights was evident in an oral presentation to the Thai Senate in which he dismissed “Western criticisms of Burma” as “foreign interference” in domestic affairs. In that light, if made a commissioner, he stated that he would not welcome international intervention on human rights issues in Thailand.
Human Rights Watch said that candidates who have solid records in defending human rights were rejected, including: the Muslim activist Angkhana Neelapaijit, from the Working Group on Justice for Peace, who has spent many years documenting and exposing abuses in the southern border provinces; Wallop Tangkananurak, a prominent child rights defender; and Pairoj Polpetch, who monitors compliance of Thai laws with international human rights standards.
“None of the new human rights commissioners has a reputation for working on human rights,” said Adams. “The prominent human rights professionals who applied were ignored, calling into question whether the commission will be serious or has been set up to serve entrenched interests.”
Human Rights Watch said that the government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has committed itself to the protection of human rights and to differentiate itself from its recent predecessors, including the abusive government of Thaksin Shinawatra and the military junta. But neither the government nor the opposition party has made any effort to discuss the need to ensure the selection of independent and qualified human rights commissioners as part of planned constitutional reforms.
Under section 256 of the 2007 Constitution of Thailand, the NHRC commissioners should be persons “having apparent knowledge and experiences in the protection of rights and liberties of the people, having regard also to the participation of representatives from private organizations in the field of human rights.”
The Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions on human rights (“The Paris Principles”), which were adopted by United Nations General Assembly in 1993, state that: “The composition of the national institution and the appointment of its members, whether by means of an election or otherwise, shall be established in accordance with a procedure which affords all necessary guarantees to ensure the pluralist representation of the social forces (of civilian society) involved in the protection and promotion of human rights.” The Paris Principles state that members of government departments, if included in a national human rights commission, “should participate in the deliberations only in an advisory capacity.”
“The commissioners should resign to make it possible for a new selection,” said Adams. “To prevent the same mistakes from being made again, the constitution should be amended to establish a selection process that ensures independence, transparency, public scrutiny, and broad-based participation in the selection of NHRC commissioners.”
The selection of the previous commission was made under the terms of the 1997 Constitution and was based on the active involvement of representatives of civil society, the media, and other social sectors, unlike the exclusive panel of judges and one representative of the incumbent party that made the new selections under the military-junta-sponsored constitution of 2007.
This new selection committee chose the seven nominees based solely upon the written forms and supporting documents that they submitted. In contrast, the nominees to the previous commission were thoroughly examined by the Senate before approval. There was virtually no attempt in the process used this year to inform the public about what was going on, let alone to allow public scrutiny and debate on the appropriateness of the short-listed candidates. An online form to leave questions on the Senate website was not available until the afternoon before the cutoff date.
Competence, efficiency, and independence have been the main challenges facing the human rights body from its inception. Former Prime Minister Thaksin had encouraged government officials and the security forces to disregard investigations and recommendations of the commission concerning state-sanctioned abuses. These included the 2003 “war on drugs” and extrajudicial tactics used by various police and security units in the context of counterinsurgency in Thailand’s southern border provinces. Annual budget allocations for the commission had also been restricted by the government.
Yet some commissioners and staff worked hard to monitor and investigate abuses across Thailand. Some of their interventions in the southern border provinces saved the lives of victims of arbitrary arrests and torture. Similarly, they had exposed and stopped a number of government and private projects that severely endangered public safety and the environment across the country.
Zionist academic censorship-IndyBay
[FACT comments: In today’s war-mongers’ world, it has long been politically incorrect to comment on the West’s obsession with Israel. Why? This article provides some of the answers.]
Zionist censorship at colleges and universities
George Salzman
IndyBay: May 13, 2009
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/05/13/18594616.php
I first became ‘actively aware’ of the strenuous effort of Zionist groups in North America to suppress open public discussion of Israeli policy in universities about two years ago from an e-mail sent by a friend in Egypt. That involved a campaign which successfully prevented Norman G. Finkelstein from gaining his well-deserved tenure at De Paul University in Chicago.[1]
Since then there has been no shortage of attacks on uncensored discussion in Canadian and U.S. colleges and universities. A particularly fierce instance of this widespread drive is the recent firing of a long-time tenured physics professor by the University of Ottawa.
Denis G. Rancourt, after 23 years on the faculty, was fired on 31 March 2009. Until then he was a tenured Full Professor of Physics at the Univ of Ottawa with a robust, indeed remarkably outstanding professional research record. His chief immediate antagonist, who temporarily bested him, is Allan Rock, who was appointed President of the university in July 2008. Rancourt has, so far as I know, consistently been a maverick faculty member, insisting on his “right” to be guided by his own understanding of what education should mean rather than by the dictates of the university’s administrative apparatchiks, whose true function is to maintain the dominant social ideology.[2]
At the moment a strong pro-Zionist, anti-Palestinian ideology predominates in Canada, as shown in the article linked to in [2]. My belief is that Rancourt’s conjecture is correct, that among the real reasons for the attack on him by the administration is his critical view of the Zionist-dominated government of Israel. Of course no administrator admits this as a reason, but the fact that a strongly Zionist-oriented administration fired him, on patently contrived grounds, lends credence to this belief.
I will include a somewhat lengthy excerpt from Rancourt’s statement of 10 April 2009 on his dismissal in which he provides a shocking account of the vengefulness — the sheer spitefulness — with which the administrators acted, directly harming not only Rancourt but others at the university, research assistants and undergraduate and graduate students who were not initially involved in any conflict with the administration. Apparently the administrators found this to be acceptable ‘collateral damage’ to innocent parties, as did the Zionist Nazis who conducted the bombing and attendant slaughter of children in Gaza only some weeks earlier.
First however I want to say that I am publicizing all this distasteful information about five North American campuses against the advice of a good friend, a non-Jewish Canadian who said it would be providing material to anti-Semites to use as a Trojan Horse for attacking Jews under the guise of supporting Palestinians. My friend wrote, “We live in a society that is steeped in racism. There is a HELL of a lot of racism and anti-semitism among the WASP proletariat especially. It has not gone away and is not going anywhere . . . We are simply stoking the fires of anti-semitism. What we need to do is to take down capitalism and imperialism. It is the only way to stop the colonialism in Palestine anyway.” I don’t doubt that my friend is correct on several counts, although I personally haven’t exerienced anti-Semitism. He is surely correct in seeing the absolute need to do away with capitalism and imperialism. Nevertheless I believe it is important to state the truth as we understand it and to make clear that while we are severely critical of the destructive actions of some groups in which people of Jewish ethnicity play a large role, we are not in opposition to any ethnicity per se. Individuals, of whatever ethnic heritge, should be judged on the basis of their individual qualities.
Turning now to Rancourt’s statement of 10 April 2009 on his dismissal, to which I give a great deal of credence, he says,[3]
“It appears that among the real reasons for the university’s attempts to discipline me since September 2005 and for its recent most harsh actions against me under President Allan Rock’s mandate might be the administration’s opposition to my political views about the Palestine-Israel conflict, which, starting in 2005, I have expressed in articles, on radio, in my blog postings, at public venues, and in my classes. In September 2005 the dean cancelled my Physics and the Environment course following a complaint (regarding an email comment about Zionism), channelled through the university’s Canadian Studies Institute director Pierre Anctil to the VP-Academic. A complaint against an invited speaker in the course, Professor Michel Chossudovsky — who spoke about Middle East geopolitics, from the Jewish Student Association then gave rise to a sustained but failed attempt to discipline me. In 2006 I invited two Canadian-Palestinian speakers to address the class in my Science in Society course. This was followed by a damning January-2007 editorial in The Ottawa Citizen and I was subsequently removed from teaching all the first-year courses that I had developed. The Ottawa Citizen is a CanWest newspaper and its director is a member of the university’s Board of Governors. CanWest Global Communications Corporation is a staunch advocate and supporter of Israeli policy. In 2007 I criticized the university’s official position on the academic boycott of Israel on my UofOWatch.blogspot.com blog. The repression against me intensified when new university president Allan Rock, a staunch supporter of Israeli policy, arrived on the scene in July 2008. I was disciplined for the UofOWatch blog with an unpaid suspension in September 2008, by a decision of the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors (EBOG). The latter suspension was followed by many more severe actions against me (see below) and is being used by the university as an argument in my dismissal.
“The university became markedly more aggressive in its attacks against me after the arrival of Allan Rock in July 2008. Whereas, previous disciplines that started in 2005 were limited to letters of reprimand and of allegation (all withdrawn or overturned), the arrival of former federal politician and proven supporter of Israeli policy Allan Rock coincided with:
* my removal from all teaching
* a one-day suspension without pay for my blog critical of the university,
* an unannounced lockout from my laboratory actuated under false pretext,
* dismantling of my laboratory,
* my removal from my graduate students,
* reprisals and intimidations against my graduate students,
* university-imposed unilateral deregistration of my undergraduate research student,
* an unannounced firing of my research associate of 12 years,
* my suspension from all my duties,
* my physical barring from campus, including from my weekly campus radio show,
* a lockout from my office,
* my police arrest under a false claim of trespassing while hosting my regular weekly Cinema Academica event,
* public university statements defaming me, and
* my dismissal — allegedly for having assigned twenty three A+s in a combined fourth-year and graduate physics course.
“The March 31st university decision to dismiss me was itself tainted with Israel-aligned political influence. The decision was made by the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors (EBOG) with members Allan Rock and Ruth Freiman present.”
Mr. Rancourt goes on to show, in a “supplementary brief that the university refused to receive” that both Allan Rock and Ruth Freiman, because of close ties to the ‘Israel-supporting’ community, should not have participated in the EBOG meeting. They, and the rest of the board, violated their university’s own protocol.
The reaction to these outrageous attacks by the Univ of Ottawa Administration is in all likelihood proving far greater than the administration anticipated. Particulaly telling, I think, is a letter from a research scientist at the Univ of California at Berkeley, pointing to the damage to the Univ of Ottawa in the international scientific arena. Ignacio Chapela, who wrote it, is the researcher who, with his student, first discovered the presence of genetically contaminated corn in Oaxaca. The resolution of this conflict will be critically important for the quality of education in Canada.[4]
In the United States, unlike in Canada, the effort to suppress open discussion of the Israel-Palestine conflict in colleges and universities is largely unhidden. Alan Dershowitz of Harvard, Abraham Foxman of the so-called Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and others of their ilk charge around spewing their hatred on any academics, especially Jewish ones, who have a critical word to say about Israeli policy. These self-pitying Jews see any compassion in response to the suffering inflicted on the Palestinians by the conquering Israelis as a sure sign of anti-Semitism. These self-appointed ‘righteous defenders of Israel’ endlessly trumpet their delusions, incapable of understanding a world with more than enough suffering to go around for everyone. My impression is that this less hidden arrogance in the U.S. is being met with a more open counter attack by students and others in the U.S. who reject the Zionists’ claims of anti-Semitism.
William I. Robinson is the focal point of a concerted attack by Foxman and his ADL on the Univ of California-Santa Barbara (UCSB). Robinson is a tenured professor of sociology at UCSB, where he has been teaching since 2001. Prior to UCSB he taught on the faculties of the Univ of New Mexico, the Univ of Tennessee, and New Mexico State University. According to his website, in addition to sociology he is “also affiliated with the Latin American and Iberian Studies Program, and with the Global and International Studies Program at UCSB. [His] scholarly research focuses on: macro and comparative sociology, globalization and transnationalism, political economy, political sociology, development and social change, Latin America and the Third World, and Latina/o studies.”
His vitae indicates that prior to his graduate studies at the Univ of New Mexico his education included a B.A. in Journalism (major) and International Studies (minor) at the Friends World College, Huntington, N.Y. (completed in 1981), which included four years of study in Kenya, Nigeria and Costa Rica.[5]
The attack on Robinson was triggered by his reaction to the Israeli assault on Gaza. Among the materials that he normally e-mails to his students he included graphic images of the bombardment, obviously not calculated to stimulate sympathy for the Israeli government. Two Jewish students were evidentally badly shaken and quite promptly withdrew from the course. It appears to me from what I have seen on the website of the group of undergraduate and graduate students’ Committee to Defend Academic Freedom at UCSB (CDAF-UCSB) [6] that the two students were manipulated by the local chapter of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to file complaints against Robinson. Whether they withdrew from the course before or after the ADL guard dogs of Israel’s undeserved stellar moral reputation got to them I do not know. But a glance at their complaints is enough to show the absence of any substantive grounds for their actions.
Additional evidence of the unsavory subterfuge employed by the ADL is in a recent posting on the CDAF-UCSB site headlined, “BREAKING NEWS: UC-Santa Barbara faculty member goes public about ADL pressure, May 2, 2009. History professor attended meeting where Abraham Foxman pushed UCSB to act against sociology professor.” Imagine Foxman, as dishonest as the ADL which he heads, using tax-exempt money of this 501-C3 coercion group to fly from Washington D.C. to Santa Barbara to pressure UCSB in a supposedly secret meeting to censor Robinson. No shortage of chutzpah there. This is an attack against the campus from an outside pressure group, and it appears that there is vigorous opposition to the UCSB administration’s initial weak-kneed acquiescence to the ADL demand to investigate Robinson. Of course it is unacceptable that the Foxman outfit and his Israel-first cohort are able to harass Robinson, but if they are strongly repulsed it can serve to strengthen adherence to academic freedom at UCSB and elsewhere.
Each circumstance of struggle of course has its own particularities. I highlighted the events in which Professors Rancourt and Robinson are currenty caught up because it seems to me these are the the two most ‘inflamed’ situations right now. Canada strikes me as being even worse than the United States in terms of the audacity of the university administration in firing a tenured, well-respected scientist, and the seeming inadequacy of any organized forceful challenge and refusal by the students to accept Rancourt’s mistreatment. At Santa Barbara the students appear to have formed a vigorous opposition in support of Robinson. The situations of Joel Kovel and Norman G. Finkelstein are markedly different. Kovel, born in August 1936, is approaching 73. Apparently he is now seeking a resolution of his conflict with Bard that does not involve his reappointment. Finkelstein, a good deal younger than Kovel, when he was denied tenure at De Paul University two years ago, came to a resolution of his conflict with that institution, and has continued as a very active public educator on the same issues that stirred the Zionist attack dogs to work against his tenure. I anticipate that Kovel will continue to put forward his ideas publicly.
Joel Kovel taught for over twenty years at Bard College where he was a professor. From the standpoint of those who support the Zionist project his outspoken and highly informed criticism of the nation-state of Israel is particularly unwelcome. My account in a draft version of the mistreatment accorded one of his books was incorrect. Professor Kovel kindly sent me an accurate version, for which I am thankful. It follows:
His 2007 book, Overcoming Zionism: Creating a single democratic state in Israel/Palestine, was taken out of distribution by the University of Michigan Press — normally the distributor of the British publisher, Pluto Press — after pressure by the Zionist Thought Police. StandWithUs/Michigan, a branch of the Campus Watch movement founded by Daniel Pipes, assailed the book, and the Director of the U of M Press, immediately caved in. After pressure got the book restored to circulation, the press proceeded to cancel the distribution contract with Pluto, perhaps the largest publisher in the English language of works critical of Israel. Pluto has since rebuilt a contract with a private distributor, and Overcoming Zionism as well as its other anti-Zionist works are back in circulation.[7]
As for Bard College’s treatment of Kovel, he writes that on 7 Feb 2009 the Bard administration notified him that as of June 30, 2009, when his current 5-year contract expires, it will not be renewed and he will be placed on emeritus status on that day. Kovel maintains that this administrative action is “motivated neither by intellectual nor pedagogic considerations, but by political values, principally stemming from differences between [him]self and the Bard administration on the issue of Zionism . . . [T]he evidence shows a pattern of conflict over Zionism only too reminiscent of innumerable instances in this country in which critics of Israel have been made to pay, often with their careers, for speaking out.”[8]
Norman Finkelstein, initially barred, got to speak at Clark University after all. He had been invited by a student group at Clark, and scheduled to speak 23 April 2009 on the Gaza massacre of 27 Dec 2008-17 Jan 2008. Shortly before the scheduled event John Bassett, the President of Clark, cancelled the event. However, apparently in response to a deluge of protests and widespread negative publicity, he quickly reversed himself, saying in a (form) e-mail I received from him on 20 April, “George, I believe the talk is scheduled for April 27, only four days later than they had originally planned.” Some details are in the final item in Note [1], which has a link to Finkelstein’s website.
Outspoken concerned humanitarian voices at U.S. and Canadian colleges and universities are by no means being attacked only by Zionists. But Zionists play a large role. The five institutions considered in this note are examples. We must insist on open public discussion free of all censorship, an effort in which we can be successful, with generous use of the internet.
—–
http://site.http://www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/t/2009-05-12.htm
Malaysia's royals play politics-Prachatai
Malaysia does not need royal meddling
Susan Loone
Prachatai: May 13, 2009
http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/1207
MALAYSIA made history on May 7, for all the wrong reasons, and would probably go down in the Book of Records as the only country in the world who arrests its citizens for wearing black.
May 7 was the day a royalty was said to have ‘interfered’ in the country’s democracy by allowing Perak, a northern state, to hold a state legislature assembly, while the case of who is chief minister of it was yet to be determined by the High Court.
Until February 5, this state was ruled by the People’s Alliance, a coalition of Opposition parties which former deputy prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim, helped pull together before the last general elections on 8 March 2008.
Much to the delight of ordinary folks, the High Court decided on May 11, that the chief minister is Nizar Jamaluddin, from the People’s Alliance. But the government is now appealing the case in the Court of Appeal.
A day before May 7, police went on a frenzy and nabbed more than 70 people, including civil activists and lawyers, who protested the sitting of the state legislature, which they deem “unconstitutional”.
Well known social activist and newspaper columnist Wong Chin Huat was detained under the Sedition Act for the call to “wear black” to protest the “illegal” state sitting.
What citizens want, according to Wong, is fresh state elections, so they could decide who to govern them.
Wong, who is also a Journalism lecturer, spent three nights in jail without access to his lawyer. His activist friends who held candlelight vigils for his release outside the prison were detained too. Lawyers who went there to represent their clients were nabbed as well.
Although police released all detainees on May 8, the world watched in disbelief how legal eagles could be jailed for attempting to communicate with their clients, something beyond the imagination of any right thinking democracy.
Even a member of Malaysia’s ruling coalition, the Malaysian Chinese Association (or MCA) legal bureau chairman Leong Tang Cheong lambasted the police for ‘abuse of Police Power’ and said it was a direct affront to the laws of the country and must be condemned”.
This week alone, the government did a few stunts which rendered obsolete Najib Razak’s ‘1Malaysia’ slogan (calling for unity and equality of all Malaysians just as he ascended to power on April 5).
Prominent Opposition leader Lim Kit Siang said the slogan has been “shredded to smithereens”.
For absurdity of Malaysian politics did not end with the prohibition of wearing black, or arrests of lawyers.
On May 6, police confiscated a cake with the message ‘Happy Birthday Altantuya’, smashed it for ‘security reasons’, and carried its remains in a car, which also ferried two Opposition supporters to jail.
The group was detained in front of Najib’s office for handing over a letter to him from Altantuya’s dad, Stev Shariibuu, asking him to ‘settle his daughter’s murder case’.
Najib’s two body guards bombed the woman with explosives only available from the ministry of defense, when Najib was defense minister. His close friend, political analyst Razak Baginda, escaped the gallows.
Other than this baggage which came along with Najib to Putrajaya, he added one more by incurring the wrath of the people, by the recent power grab episode in Perak.
He was abetted by the Perak Ruler Sultan Azlan Shah, former Lord President, who ought to know the legalities of the issues better than others.
As it happened, the royal decision led to chaos in the Assembly. House speaker V.Sivakumar of the People’s Alliance was dragged out in an unsightly manner out of his seat and barred from entering the premises.
He was replaced by another speaker, R.Ganesan, from Najib’s party.
What ensued after that was a shouting match, where insults were traded, and decency became cheap. Microphones were switched off, flower pots went flying, pepper spray used, while women state reps cried sexual harassment.
It was a ‘political tragedy of the worst imaginable kind’, said Tunku Aziz, renowned former vice-chairman of the Malaysian Chapter of Transparency International.
“I never for a moment thought I should live to see the day when a traditional hereditary ruler of a Malay State has taken such a rapid slide in his people’s estimation, approbation and adulation as has the Sultan Azlan Shah of Perak,” lamented Aziz, who is also a senator in Penang.
Former UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Param Cumarasamy described the situation as a “crisis leading to anarchy”.
“Rulers must not only be above politics but must be seen to be so,” said Param, and how we Malaysians agree with him.
After the Perak crisis, Malaysians now know that Democracy is their birth right, a precious gem, which must not be given up so easily.
Susan Loone is a former journalist currently residing in Bangkok. She can be contacted at susanloone@gmail.com and blogs actively on Malaysian politics at http://www.sloone.wordpress.com.
Ireland's anti-blasphemy law-The Register
Ireland bucks trend with anti-blasphemy law
Protection for the pious cometh, and that right soon?
The Register: May 8, 2009
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/08/ireland_blashpemy/
Take the Lord’s name in vain and if the lightning bolt doesn’t get you, the Irish Government soon will.
That’s the fond hope of Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern, who last week proposed the insertion of a blasphemy clause into the Defamation Bill, currently before the Irish Parliament. The clear intention behind this move is to hit naysayers and non-believers where it hurts them most – in their pockets.
The clause states: “A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000.”
It then defines “Blasphemous matter” as “grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage”.
The reason behind the proposal would appear to be a small logical difficulty with the Irish Constitution. This contains provisions which state that “the publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent material is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law” – but there is no actual law against blasphemy.
On the single occasion that an attempt was made to prosecute a satirical Irish newspaper under this provision – Corway v Independent Newspapers, in 1999 – the Supreme Court eventually concluded that it was not possible to say “of what the offence of blasphemy consists”.
For these reasons, the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, last year recommended that the Constitution be amended to remove all references to sedition and blasphemy, and redrafted to bring it into line of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, providing a positive right to freedom of expression.
That would be one solution: the Minister for Justice’s proposal is another. Critics of this proposal point out that the Constitution also includes provision for freedom of expression, subject to the proviso that it not undermine public order and morality. Moreover, a law that defended only the Christian deity would be in breach of article 44, which guarantees religious equality.
Labour spokesman on Justice Pat Rabbitte has proposed an alternative approach. He has put forward an amendment that accepts the principle of a blasphemy law, but reduces the maximum fine to €1,000 and specifically excepts from the definition of blasphemy any material which has “literary, artistic, social or academic merit”.
It may appear strange that the Irish are looking to introduce such a law at the very moment that other governments – in particular the UK government – are doing away with specific provisions on blasphemy. The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 made it an offence to “stir up hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion”.
This was followed by the abolition of much older common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2008, on the grounds that they were inappropriate to a modern society and Christian-centric. However, they left open the possibility of quirky prosecutions, such as that of Gay News by Mary Whitehouse in 1977 for daring to publish a poem – “The Love that dares to speak its name” by James Kirkup – that openly speculated about Jesus’ sexuality.
The law has therefore evolved away from protecting the dignity of a remote celestial being – whom many clergy have always believed to be quite capable of looking after Himself – to dissuading people from attacking other individuals on the grounds of their religious belief. According to the Government, the test in UK law – of inciting hatred – goes some way further than simply hurting the feelings of believers, and requires a conscious effort on the part of the offender to threaten or cause harm.
Insofar as it talks about the feelings of religious groups, the Irish proposal appears to sit halfway between the older UK concept of blasphemy, and the newer model designed to protect individuals from harm.
However, if the Government gets its way, UK Law in this area looks set to move on a stage further, as the Equality Bill, now before Parliament brings together nine separate pieces of legislation and creates a single framework for all legislation on discrimination. This is either a simple tidying up measure or, as some critics have warned, a rag bag of “protected characteristics” that will give those who have such characteristics greater rights before the law than those without them.
A person bullied for their intense belief in Scientology, then, will receive strengthened protection under this law – someone bullied because they are obese, dress like a Goth, or for no apparent reason will have to stick up for themselves.
