Cheney Authorised Torture

Presumably he has also ordered for the Statue of Liberty to be torn down:

The US vice-president approved the use of waterboarding against al-Qaeda suspects, US media reports have said.

Dick Cheney and other senior Bush administration officials attended meetings to approve harsh interrogation techniques, which took place after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US, ABC news and The Associated Press reported.

The officials took care to insulate George Bush, the US president, from the meetings, where waterboarding - simulating drowning and feelings of suffocation by causing reflexive choking and gagging - sleep deprivation and slaps and pushes were approved, according to the reports.

Participants were said to be members of a National Security Council's Principals Committee, a senior group of advisors to the president Bush.

Condoleezza Rice, formerly national security adviser now US secretary of state, Donald Rumsfeld, the former US defence secretary, Colin Powell, who was secretary of state, George Tenet, the former CIA director and John Ashcroft, the former US attorney-general also reportedly attended the meetings.

All in the name of freedom and democracy. Don't it make ya proud?

Taiwan - China's Other Problem

"We are also determined to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

President G W Bush 8th March 2005

Whilst the media has been focused on the ongoing situation in Tibet and its struggle for freedom, the situation in Taiwan has been generally overlooked, and yet it exposes the double standard at the heart of US/UK foreign policy.

Taiwan first applied for UN membership in July of last year. The Chinese government, however, saw this as a threat to the unity of China and gave very clear warnings to Taiwan should they continue to proceed along these lines, threatening to use force if it continues to pursue a course of independence. Despite these continued threats, the Taiwanese government decided to press forward with a referendum on UN membership which was scheduled to take place today. What is particularly interesting about this fight for freedom and democracy, is the stance taken by the United States and the United Kingdom.

In the light of the Bush administration's 'commitment to democracy' (as opposed for their lust to control the earth's resources), one would expect there to be noises of encouragement emanating from the White House - no such luck. Instead, the United States government has been echoing similar sentiments to that of the Chinese government - this is not a welcome development. When discussing the proposed Taiwanese referendum towards the end of last year, Condoleeza Rice said the following:

"We think that Taiwan's referendum to apply to the United Nations under the name 'Taiwan' is a provocative policy.

"It unnecessarily raises tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and it promises no real benefits for the people of Taiwan on the international stage."

'
Provocative'? 'No real benefit?'. Unusual terms to describe the desire of the Taiwanese people to be free, an ideal that the Bush administration apparently believed in. How quickly these high ideals are abandoned when faced with a more serious foe than the pathetic offering of the Iraqi army. Could it be that the US only supports democracy when it knows it can defeat the enemies of this high ideal? When it could lead to a conflict they would likely lose, suddenly democracy doesn't seem that important anymore. And yet, Bush claims to 'support the growth of democratic movements' across the world.

It now appears that the movement towards independence has been nothing more than a blip in the recent history of Taiwan. Reports suggest that Ma Ying-jeou, of the Kuomintang party, has won the election by 17%. Ma has committed himself to even stronger ties with China and has proposed a formal peace treaty with Beijing. Although it is difficult to say how much impact the reaction to the referendum from Beijing and Washington has had on the poll (the referendum did not garner enough votes to be valid), the threat of military invasion from China would have done much to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of the Taiwanese. Furthermore, Ma has been particularly clever in his campaigning. Understanding that there was growing concern regarding the situation in Tibet, Ma criticised the authorities in Beijing to ease fears at home whilst also claiming he would not push the issue with China (thus preserving the facade of independence and pleasing both his masters in Beijing and Taiwan).

The real winners in this election has been the capitalists, who have been pushing for closer ties with China for some time. China has been a major source of business for Taiwanese capitalists in recent years, as one Taiwanese resident pointed out:

"Nowadays Taiwanese capitalists hire at least ten million workers in China and almost all Taiwan’s top 50 manufacturing companies have subsidiaries there. The mainland’s abundant cheap labour, cheap land, tax-breaks and subsidies for foreign companies, mean that China has actually become the main source of profit for Taiwanese capitalism".

Even in communist China's sphere of influence capitalism rules, no wonder the US was keen to turn a blind eye to the calls for democracy in Taiwan. As a result of which, it appears that the flame of democracy has been extinguished in Taiwan, and both China and the US have conspired to snuff it out.

Pakistan Geared for Part II of the 'Good Dictatorship'

Who would have thunk it? One of America's best friends guilty of rigging an election. The following is taken from Human Rights Watch:

In an audio recording obtained by Human Rights Watch, Pakistan’s Attorney General Malik Qayyum stated that upcoming parliamentary elections will be “massively rigged,” Human Rights Watch said today.

In the recording, Qayyum appears to be advising an unidentified person on what political party the person should approach to become a candidate in the upcoming parliamentary election, now scheduled for February 18, 2008.

Human Rights Watch said that the recording was made during a phone interview with a member of the media on November 21, 2007. Qayyum, while still on the phone interview, took a call on another telephone and his side of that conversation was recorded. The recording was made the day after Pakistan’s Election Commission announced the schedule for polls. The election was originally planned for January 8 but was postponed after the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. Another former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, returned to Pakistan on November 25. An English translation of the recording, which is in Urdu and Punjabi, follows:

“Leave Nawaz Sharif (PAUSE).... I think Nawaz Sharif will not take part in the election (PAUSE).... If he does take part, he will be in trouble. If Benazir takes part she too will be in trouble (PAUSE).... They will massively rig to get their own people to win. If you can get a ticket from these guys, take it (PAUSE).... If Nawaz Sharif does not return himself, then Nawaz Sharif has some advantage. If he comes himself, even if after the elections rather than before (PAUSE)…. Yes….”

Repeated attempts by Human Rights Watch to contact Qayyum by phone were unsuccessful.

Fears of rigging have been a major issue in the current election campaign. Human Rights Watch said that since the official election period commenced in November 2007, there have been numerous allegations of irregularities, including arrests and harassment of opposition candidates and party members. There are also allegations that state resources, administration and state machinery are being used to the advantage of candidates backed by President Pervez Musharraf. Human Rights Watch expressed concern that the Election Commission, which is monitoring the polls, was not acting impartially.

You can hear the audio clip here.

Who would think that a man who overthrew a democratic government, would then load the dice so heavily in his favour with barely a murmour from the US? Only a fool would suggest that Musharraf will lose out in the election tomorrow. He has already won.

Burma - Rebel Leader Murdered

From the BBC:

The secretary general of Burma's largest rebel group, the Karen National Union, has been killed.
Pado Mahn Shar, who was in his sixties, was shot at his home in the Thai border town of Mae Sot, his family said.

He was targetted by two men in a pick-up truck, while sitting on the veranda of his home. He died instantly.

The KNU and its military wing, the Karen National Liberation Army, have spent nearly 60 years fighting the Burmese government.

From The Burma Campaign:

Statement from the children of Padoh Mahn Sha Lah Phan
14 Feb 2008

We are very sad to lose a great father and a great leader.

We were lucky to have a father who was caring and full of love. He gave us guidance and support, and taught us tolerance and to stand against injustice. He could not give us wealth or luxury, but ensured that we had an education and the opportunity to fulfill our potential

He was always humble, yet a strong and brave leader. He dedicated his life to the struggle, and always put the welfare of his people and his country before himself. His example of determination and self-sacrifice to win our freedom won him the love and respect of not just the Karen people, but also the Burmese democracy movement and of freedom loving people around the world.

He will be remembered by many not only as an inspirational leader, but also on a personal level for the many acts of kindness he performed for those who needed help.

We are proud to be his children, as all Karen people and all people who long for freedom in Burma are proud of him.

Our father may be dead, but we will remember him. He taught us that it was our duty to work for the Karen people, and as his children we will continue his dedicated work towards true freedom for our people and peace in our country.

His determination for freedom and democracy lives on within us and within the Karen people. He did not live to see freedom for our people, but his dream will be fulfilled. The Karen, and all the people of Burma, will be free.

We will be establishing a foundation in memory of our father. For the time being, donations can be made online at http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/

Saw Say Say
Nant Bwa Bwa Phan
Nant Zoya Phan
Slone Phan


A brief biography of Padoh Mahn Sha

Padoh Mahn Sha Lah Phan was born in Rangoon on 5th July 1943.
He graduated from Rangoon University in 1966 with a degree in history.
He joined the Karen National Union (KNU) in 1963. In 1964 he became a member of the KNU Central Committee, and was elected Joint General Secretary in 1995. He was elected General Secretary in 2000, and is also a member of the Secretariat of the National Council of the Union of Burma, the umbrella organisation representing organisations in the Burmese democracy movement.

Padoh Mahn Sha married Nant Kyin Shwe in 1976. She passed away on 31st July 2004. He is survived by four children, two sons and two daughters; Saw Say Say, Nant Bwa Bwa Phan, Nant Zoya Phan, Slone Phan.

Watch Out, Pesky Religious Extremists About....

Yes, once more a bunch of religious zealots are threatening the democratic process. Once more these extremists are seeking to gain power. Once more, fanatics are aiming to destabilise a democratically elected government to suit their own ends. However, this time it's not Islam but the Catholic Church who are at it (via Bloomberg):

It isn't just People's Party leader Mariano Rajoy who's running against Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

Spain's Catholic bishops, angered by the prime minister's decisions to legalize gay marriage and speed divorce procedures, are targeting his re-election effort with messages urging their flock to use the March 9 election to overturn what they call "seriously unjust" policies.

While the Spanish clergy has released moral-guidance notes in most elections since Spain became a democracy in 1978, it has never before so pointedly targeted a candidate.

With Mass attendance at its lowest level ever, the nation's Catholic leaders "feel they are under attack by secular forces, and are defending themselves like a wounded beast by lashing back," said Sebastian Balfour, professor of Spanish studies at the London School of Economics. "This shows the extent of the politicization of the church."

In December, the first church-organized protest in 30 years drew 1 million supporters in Madrid; Pope Benedict XVI spoke via video link. The capital's archbishop accused the premier of taking a "step backward for human rights."

Of course, the Catholic church are still bitter that Franco's Catholic obsessed tyranny came to an end and the people had a right to determine the direction of their country for the first time in forty years. Oh how they yearn for the days of the sercet police and 100% church attendence. How they wish another Franco would crush those pesky atheists and secularists. The right's favourite religion, still infatuated with dictatorship and tyranny.

Venezuela and the Referendum - BBC Just Not Right-Wing Enough

So, there we have it, Hugo Chavez did not win the referendum for his constitutional reforms. The world has not ended. Chavez has accepted the results of the vote with good grace. Still, there is plenty for the mainstream media to crow about, and one of the culprits has the dubious pleasure of being both hyper-critical of Hugo Chavez (see here) as well as being perceived as a left-wing organisation. Strange times indeed. So let's take a look at the output on Venezuela by this fabled left-wing institution shall we?

So far, so innocuous. But it is when examining the detail that the true message shines through like a beacon. Not much further down comes the first telling quote:

Yes, somehow those words are a direct reference to his attempted coup aren't they? I'm not sure why this is particularly relevant. Yes they failed, yes he is obviously going to present it to the public again at some point in the near future. But the question remains, why refer to a coup attempt 15 years ago? Then it gets worse:


The inference clearing being that, through this referendum (and therein lies the key - a referendum), Chavez was aiming to establish a dictatorship. This is on the basis that he wanted to stand an unlimited number of times for President, a bit like the UK. And it also refers to the oft-repeated claims about him being in power until 2050 (more on that later).

Then, in case you didn't get the point drummed into you:

Have you got it yet?? Chavez=dictatorship according to this 'left-wing' media outlet. So there we go, the BBC recipe for a left-wing viewpoint. Sprinkle liberally with references to dictatorships and militant tendencies and allow to stand. Brilliant. These guys must be immensely clever to hide a left-wing ideology in their writings. Either that, or there are a lot of very dim-witted people out there - you decide.



But it's not just the BBC, oh no. The Guardian have let a couple of things slip over this issue. Take this reference on their website:





There's that 2050 reference again, hinting at the possibility of a Castro style dictatorship. Mmmm. This whole 2050 thing was purely hypothetical. It creates the impression that Chavez would hang on to power until 2050 when the reality is that, if Chavez were to stand for every election, he would rely on the will of the people. He has never indicated that elections would be abolished and he would remain in power until 2050. It was an entirely hypothetical proposition.

As for The Guardian, they could have chosen to headline the fact that Chavez gave people the right to vote on such an amendment, true democracy in action. But then this is something we are hardly likely to see encouraged in the UK and the US. People having their say?? What a terrible notion. They also referenced Manuel Rosales (a man who supported the US backed coup) in their paper, but wisely edited it out of the online version.

And what is the situation in Venezuela? Well, Chavez has accepted the result and told his supporters to respect the outcome. Hardly the sign of a power mad totalitarian dictator is it? No matter what the media might have you believe.

Phillips - Australians Are A Bunch Of Cowardly Fuckwits. Now Take Me Roughly Howard You Dirty Boy

So, John Howard gets the kicking he deserves and how does the reactionary right respond?? In typical fashion of course:

Now he is gone, knocked out by a man who copied to the letter the trick pulled by Tony Blair in persuading blue-collar workers who had previously abandoned Labour for the Liberals (the equivalent of the British Conservative party) that it was safe to return to Labour because he was a Howard wannabe in contrast to his rabble of a party. But just as with Blair, no-one really knows what Kevin Rudd actually stands for — and whether he will now move back towards the left. Whatever now happens, the fact that he ran on a platform of pulling troops out of Iraq and endorsing the ludicrous scam of man-made global warming are enough in themselves to tell the jihadis that Australia has now lost its (one-man) nerve. Australia just made itself (and the rest of us) a whole lot less safe.

Mmm, as last seen after the Spanish election. Good work Melanie. Why is it that as soon as an election result goes against them, they suggest that the people have put themselves at greater risk?? It's like a less subtle version of the games played by Blair and Bush in their prime. Looks like Phillips is as big an enemy of democracy as the so-called Islamists.

Oh, I wrote a comment at the end of Phillips' despicable rant, wonder if it gets posted??

Avaaz on Total Oil and Burma

Far from the headlines, the crisis in Burma continues--fueled, in part, by international oil corporations like Total Oil and Chevron/Texaco. These corporations don't just fund the junta; they lobby on its behalf in capital cities around the world. These are the same companies many of us fuel up with. That means our pressure as consumers has the power to force change—and it's our responsibility to act.

Will you pledge to join the global boycott of Chevron and Total? The boycott will last until the companies withdraw from Burma, or until the Burmese junta begins a genuine democratic transition and frees all political prisoners--including Aung San Suu Kyi. We'll deliver all the pledges and comments straight to the top management of Chevron and Total. You can see what brands to avoid in your country and take the pledge, at:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/burma_corporate

French oil giant Total (which also owns ELF and FINA) and U.S.-based Chevron (which also owns Texaco, Caltex an Unocal) have been operating the Yadana natural gas pipeline in southern Burma since the early '90s.The junta takes in an estimated $450 million a year from the Yadana project alone--and uses that money to maintain its brutal control, while most people in Burma live in dire poverty. To keep their profits flowing, Chevron and Total lobby hard in the U.S. and Europe against government measures to support a democratic transition in Burma.

For companies like this, it's all about the bottom line. We must show them that if they keep backing the Burmese dictatorship, they will lose their customers--by the tens of thousands, the hundreds of thousands, even by the millions.

With enough pressure in the pocket book, we could actually get these companies to switch sides--using their enormous leverage with the Burmese regime to push for the democratic reforms necessary to call off the boycott. It just requires more loss from the boycott than profit from the junta.

Could that happen? Yes--if we act together. That's why we're raising a call for an international boycott of Total and Chevron. The pledge: to refuse to buy fuel from any Total, Chevron, ELF, FINA, Texaco or Caltex station in our home countries and wherever we travel. The boycott will last until the Burmese junta begins a genuine democratic transition and frees all political prisoners--including Aung San Suu Kyi --or until these companies exit Burma completely.

To make sure our voice is heard, we'll deliver all the boycott pledges and comments straight to the senior corporate management of Chevron and Total Oil. You can add your name to the boycott pledge today, at:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/burma_corporate

We've all witnessed the rise of global corporations whose power crosses national boundaries. But today, Chevron and Total are going to witness the rise of something greater: global people power. Today, as consumers and wold citizens, we stand up together to demand justice for the people of Burma – and our voices will be heard.

With hope,

Ricken, Paul, Pascal, Graziela, Galit, Ben, Milena, Sarah, Iain - the whole Avaaz team

P.S. Chevron and Total often try to hide behind the argument that their presence benefits the Burmese population. But the call to target Chevron and Total comes directly from the people of Burma themselves:

"Total has become the main supporter of the Burmese military regime."

-- Aung San Suu Kyi
Nobel Peace Prize winner and last elected leader of Burma

Bush Threatens to Destabilise Cuba

George Bush has made yet another attempt to determine the future of the Cuban people. As most sane people have suspected, Bush is eager for Castro to die in order for the American empire to extend to one of the few countries prepared to adopt an alternative system to the US. His speech, riddled with double standards, contained the usual posturing synonymous with Bush's supposed moral high ground. In his address, Bush claimed:

"As with all totalitarian systems, Cuba's regime no doubt has other horrors still unknown to the rest of the world. Once revealed, they will shock the conscience of humanity, and they will shame the regime's defenders and all those democracies that had been silent."

One wonders how the President of the United States can adopt such a self-righteous tone. The only difference, one supposes, being that the horrors of the American regime are well known (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Blackwater etc etc). In fact, Bush even had the cheek to describe Cuba as a "tropical gulag". Do the words "glass" and "houses" sound familiar??

The address itself also made it quite clear that the US would waste no time in influencing the post-Castro Cuba. Bush added:

"Now is the time to support the democratic movement growing on the island. Now is the time to stand with the Cuban people as they stand up for their liberty. And now is the time for the world to put aside its differences and prepare for Cubans' transitions to a future of freedom and progress and promise."

The 'world' is, of course, a euphemism for the US and her allies. However, this passage raises one very obvious question: what right has the 'world' got to 'prepare' for Cubans' transitions??? It is quite clear that the US is preparing to spend big in the event of Castro's death in order to influence the post-Castro regime. Have no doubt that, come Castro's death, the US will ensure some US friendly party will mysteriously come to power. Either by military means or by applying pressure for 'democratic' elections (Cuba does already have elections of course, but this is barely mentioned).

Once more, the American state is attempting to destabilise a foreign nation. Only imagine if another country made similar statements about the US. They would be widely condemned. We live in a world in which everything is seen through the prism of American hegemony. Anything that doesn't fit in with this view is to be opposed at all costs. Every nation that takes an opposing ideology to US based capitalism must be destabilised, invaded and converted. No country must be permitted its own free existence if it contradicts the American way. This was the same arrogance upon which the British Empire was built and every other empire before and since. It will sow the seeds of its own destruction. The attacks of 9/11 were, after all, a direct result of US imperialism (despite what the nutjobs say about Islam and all the other bullshit they spout).

Thankfully, not everyone is blinded by the supposed universal truth that guides US policy. Dr Ian Gibson, of the All Party Group of MPs on Cuba, chastised the US with this statement:

“the aggressive interventionist foreign policies of the US were not appropriate in Iraq and they are not appropriate for Cuba. The US must stop attempting to undermine the sovereignty of nation states and recognise the important strategic role Cuba now holds in Latin America. We must promote stability through engagement and leave behind these US bullying tactics.”

MP Colin Burgon also added:

“The ignorance of international law of the current US President is very well known. However, this latest statement on the internal affairs of Cuba is tantamount to calling for a coup against a sovereign state. The arrogance of the US is both worrying and lamentable.”

As Rob Miller, the director of the UK-based Cuba Solidarity Campaign, puts it: the US needs to move to a policy of engagement rather than "aggression, intervention, destabilisation and conflict". It could be a hard habit to break for a state hooked on empire building like some crack addicted whore.

UPDATE: Davide at Nether-World writes the post that I wish I had written.

Burma Regime Wants 'Surrender' According to The Burma Campaign UK

With thanks to RickB for this one:

The Burma Campaign UK is concerned by media reports that there has been some kind of breakthrough in Burma because Senior General Than Shwe has agreed to talks. There has been no breakthrough. Than Shwe has repeated a demand made to UN Envoys since 1992. That is, that the National League for Democracy must agree to stop calling for human rights and democracy, and stop calling for international support, as preconditions before they start talking.

“We have been here before,” said Mark Farmaner, Acting Director of the Burma Campaign UK. “The regime is still refusing to enter into genuine dialogue, Gambari’s mission has failed. We have to break out of this cycle. Ban Ki-moon must go to Burma and deliver a strong message to the regime that further delay is unacceptable. There must be deadlines set for the regime to enter into talks and begin reform, after which there will be consequences. He should have the backing of the United Nations Security Council in delivering this message.”

UN Envoy Ibrahim Gambari is expected to brief the United Nations Security Council today. There has been a dramatic escalation in human rights abuses in Burma since his first visit to the country in 2006, including a military offensive against civilian ethnic minorities in eastern Burma, and the recent brutal crackdown on peaceful protests in Rangoon.

“The invitation to Gambari to return to Burma in November is a classic delaying tactic by Than Shwe.” said Mark Farmaner. “He wants to string out the process as long as possible, hoping that by then the world’s attention will be elsewhere. Than Shwe is a specialist in psychological warfare, and has been using these skills to dupe the international community for many years.”

Time to stop playing their games and get serious. Millions of people are relying on us. Don't let them down.

The Karen - Ethnically Cleansed in Burma Thanks To Corporate Investment

There have been many interesting posts about the ongoing situation in Burma, what with the images of peaceful monks being slaughtered by over zealous soldiers eager to please their military leaders. One story that has bubbled under the surface is the case of the systematic cleansing of ethnic minorities along the Burmese/Thai border. One of the main victims of this growing genocide has been the Karen.

The Karen (self-titled Pwa Ka Nyaw Po and also known in Thailand as the Kariang) originate from Tibet and have had tempestuous relations with the Burmese throughout their history. In 1947, the KNU ( Karen National Union) was formed. The KNU was involved in an insurgency against the Burmese military junta throughout the 1980s leading, ultimately, to the 8888 uprising which was brutally crushed by the Burmese regime, leading to deaths numbering in the thousands. After the uprising, the junta cracked down on the KNU and its numbers dropped from 40,000 to 4,000. Even now they are suffering the consequences for their call for freedom.

Along the border with Thailand, the Karen (along with other groups) have been murdered, raped, forced into labour and had their houses burnt down. In short, a genocide is taking place. Only now, with the spotlight on Burma, has the grim reality of life in Burma as an ethnic minority become apparent. The following is taken from The Guardian:

BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) - While international attention has focused on the protests for democracy in Myanmar's cities, a hidden war has decimated generations of the country's powerless ethnic minorities, who have faced brutality for decades.

The Karen, the Shan and other minority groups who live along the Myanmar-Thai border have been attacked, raped and killed by government soldiers. Their thatched-roofed, bamboo homes have been torched. Men have been seized into forced labor for the army, while women, children and the elderly either hide out in nearby jungles until the soldiers leave or flee over the mountains to crowded, makeshift refugee camps.

``Many, many thousands of Karen have died in those 60 years,'' Karen National Union secretary general Mahn Sha said this week of his people's struggle for autonomy since 1947.

The military junta has denied reports of atrocities and says the ethnic rebels are "terrorists'' [note the use of the word] trying to overthrow the government.

The Southeast Asian nation, formerly known as Burma, has more than 100 subtribes. Myanmar's diverse minority groups make up nearly a third of the country's 54 million population.

About two-thirds of the country belong to the Burman ethnic majority, which is also known as the Myanmar. The other ethnic groups include the Shan, the Karen, the Chin, the Mon, the Arakan or Rakhine, and the Kachin.

The plight of the Karen emphasises the impact that Western investment has in the region. Those companies that have been operating in Burma (the teak suppliers, the travel industry etc) have effectively been paying for these human rights abuses. Every bullet fired into every man/woman/child is paid for by the corporations operating in the region. Every rape that is committed is the direct responsibility of the corporations that invest there. Every village that is burnt to the ground is done so with the support of those very corporations that claim to have a conscience. How else can they explain why they are happy to give the Burmese government the money to indulge their military in such a way? I don't really know how these people can sleep at night knowing that they are financing murder and rape. May it rest heavy on their souls.

Andrew Roberts - A Despicable Stain On The Reputation of A Worthy Discipline

On the subject of mad as a box of frogs right-wingers, here's the latest delight from Andrew 'if only it was 1930s Germany' Roberts in today's special piece in The Observer on democracy:

Are dictators ever good?

Very, very rarely, but occasionally. They can be useful in civil wars or near-insurrection, such as in Spain in the Thirties and Chile in the Seventies, to prevent takeovers by Marxist-inspired movements that would deny democracy in the future, since both Generals Franco and Pinochet eventually handed over to a democratic system in a way that until the late 1980s Communists never did. Dictators almost always carry on in office well after the initial need for them has gone, however, and their record on human rights is generally terrible. Presently, President Musharraf of Pakistan is the personification of a 'good' dictator, protecting his country from Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, but he needs to spot the right moment to leave, and the right person to whom to hand over power.

Yes, good old Franco and Pinochet.....they were quite benevolent really, weren't they? As for Musharraf, nice to see Roberts adopting my preferred terminology for him (although the irony appears to be missing), I'm sure those that have been victim to the MQM might think differently though (not to mention his assault on Geo TV).

Not to be outdone, professional shit blogger (Guido Fawkes) adds his weight to the proceedings:

Are women more democratic?

Not in our house.

Andrew Roberts, Melanie Phillips and Guido Fawkes in one day?? Hand me the pills.

Mike McCready Speaks Out About Webcast

The following is taken from the Pearl Jam website. Lead guitarist Mike McCready writes:

Thoughts of an American.

I grew up in a democratic system of government. This is what was taught all through Kindergarten through College. Freedom of thought and expression were hallmarks of my early education. These concepts and theories integrated my belief in an American system of democracy. Consequently, I became a musician because of these inalienable rights. Make no mistake I am an artist and a capitalist because of this system that I believe in and our country. I don't however believe that a capitalist corporation such as AT&T has the right to subvert the first amendment of the constitution to which we all are accountable. This happened on the night we played Lollapalooza. I was dismayed to hear that the act of censoring free speech was used to edit our song Daughter for a webcast. Surely the American listening public can discern for themselves what they deem acceptable to hear. This is a hallmark of our American way!! The freedom to listen to what you want or don't want to. The American public was duped as was I in believing that I can speak freely without censorship.

I can only look to historical figures who are above reproach in my mind, such as Thomas Jefferson "I hope we shall crush...in it's birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." I feel that corporations can still exist without worry of a few words at a rock concert and need not trample upon our constitution for the sake of profit.

Another example that I believe is relevant is a George Orwell quote from Animal Farm. "If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." Some people don't want to hear our political beliefs in a song but that too is the beauty of America. WE CAN DISAGREE and still function as a democracy. When one person or company decides what others can hear, that is totalitarian thinking! This runs contrary to America and threatens the core of our freedom. We can think for ourselves, AT&T. I had the great pleasure of seeing the Space Shuttle launch live in Florida today. This gave me a feeling of excitement and patriotism in my country today.It showed me a future of ingenuity and promise for a better America.

With that I will leave you with a last quote from the quintessential American "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." This is an example of my belief in what Ed was saying the night we were censored during Daughter. You can't get more American than Mark Twain!!! Say no to censorship, it leads to dictatorship!

Mike McCready

The Information Divide - How Government Represses Vital Freedoms

The recent censorship of a performance by Pearl Jam at a festival in the US, is the latest in a long line of attempts by the privileged elite to restrict the flow of information and the right to free speech. Despite the rhetoric about spreading freedom around the globe, the west has been reluctant to grant the same freedoms at home as they claim to export abroad. The British government have been reluctant to allow a culture of free speech, and the past couple of weeks have only gone to reinforce the fact that this is one of the most secretive democracies in the world.

This has ever been so. Back in 1988, the then Conservative Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, gave a speech to the Royal Television Society Conference. In that speech, Hurd said the following:

'The disclosure of certain information was always harmful whether or not it had been published before.'

The Conservative government had shown that they had no intention of allowing a culture to develop that encourages freedom of information, and why should they have? For decades, government had been trying its utmost to ensure that the internal workings of government were not open to public access. The irony was, of course, that the British government at the time of Hurd's address was actually trying to encourage freedom of information in a country that was truly suffering at the hands of censorship. In the same year, Kenneth Baker addressed students at Moscow State University:

'What's the point in having computers and information technology if you are now allowed access to anything more than the contents of a modest library?...The information technology revolution cannot bear fruit without the free flow of information within society and between societies.'

Of course, being in the USSR, Baker would say that. The Conservative government proved that, although they talked of freedom of expression and lobbied their enemies to open up the flow of information, the establishment were reluctant to let go of the reins during the technological revolution. This double-speak continued, even after the Conservative government were finally kicked out of power in 1997.

The election of the Labour government in 1997 brought forth the promise of a more open style of government. Perhaps anticipating how difficult it would be to manage information in the age of the internet, the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act heralded a new age of access to information. However, this was not to last. In May 2007, Alastair Darling wrote to Lord Falconer expressing his concerns about the Act. In the letter, he claimed that government may need to:

"redress an apparent imbalance between the 'right to know' and the protection of private space where necessary for good governance".

Once more, the establishment had revealed that it cared little for the concepts of freedom of information, despite the Act. Even before Darling's letter had come to light (courtesy of the BBC by the way. A novelty, eh? A state broadcaster prepared to reveal the true nature of government machinations), MPs had been trying to put through legislation that would have prevented their travel expenses being open to the public.

Two recent actions by the government have also attempted to restrict the flow of information and the rights to free speech. Only today, it has emerged that the police are able to use terror laws to deal with protesters at Heathrow. According to The Guardian:

Armed police will use anti-terrorism powers to "deal robustly" with climate change protesters at Heathrow next week, as confrontations threaten to bring major delays to the already overstretched airport.

Up to 1,800 extra officers will be drafted in to prevent an estimated 1,500 people disrupting the airport over the period of the camp for climate change, which is due to begin on Tuesday. The police have been told to use stop and search powers against the protesters, who have pledged to take direct action on August 18 and 19 but not to endanger life.

The police powers will include:


· Stop and search people and vehicles for anything that could be used in connection with terrorism

· Search people even if they do not have evidence to suspect them

· Hold people for up to a month without charge

· Search homes and remove protesters' outer clothes, such as hats, shoes and coats.

Remember when the government said that anti-terrorism powers will not be abused? As well as this blatant attempt to suppress free speech, the government has also been cracking down on the military. Only yesterday, The Guardian revealed that the Ministry of Defence has been taking steps to address soldier's rights to free speech. According to the report:

Soldiers, sailors and airforce personnel will not be able to blog, take part in surveys, speak in public, post on bulletin boards, play in multi-player computer games or send text messages or photographs without the permission of a superior if the information they use concerns matters of defence.

They also cannot release video, still images or audio - material which has previously led to investigations into the abuse of Iraqis. Instead, the guidelines state that "all such communication must help to maintain and, where possible, enhance the reputation of defence".

Despite the fact that this may contravene the Human Rights Act (an act that opponents of free speech have long lobbied to repeal), the government seems willing to continue with a blatant act of censorship to ensure control over the flow of information. But then, should we be surprised given that the government also crippled the BBC after a report that has proven to be factually accurate, yet exposed the truth behind the government. The hounding of the BBC in the wake of the Gilligan report, only laid bare the extent to which the government was willing to suppress information that was harmful to its interests, regardless of the facts.

Meanwhile, as the government continues to control the amount of information about the inner workings at Whitehall, the government is demanding even more information about the general public. Earlier this year, it was revealed that there is an amazing 4.2 million CCTV cameras in the UK (32 cameras around George Orwell's house alone), ensuring that the government is able to gather information about your movements. Government is also trying to introduce a mass programme of DNA collection from every citizen in the UK, providing important genetic information about the population. Finally, the government has also been pursuing the idea of a national identity card carrying biometric information. So, while the government has been restricting our rights to free speech and our ability to access information, they have been collating more information about us than any other government in this nation's history. And if you think the government won't abuse this mass of information, you only have to look at the abuse of anti-terror legislation that is being deployed by the police at Heathrow to realise that we are heading for desperate times.

This issue of freedom of information is a crucial one. If this country wants to stand as a beacon of freedom across the world, it must do something about the lack of freedom citizens currently enjoy. Whilst the government continues to restrict our access to information, while increasing theirs, the UK will remain a country divided along informational lines. That cannot be a good thing for democracy.

Iraqi Government Refuses Recognition of Unions

Like father like son:

Iraq's Oil Ministry has directed all its agencies and departments not to deal with the country's oil unions.

The unions and Iraq's government, especially the prime minister and oil minister, have been at odds for months now over working conditions and the draft oil law.

The unions went on strike in early June and are threatening to stop production and exports again if demands are not met. The unions claim the oil law, if approved by Parliament, will give foreign oil companies too much access to the oil. The unions enjoy enormous support, especially in the south of Iraq.

"The Minister has directed the prohibition of cooperation with any member of any union in any of the committees organized under the name of the Union as these unions do not enjoy any legal status to work inside the government sector," Laith Abd Al Hussein AL Shahir, the ministry's general director, wrote in a July 18 letter obtained by UPI.

Saddam Hussein outlawed worker organizing in the public sector; subsequent U.S. occupying powers and now the Iraqi government do not recognize the workers' rights to organize.

Truly, they are adopting American style democracy to its fullest degree.

Supreme Court Fights Back Against Musharraf

Pakistan's supreme court has overturned Musharraf's suspension of the chief justice. According to The Guardian:

Lawyers and civil society activists whooped with joy at the verdict in favour of Muhammad Iftikhar Chaudhry - the first time in Pakistan's 60-year history that a civilian has challenged a military leader in court and won. "This is a defining moment for our country - the first time we have true liberty," said Naseer Ullah Khan, a black-suited lawyer on the courthouse steps, where men embraced, shouted, and chanted, "Go, Musharraf, go".

I suspect he won't go without a fight. The pressure is certainly mounting on Musharraf. Just a couple of days ago, The Guardian reported:

A chill has descended over "Mush and Bush", as the Pakistan press dubbed the US-Pakistan axis. And the storming of the Red Mosque 11 days ago - an ostentatious strike against Islamists, killing its leading rebel cleric alongside an unknown number of hostages and students - is unlikely to put him back in favour: this was a seminary Musharraf had let grow since 2002, despite its vociferous endorsement of suicide bombings and the Taliban. While Washington and London continue publicly to characterise Musharraf as the west's best hope of stopping Pakistan's descent into Islamic extremism, in reality they have concluded that it is the general who is easing the path of the jihadis. And he must be stopped.

Gone are the days when he would be warmly described as "one of my best friends" by Bush. So close was the relationship, that the US increased arms exports by 45,000%. Of course, this wouldn't be the first time that a right-wing US administration has armed a dictator. And, as with the previous beneficiary, US troops could soon by operating within his borders. The US has recently been debating military strikes within Pakistan against al-Qaeda. With such mounting pressures, how much longer will it be before Musharraf acts like any other beast that is cornered and lash out at those around him? These are very dangerous times in Pakistan. Faced with two enemies within, and an enemy without, chaos is just around the corner. One must hope that Musharraf can be removed by his own people and democracy, free of foreign interference, can be restored.

Gaza Descends Into Chaos - Courtesy of the Western Powers

With the ongoing violence in Gaza, the usual suspects have been quick to claim that the current events have nothing to do with the EU and the US. Instead, the blame falls squarely at Hamas' feet. While it is true that both sides are involved in a never ending cycle of violence that must be condemned, the roots of this problem trace right the way back to the West. As usual, the right-wing press take an overly simplistic approach to the situation. The Daily Telegraph (the bastion of British conservatism) took a typical line on events:

The appalling barbarity currently unfolding in Gaza, where gunmen from the militant Palestinian Islamic group Hamas are attempting to eliminate physically their secular Fatah rivals, has led to the inevitable accusations that Israel and its Western allies are ultimately responsible for the bloodshed.

The fact that the latest outburst of violence was started, and is being sustained, by Hamas's attempts to eradicate any hint of opposition to its radical Islamic agenda is conveniently overlooked.

Instead those who claim to have the Palestinians' best interests at heart insist the violence is the result of the refusal of Israel and its supporters - i.e. America - to negotiate with the democratically elected Hamas government on a lasting political settlement of the Palestinian issue.

The word 'simplistic' hardly does the leader justice. And then, what a surprise, we have Melanie Phillips wading in with some typical intellectual bankruptcy:

If Israel kills Palestinians in its attempt to defend its civilians from being blown up in pizza parlours or pulverised by rocket attack, the media descends into an instant frenzy of (unjust and distorted) condemnation. But presented with this orgy of Palestinian violence in Gaza, there is little more than an embarrassed shuffling of feet. The Independent ventures bravely into these treacherous waters by blaming everyone other than the Palestinians for reducing them to economic desperation — this despite the fact that since sanctions were imposed on Hamas, the amount of funding going into Gaza has actually doubled, if not trebled. What it is to be a newspaper of moral principle, eh?

Putting aside her failure to grasp that sometimes, just sometimes, Israel might do something wrong, it is the penultimate point that raises an eyebrow. 'The amount of funding has doubled'? What could this mean?? Before looking any further into the claims that we have nothing to do with this mess, here is what Abu Amr (an independent voice in the Palestinian authority, belonging to neither Fatah or Hamas) has to say on the current situation:

"If you have two brothers, put them in a cage and deprive them of basic and essential needs for life, they will fight," Abu Amr told a news conference in Tokyo. "We need to undo the very problematic situation that mainly others have created."

Abu Amr, an independent in the Palestinian government, blamed the fighting on the deprivations forced upon Palestinians.

"We really live in a cage," he said. "People cannot move in Gaza. They can't travel. There's no work. There's no normal life."

"If Gaza disintegrates, subsequent negotiations with the Israelis would be jeopardized," Abu Amr was quoted as saying by a Foreign Ministry official who briefed reporters afterward. "The situation is extremely grave."

This is a far more realistic representation of what is going on in Gaza, by a man who is independent of both factions. The Palestinian people have been the victim of untold suffering since they chose to elect Hamas. Over 2.4 million Palestinians live under the poverty line as a result of sanctions imposed by the US and the EU in response to their democratic judgement. The region stands on the brink of economic collapse whilst the West pats themselves on the back for the good work they have done. Yes, those in power knew this was going to happen, they planned for it. Rice claimed back in October last year:

the economic boycott on the Hamas-led Palestinian government is effective and the international community will continue to maintain the boycott.

And so it has proved. The economic boycott has led to the desperate situation that Abu Amr refers to. The Palestinian people have been the victim of a concerted effort by the West to undermine any sense of democracy in the region. In desperation, they have turned on each other. And what of this aid that Phillips refers to? Well, as usual, Phillips only tells half the story. Aid has increased quite dramatically over the past 18 months, however Phillips fails to explain just what type of aid increased. The aid has not been humanitarian, rather it has been military in nature. Since last year, the US government has funnelled millions of dollars to Fatah's defence forces, as they predicted a split between Hamas and Fatah. The US has played a very active role in current events. According to a report in The Observer at the time:

US cash is reportedly being used to set up training facilities for Abbas's special guard, Force 17, in the West Bank town of Jericho and in Gaza.

Furthermore, the report claimed that:

Officially the US has put up some $42m to bolster Hamas's political opponents ahead of possible early Palestinian elections, with officials saying the programme is aimed at promoting alternatives to Hamas, which caused a sensation when it won power in January.

Not only have they been providing military funding to Fatah, they have been funding opposition parties as well. Imagine the storm this would create in America if Iran began funding an opposition party. I'm guessing that the hypercritical right would be up in arms about such a development.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Western powers have played a major part in this conflict. The American government has repeatedly attempted to undermine a democratic government and has refused to even entertain the idea of holding talks with them. It has provided military funding to Fatah, whilst upholding sanctions that hurt the Palestinian people. Is it really any surprise that the two factions would turn against each other in these conditions? Of course not. The American government made its intentions clear right from the start, it would do everything in its power to ensure that the Hamas government collapsed and was replaced with a compliant authority that is willing to become yet another US franchise in the region. While there is no doubt that the murders are at the hands of both Hamas and Fatah, there is also no doubt that the environment for this conflict was created by America and the EU. The failure to acknowledge this simple fact is either dangerously short-sighted or plainly irresponsible.

*According to the BBC, Abbas has dismissed the Hamas led government declaring that:

"I [Abbas] have issued the following decree: the sacking of Prime Minister Ismail Haniya."

This would be the same Haniya who was subject to an assassination attempt by Abbas' Fatah party. I'm guessing a few people will be rubbing their hands with glee at this news. Meanwhile, the suffering continues for the Palestinians.

Musharraf Clamps Down on Media - And The Establishment Goes Quiet

Remember the furore over the refusal to renew RCTV's broadcasting licence? Even the BBC joined in the chorus of disapproving voices, even going so far as to claim that Venezuela was under 'militant rule' (before a cunning piece of stealth editing). Well, something similar has happened again, only this time it is by one of 'our' allies. Interestingly, there has not been a word of comment by many of those keen to jump on the Chavez as totalitarian rhetoric so beloved of Bush.

Over the week-end, President Musharraf gave us a glimpse of his totalitarian tendencies. As a result of the growing political storm in Pakistan, with calls for a return to democracy growing ever louder, Musharraf gave the order to take Geo TV off the air for promoting an "anti-state attitude" and casting "aspersions against the judiciary and the integrity of the armed forces". Geo TV was taken off the air shortly after an interview with Imran Khan on its flagship news programme, watched by around 30 million people. According to the president of the station:

"We had an interview with Imran Khan followed by a discussion about the military in politics. Suddenly it all went blank."

As well as the suspension, legislation has been introduced that provides for fines of up to £85,000 and the suspension of a station's licence.

This is not the first time that Geo TV has been attacked by the government. Back in March, Musharraf banned "The Kamran Kahn Show" due to its coverage of the dispute with a suspended Supreme Court judge. The station's offices were also raided by the police after broadcasting footage of them firing rubber bullets into a crowd of protesters. The bureau chief at the time is reported as stating that:

"Police have attacked our office, they are breaking windows. They are beating our staff. They have used tear gas shells. Even our female staff have been hurt. They are damaging our building."

And yet, silence from the very people who claim to stand for freedom of speech. Not even the BBC, so quick to criticise Chavez, have made any comment on this attack on the free press. Bush, unsurprisingly, failed to take the opportunity to remind Pakistan of its democratic responsibilities. According to the BBC:

Mr Bush also called for the "immediate and unconditional release" of dissidents in such nations as Belarus, Burma and Cuba.

He listed these nations, along with North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iran and Syria as the "worst dictatorships" and criticised Venezuela, Uzbekistan and Vietnam for rolling back earlier "freedom".

Venezuela, but not Pakistan. Chavez refused to renew a license due to the failure to observe basic broadcasting laws. Musharraf has sent the police in to raid a TV station and has repeatedly taken it off the air. RCTV backed a coup in Venezuela. Geo TV is calling for a return to democracy. The differences are obvious and stark. And yet, nothing. Still, I guess that should be no surprise when the mainstream media describes an ideological opponent of Bush 'militant', whilst they gloss over the totalitarian tendencies of a close friend and ally. Once again, the establishment clubs together to protect one of their own.

Further info: Opinion piece by Geo TV's Group Executive Director

* In other Pakistan related news, via the BBC:

A woman and three men were shot dead in a public execution in a Pakistani village after tribal elders found them guilty of adultery, officials said.

Reports said the executions were watched by some 600 people.

Looks like Pakistan has long way to go before it is truly a democratic state worthy of friendship.

Mugabe Opponent Beaten At Airport

Not content with having one opponent beaten, Mugabe has now set upon having another opposition MP beaten. Nelson Chamisa was beaten at Harare airport, on his way to fly to Brussels. From The Guardian:

Mr Chamisa, 28, spoke to the Guardian from hospital where he was awaiting surgery late yesterday. Doctors said he may lose an eye from the assault, which took place in front of frightened travellers.

"Just as I was about to enter the door of the departure area, eight men jumped me and began hitting me with iron bars. I just fell to the ground," said Mr Chamisa. "Nobody is safe in Zimbabwe. There is no security, no rule of law. I am praying for my country."

Pearson Mangofa, an opposition MP who drove Mr Chamisa to the airport, said his assailants shoved away passengers who tried to help him. The men grabbed Mr Chamisa's passport, bags and laptop computer before speeding off in two cars, one without a licence plate.

Seven of them wore suits while one wore an army vest. Mr Mangofa said the attack bore the hallmarks of Zimbabwe's domestic spy agency, the Central Intelligence Organisation.

Thankfully, there are signs of change. Morgan Tsvangirai claimed that:

"Things are bad, but I think that this crisis has reached a tipping point and we could see the beginning of the end of this dictatorship."

Let's hope so. For the sake of those suffering under state repression.

Christian Groups Threaten Our Democracy

Apologies for the lack of posting the past couple of days. I was intending to blog last night, but we had a power cut which subsequently disabled the main PC. Luckily, my father in law has a lap top that I am able to borrow (on the downside, the keyboard layout is totaally different to what it says on the keys, so the punctuation might be a little odd). Anyway, one of the dubious pleasures when I am away, is the ability to watch Fox News. Now, I do not have SKY at home so, although I am aware of the content, I am not subjected to it every day. What is particularly fascinating at the moment is the focus on James Cameron's new documentary. Particularly in light of the storm caused over the Danish cartoons.

Whilst watching Neil Cavuto the other day, I was interested to see him interview a member of the Christian community about the documentary. During the course of the interview, Cavuto asked why Christians have been so calm in their response. The guy he was interviewing claimed this is because they are taught to 'turn the other cheek', in contrast to the Muslim community. This went unchallenged (this is Fox after all) and there was no attempt to balance this viewpoint. Imagine my surprise when I watch it today, only to see a Christian demanding that the documentary should not be broadcast. According to him, the documentary is offensive towards Christians. Yet, nobody claimed that this was an attack on free speech (as would have been the case if this had been a Muslim protesting). Mmmm, that kinda got me thinking. When the Muslim community protested about the publication of the cartoons, they were smeared as attacking the right to free speech. It was claimed that Christians would never behave in this way, and that their response was disproportionate to the cartoons themselves. Yet, according to Fox, it is perfectly acceptable for Christians to demand that a programme should not be broadcast because it is 'offensive' to them. This is, of course, not without precedent.

Back in January 2005, a cult known as Christian Voice, went beserk when the BBC aired Jerry Springer - The Opera. They even went so far as to claim that the programme breached their human rights. Luckily, the BBC ignored their protests and pushed ahead anyway, refusing to acquiesce to a bunch of religious zealots. Of course, we all know what the response would be if the Muslim community were to protest against a similar show about the Prophet Mohammed. The mainstream media would work itself into a frenzy of attacks upon the Muslim community.

Now, those that seek to protect the extremist Christian lobby would argue that they do not resort to violence to further their cause. They would argue that only the Muslim community would protest through violent means. This is, of course, entirely false. The Christian community is equally guilty of using violence to further it's cause. For example, there are those in America who have been guilty of murdering many abortion providers, including three doctors. All of these murders were committed by those that claimed to be Christian. There has been a campaign of violence and intimidation against abortion providers for many years and these tactics have been slowly making their way over to the UK. James Dowson in particular has been guilty of encouraging attacks on those that practice abortion. He has distributed names and addresses via the internet and encouraged those who share his twisted agenda to send hate mail and death threats in an attempt to intimidate those who do not share his views. Again, imagine how the mainstream media would react if a Muslim will engaging in such activities. No doubt they would be threatened with extradition, they would certainly not be ignored.

The supposed silence on questions of Islam, whilst Christianity is under continual attack, is a total fabrication. There have been continual attacks on the Muslim community in recent years, whilst the Christian community is treated with total veneration. As Media Matters has noted, commentators such as Glenn Beck and Bill Donohue, make constant attacks on Islam and yet will not accept any legitimate criticism of Christianity. Media Matters notes Glenn Beck's comments that:

"There is a double standard in the world today. Treat Christians one way, but heaven help you if you try that with anybody else's religion."

But when you examine his record, there is a wide range of attacks on Islam:


During a November 14, 2006, interview with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), who recently became the first Muslim elected to Congress, Beck said: "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' "

Beck mocked Islam by "mark[ing] the death" of Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with a "Zarqawi bacon cake."

He described as "surprising" a letter criticizing Al Qaeda in Iraq because "the man who wrote it" -- Islamic Society of Nevada director Aslam Abdullah -- "is a Muslim."

Beck aired a segment mocking the names of several missing Egyptian students in which the announcer said that one "may or may not be accompanied by his camel." The segment showed pictures of crowds and pointed to random, unidentifiable people as the missing Egyptians. It ended with a reading of the students' names in quick succession followed by the announcer pretending to gag as he struggled to pronounce them.

As for Donohue, his record is much the same:

On the February 9, 2006, edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Donohue said: "People don't trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty."

On the December 8, 2004, edition of Scarborough Country, he said: "We've already won. Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. ... Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost."

In 2004, Media Matters first detailed anti-Catholic comments made by Jerome Corsi, who, as co-author of Unfit for Command (Regnery, August 2004), was one of the ringleaders of the smear campaign by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) -- a Catholic presidential candidate. Among Corsi's bigoted comments: "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press." Despite the uproar surrounding Corsi's comments, Donohue subsequently dismissed the comments as "quips."

The very idea that somehow criticism of Islam is not allowed in the media is a ridiculous notion. The media is dominated with it. When there is an outcry by the Muslim community, there is talk of an over-reaction. When there is an outcry in the Christian community, there is talk of a community being under sustained attack. The fact of the matter is that both communities are guilty of over reacting when their faith is criticised. The difference is that the media always seeks to defend the Christian community, whilst seeking to demonise the Muslim community.