Dit soort nieuws haalt het NOS journaal en de kranten maar nauwelijks. In het beste geval staat er een kort berichtje op pagina 5, met een kleine kop die in het niet valt bij de grote koppen over Israelisch geweld en het feit dat een al jaren leegstaand hotel in Jeruzalem, door een nazi gebouwd, wordt ontruimd om er maar liefst 20 appertamenten voor Joden in te bouwen. 20 appartementen! Voor Joden! Schande. En vergeet niet de lange opiniestukken over hoe Israel de kansen op vrede weer eens vergooit en zich niks aantrekt van de VN en de rest van de o zo verlichte wereld. Nee, dan is er voor details als dit nou eenmaal geen ruimte meer. Helaas.
Elder of Ziyon wijst in dit verband op een belangrijk verschil tussen misstanden in Israel of andere westerse landen en in landen als Saoedi-Arabië.
This is exactly why major human rights organizations need to be concentrating on closed societies rather than open ones. The open ones have checks and balances built in to limit the possibility of abuse. They have robust media, reasonably fair judicial systems and entire arms of the government meant to audit and check the powers of other government agencies.
But places like Saudi Arabia can crack down on basic personal freedoms without any worries. Here is a case where they did exactly that.
De heersende opvatting is dat het erger is wanneer Israel zich misdraagt, omdat het een westerse democratie is en dus de lat voor zichzelf hoger legt. Ik kan me daar iets bij voorstellen, maar het leidt gemakkelijk tot racisme en gemakzucht. 'Die achterlijke Arabieren weten nou eenmaal niet beter, en Afrikanen maken elkaar nou eenmaal voortdurend af, daar bemoeien we ons verder niet mee, maar de westerse Joden moeten zich een beetje gedragen daar'. EoZ draagt een sterk argument aan voor het tegenovergestelde: in Israel zijn de burgers immers al kritisch, publiceert de pers over misstanden en schandalen, en zijn er tal van organisaties die de vinger aan de pols houden. Bovendien is de rechterlijke macht onafhankelijk en zij fluit geregeld de regering terug. In Saoedi-Arabië en de meeste andere Arabische staten zijn deze zaken nagenoeg afwezig, en kan de regering dus ongehinderd haar gang gaan en zaken in de doofpot stoppen. Het kost westerse journalisten veel meer moeite om gevoelige informatie boven tafel te krijgen en zij worden in de gaten gehouden en tegengewerkt.
But places like Saudi Arabia can crack down on basic personal freedoms without any worries. Here is a case where they did exactly that.
De heersende opvatting is dat het erger is wanneer Israel zich misdraagt, omdat het een westerse democratie is en dus de lat voor zichzelf hoger legt. Ik kan me daar iets bij voorstellen, maar het leidt gemakkelijk tot racisme en gemakzucht. 'Die achterlijke Arabieren weten nou eenmaal niet beter, en Afrikanen maken elkaar nou eenmaal voortdurend af, daar bemoeien we ons verder niet mee, maar de westerse Joden moeten zich een beetje gedragen daar'. EoZ draagt een sterk argument aan voor het tegenovergestelde: in Israel zijn de burgers immers al kritisch, publiceert de pers over misstanden en schandalen, en zijn er tal van organisaties die de vinger aan de pols houden. Bovendien is de rechterlijke macht onafhankelijk en zij fluit geregeld de regering terug. In Saoedi-Arabië en de meeste andere Arabische staten zijn deze zaken nagenoeg afwezig, en kan de regering dus ongehinderd haar gang gaan en zaken in de doofpot stoppen. Het kost westerse journalisten veel meer moeite om gevoelige informatie boven tafel te krijgen en zij worden in de gaten gehouden en tegengewerkt.
RP
----------
Saudi Arabia forces "news blogs" to promote Islam
From Fast Company (h/t Jihad Watch):
It took twelve full days for the existence of these laws to make it to the Western media!
Any new law that is even contemplated in Western nations must go through at least somewhat of a transparent process. But this Saudi law was already on the books for nearly two weeks!
This is exactly why major human rights organizations need to be concentrating on closed societies rather than open ones. The open ones have checks and balances built in to limit the possibility of abuse. They have robust media, reasonably fair judicial systems and entire arms of the government meant to audit and check the powers of other government agencies.
But places like Saudi Arabia can crack down on basic personal freedoms without any worries. Here is a case where they did exactly that.
Human Rights Watch did mention it, to its credit, but it still took a week after the law was introduced.
(Correction: I hadn't seen the HRW article in my search; commenter Gabriel found it so I corrected the post that had said they didn't.)
Saudi Arabia has enacted stringent new regulations forcing some bloggers to obtain government licenses and to strongarm others into registering. In addition, all Saudi news blogs and electronic news sites will now be strictly licensed, required to "include the call to the religion of Islam" and to strictly abide by Islamic sharia law. The registration and religion requirements are also being coupled with strict restrictions on what topics Saudi bloggers can write on--a development which will essentially give Saudi authorities the right to shut down blogs at their discretion.
The new regulations went into effect on January 1, 2011.
What the new regulations center around is a legal redefinition of almost all online content created in Saudi Arabia. Blogs are now legally classified as "electronic publishing" and news blogs (the term is not explicitly defined in the Saudi law) are now subject to the same legal regulations as newspapers. All Saudi Arabia-based news blogs, internet news sites, "internet sites containing video and audio materials" and Saudi Area-created mobile phone/smartphone content will fall under the newspaper rubric as well.
Under the regulations, any operators of news blogs, mobile phone content creators or operators of news sites in Saudi Arabia have to be Saudi citizens, at least 20 years old and possess a high school degree.
At least 31% of Saudi Arabia residents do not possess citizenship; these range from South Asian migrants living in poor conditions to well-off Western oil workers. All of them will find their internet rights sharply curtailed as a result of the new regulations.
The most telling--and dangerous-- detail in the new Saudi regulations is a provision requiring all news bloggers to provide the Saudi Arabian government with detailed information on their hosting company. This could easily allow the Saudi Arabian government to block access to a particular website across domains or to even force hosting companies to take dissidents' websites offline.
Non-citizens will still be allowed to blog on non-news topics. However, all Saudi Arabian bloggers--both citizens and non-citizens--are "recommended" to register with the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Culture and Information. In addition, blogs are now defined as falling under the Saudi Press and Publications Law.
This requires all publications created in Saudi Arabia to "include the call to the religion of Islam," not to "violate the Islamic Shari'a rulings," or to compromise national security or "public order."
Posters on online forums, internet users who communicate on listservs and guests in online chat rooms are also "recommended" to register with the government under the law.
While the registration process is optional, it will serve as a likely coercion tool in the case of websites or blogs targeted by Saudi authorities. The regulations strictly classify and offer a bureaucratic taxonomy for all online media in a country with one of the most extensive censorship regimes in the world.
Arabic speakers can find a copy of the new laws as a Word document provided by the Saudi Arabian government.
The Saudi Arabian government has a long history of jailing bloggers who write about politics, corruption or religion. Now the situation may even get worse.The story itself is evidence of the difference between a closed society and an open one.
It took twelve full days for the existence of these laws to make it to the Western media!
Any new law that is even contemplated in Western nations must go through at least somewhat of a transparent process. But this Saudi law was already on the books for nearly two weeks!
This is exactly why major human rights organizations need to be concentrating on closed societies rather than open ones. The open ones have checks and balances built in to limit the possibility of abuse. They have robust media, reasonably fair judicial systems and entire arms of the government meant to audit and check the powers of other government agencies.
But places like Saudi Arabia can crack down on basic personal freedoms without any worries. Here is a case where they did exactly that.
Human Rights Watch did mention it, to its credit, but it still took a week after the law was introduced.
(Correction: I hadn't seen the HRW article in my search; commenter Gabriel found it so I corrected the post that had said they didn't.)
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten