Mouse’s Tank

Bush accepts Geneva Convention protections for detainees

On Tuesday the Bush administration reversed years of denial when the Pentagon announced that detainees held by the US military would be treated according to the Geneva Convention on POWs. Recent Supreme Court decisions have ruled out military tribunals, requiring that the president do one of "two things he has resisted doing for more than four years: operate the commissions by the rules of regular military courts-martial, or ask Congress for specific permission to proceed differently." The basis for the court's ruling was that "America's military law incorporates one part of Common Article 3 [of the Geneva Convention] -- the part that guarantees that captives being held in detention may be prosecuted only by a "regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." ...(The Court decision, it should be noted, had nothing to do with better-known provisions of Article 3 -- the bans on torture or humiliating treatment of prisoners.)" Apparently, having to apply part of the Convention on treatment of POWs, someone in the administration decided to apply all of it.

...or does he?

But don't celebrate just yet; on closer examination, it sounds like the same old shell game.

First, the prisoners not held by the military--the ones most in need of protection--are apparently not included. This would be those held by the CIA (and perhaps other agencies), some of whom have been flown to secret prisons in countries where torture is normal. Ironically, some of the countries mentioned in reports about this are Islamic, such as Egypt and Syria.

Second, spokesman Tony Snow and others keep saying that this doesn't represent any change, that the rules have always required that prisoners be treated humanely. After the President has gone to such lengths to establish that he can legally order torture if he wishes, and he and other officials have asserted that treatment most people would call torture (prolonged sleep deprivation, waterboarding, being chained in "stress positions" for many hours) is normal interrogation, we are now being asked to believe either that none of this ever happened, or that it did happen but was actually "humane."

Third... well, balanced against the entire gestalt of this administration, I just don't believe it. The official administration view of the President's legal powers has been like the motto of the "battling monk" in Gargantua and Pantagruel, "Do what thou wilt." In December 2005, John Yoo (former assistant Attorney-General and major contributor to the "torture memos" and their reasoning) debated Notre Dame law professor Doug Cassel. Cassel, director of Notre Dame Law School's Center for Civil and Human Rights, at one point tried to come up with something so bad that Yoo would not grant the President the legal right to do it. As reported in the Village Voice and other sources, Cassel asked

"If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?"
John Yoo: "No treaty."
Doug Cassel: "Also no law by Congress—that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo [while Yoo was a Justice Department attorney]."
John Yoo: "I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that." " [emphasis added by me]

Here, you take the thumbscrews

I admit that if I knew or felt reasonably certain that some major terrorist act capable of killing many people was imminent--that is, already in motion--and that persons in custody had the crucial knowledge about it, I might resort to torture also. Lots of people make that kind of exception. But every time I think about it I am given pause, thinking of the hoary old anecdote told about George Bernard Shaw: He once found himself at a dinner party, seated beside an attractive woman. "Madam," he asked, "would you go to bed with me for a thousand pounds?" The woman blushed and rather indignantly shook her head. "For ten thousand pounds?" he asked. "No. I would not." "Then how about fifty thousand pounds?" he continued. The colossal sum gave the woman pause, and after further reflection, she coyly replied: "Perhaps." "And if I were to offer you five pounds?" Shaw asked. "Mr. Shaw!" the woman exclaimed. "What do you take me for!" "We have already established what you are," Shaw calmly replied. "Now we are merely haggling over the price."

That is, how big does the threatened imminent strike have to be, to "justify" torture? Or am I a torturer, guilty of an immoral act, when I give the permission no matter what the situation? I think the latter is true, that nothing can morally justify torture, but some situations might make me say, "If I'm the one in power, I make a decision and live with it." But I couldn't make it lightly, and I couldn't make a blanket decision to subject dozens of prisoners to torture, on the off chance that one might know something useful to us. You must have some considerable degree of certainty that many people will suffer very soon and that the person(s) before you have the information needed to avert this suffering. [And then, many experienced interrogators have spoken up to say that information derived from torture is generally unreliable anyway.]

This is, needless to say, not how the Bush administration has proceeded. They swept up a mixed bag of prisoners from Afghanistan, ranging from boys in their early teens to one man of 71 and another believed to be 93, and have kept them at Guantanamo, many for three years now. Some were allegedly subjected for long periods to "stress positions," cold, darkness, blaring non-stop crazy-making music, enforced sleeplessness. Some were humiliated or subjected to what was for them defilement (such as being smeared with a red substance which they thought was the female interrogator's menstrual blood).

In 2004 FBI agents present at Guantanamo reported hearing staff talk about using techniques such as "strangulation, beatings, placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees' ear openings." Also in 2004, two Air Force prosecutors at Guantanamo quit because of they felt their fellow prosecutors were rigging the military trials of detainees. The two accused "prosecutors of ignoring torture allegations, failing to protect exculpatory evidence and withholding information from superiors."

All of this violates letter and spirit of the Geneva Convention, which says in part, "prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults", and "Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour." (Honor, honour, however you spell the word, the substance is in vanishingly short supply in politics.)

The Convention famously states that prisoners need only state "name, rank, and serial number" (actually, the language requires date of birth as well) and says that "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

The Red Cross was there

One provision at least of the Geneva Convention has been followed: representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross have indeed been allowed to visit the prisoners, bring messages from their families and take back replies, and have received ("accurate and up-to-date" ?) lists of the individuals held. [The skeptical may wonder if they saw all the prisoners and if individuals showing physical traces of abuse were held back "until next visit". Many of the techniques that have been alleged leave little physical trace, anyway. ]

In light of its special position the ICRC has generally declined to comment publicly on the conditions and treatment of the prisoners. It has, however, issued confidential reports to the US Government and one which was leaked to the press in late 2004 stated that the US "has been intentionally using psychological and sometimes physical coercion "tantamount to torture" on prisoners at Guantanamo Bay...The report also concluded that the military had set up a system at Guantanamo devised to break the will of the prisoners , and make them wholly dependent on their interrogators through "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions." "

With the listing of each of these items required by the Geneva Convention, the gap grows wider between reports about life at Guantanamo and the conditions required, the conditions which Tony Snow and the administration now say they have been meeting all along. The ICRC reports serve to confirm allegations of abuse amounting to torture, made by former prisoners and staff at Guantanamo But, the announcement serves to give lip service to the recent Supreme Court decisions denying the administration's right to use military tribunals for these detainees, and

What goes around, comes around

Here's a part of war very rarely talked about: the effect upon our soldiers of witnessing and performing actions which they know flaunt the law, and which--in the beginning--they feel to be inhumane, repulsive, just plain wrong. As the Civil War general said, "War is hell," a hell that none of us non-combatants and non-residents of combat areas can understand.

But when we teach our soldiers to be torturers, to be convincing when they threaten a detainee with raping his wife and mother before his eyes, to be callous or even amused at the sufferings of other human beings, then we have deliberately intensified the hell, added a perversion to it, and ensured that these soldiers will return to us wounded in the soul by what they've done. They may return as sadists, or as people tormented by guilt; they may become brutal with their families, and/or try to quiet the sights and sounds in their nightmares with drugs and alcohol; for some even waking life becomes a nightmare. Some will end as suicides. Some may show no outward signs of injury for a long time; based on past wars, 20-50% of all who've been in combat will have what we blandly call "mental health problems" of varying severity up to Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome, and for those involved in prisoner abuse the figures may be much higher.

And all this, as the consequence of actions which did not have to be part of the war for our soldiers, actions which we have enabled by keeping quiet about it, by trusting those undeserving of trust, by valuing our own illusion of "Homeland Security" over our responsibility to those who fight for us.

Euthanasia, more fuel for conservatives' fire

Here's a headline bound to attract attention: Call for no-consent euthanasia: Doctors should be able to end lives humanely, says professor [appearing on the UK Guardian's main headline page, June 7, 2006, about 6pm PST US]. I can almost hear Ann Coulter dipping her pen in a particularly caustic vat of that trademark vitriol of hers (her latest book Godless: The Church of Liberalismdescribes Democratic political tenets as a religion, complete with a sacrament--abortion--which, she says, is the Democrats' version of virgin sacrifice; words fail me, just now, to describe this person and her utterances).

But follow on to the article, and you find that, after a somewhat misleading first paragraph, the recommendation is a very limited one.

One of the country's leading experts on medical ethics today calls for doctors to be able to end the lives of some terminally ill patients "swiftly, humanely and without guilt" - even if they have not given consent.

Len Doyal, emeritus professor of medical ethics at Queen Mary, University of London, takes the euthanasia debate into new and highly contentious territory. He says doctors should recognise that they are already killing patients when they remove feeding tubes from those whose lives are judged to be no longer worth living. Some will suffer a "slow and distressing death" as a result.

That is, when all the reviews by doctors, relatives, maybe courts, have taken place and a feeding tube is removed from a person in a persistent vegetative state, the doctor is saying that it wold be more humane to hasten the death that is inevitable, rather than allowing it to occur via starvation. And during the starvation, the patient continues to experience whatever conditions may have entered into the decision in the first place: intractable pain, paralysis.

I live in the only one of the United States that has legalized "assisted suicide." This began as an initiative on the Oregon ballot in 1994 which was approved; critics sent it back to the ballot in 1997, and it was approved by a larger majority than in the first election. Beginning promptly in 2001 the Bush Justice Dept. tried to get the law overturned, failing miserably--before a federal judge in 2002 and finally before the US Supreme Court in 2005. The Supreme Court did indeed agree to review the law, and agreed 6-3 that Oregon doctors could not be prosecuted under a Federal drug law, for prescriptions requested by patients for the purpose of suicide.

The requirements are sensible but not oppressive:

The patient must meet certain criteria to be able to request to participate in physician-assisted suicide. Then, the following steps must be fulfilled:

1) the patient must make two oral requests to the attending physician, separated by at least 15 days;

2) the patient must provide a written request to the attending physician, signed in the presence of two witnesses, at least one of whom is not related to the patient;

3) the attending physician and a consulting physician must confirm the patient's diagnosis and prognosis;

4) the attending physician and a consulting physician must determine whether the patient is capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself;

5) if either physician believes the patient's judgment is impaired by a psychiatric or psychological disorder (such as depression), the patient must be referred for a psychological examination;

6) the attending physician must inform the patient of feasible alternatives to assisted suicide including comfort care, hospice care, and pain control;

7) the attending physician must request, but may not require, the patient to notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request.

A patient can rescind a request at any time and in any manner.

The attending physician will also offer the patient an opportunity to rescind his/her request at the end of the 15-day waiting period following the initial request to participate.

People like Coulter predicted all kinds of extreme consequences of this law: hundreds of unbalanced people, including out-of-staters, would seek to end their lives; people would do so as a result of pressure from their inheritance-hungry heirs or lazy doctors, and so on.

On average, about 30 individuals take their lives each year under this law; a greater number go through the procedure to receive the necessary drugs, but do not use them. I think this last fact speaks clearly to what is involved, what human need is being met: the need for some sense of control when facing a potentially long and agonizing death. And it speaks to people using this control with deliberation. Having the option, pills in the cabinet, the individual then makes his or her own decision as each day goes by; if their personal threshold of unbearable-ness is not reached, the pills stay where they are. With so few cases each year,the state can review them, and has found no instances of undue pressure, unprofessional behavior, or the other lurid scenarios predicted.

The example of the Netherlands is always brought up in discussions of this subject. There, use of euthanasia has gone further: according to a British Medical Journal report in 2000, "one in five cases of euthanasia occurred without the patient's explicit request" (Perhaps patients brain-dead or otherwise incapable of cognition or communication), and another study found (1997) that of a "sample of 31 [Dutch] neonatologists, 14 (45%) reported having at least once administered drugs with the explicit intention of ending life", to newborns with untreatable and terminal conditions involving severe pain. What discussion there was between the physicians and the parents, we do not know, and many would see that as irrelevant, regarding assisted suicide and euthanasia as wrong in any foreseeable situation. When those remarks are made, I think of someone who spoke up during the second time the Oregon measure was voted on. This person said, with great feeling, that the opponents of the bill would change their minds if they had ever had to listen to a loved one in pain unresponsive to drugs, facing inevitable death, but living on for day after day of torture.

On the subject of pain, it is said that the Oregon Assisted Suicide Act has had the effect of improving the pain relief offered to those with chronic and terminal conditions. It is certainly high time for that--and we have still far to go. The War on Drugs mentality has stood between hundreds of thousands of suffering individuals and effective pain relief, because doctors fear to attract legal attention, or agree with the puritanical demand that even the dying cannot be given a drug otherwise considered illegal. In this way, perhaps, the puritans among us feel that we sinners can get a preview of the torments of hell, and thus come to Jesus before we expire.

As far as the Netherlands/"slippery slope" argument, it seems to me that the "slope" is in this case composed of the attitudes of the populace. Netherlanders support euthanasia as provided for in their laws, though when doctors begin to act on their own beyond the law that is something for their courts, and their legislators, to review and decide upon. Again, those decisions will probably reflect public attitudes. The Dutch populace is relatively small, with a long history of independent thinking. The US has a much larger population, one also given to independence and testing new ideas, but possessing some strong base principles. I can't see ideologue legislators, or even the "activist courts" so beloved of the Conservatives, imposing on Americans some nightmare of euthanasia totally foreign to our wishes, to our culture. If anything of this nature happens in our country, it will be courtesy of the HMOs, seeking to cut their expenses. After all, according to a couple of my doctors, it's the HMOs who demand that physicians spend time on the phone trying to justify, to clerks, their patients' need for particular medical procedures. This is where principle gives way in our country--not when challenged by opposing principle, but when challenged by money.

Forum on Risks to the Public in Computers and Related Systems

Under this catchy name, the Association for Computing Machinery provides a summary, about twice weekly, of news items having to do with various collision points between us humans and our silicon creations. The Forum covers a pretty wide gamut, including surveillance, possibly counter-productive legislation to improve encryption at ATMs, Personal Electronic Devices on Commercial Aircraft, zapping RFIDs (those new anti-theft devices on consumer products), 'Smart' highway systems collecting too much information on our comings and goings, and problems with electronic voting machines. Concerns are raised not only about design and function, but also about legal

There's a table of contents for each year's Archives, and the archives are also searchable. There are between 80 and 90 issues each year; I found it hard to stop browsing through them: Car computer systems at risk for viruses, 'Insane' Quebec Govt Online PAC ID system, Partisan e-mail censorship masquerading as spam filtering during the run-up to the 2004 election, and on...Paypal risks to buyers, Encryption Illegal in Minnesota... I had to search out CNN's report on this one, I couldn't believe it--yes, according to CNN "A Minnesota appeals court has ruled that the presence of encryption software on a computer may be viewed as evidence of criminal intent". It's not quite as bad as it sounded--the presence of encryption software is not prima facie evidence, doesn't make the case all by itself, but it helped to demolish claims of innocence after child porn was found on a guy's computer.

Finally, one entry of particular interest is from Peter Neumann, the moderator of RISK. Around the program's 20th anniversary in 2005, he suggested that the organization might want to consider some way of conveying to the public the potential for harm from the computerized systems that we all use with such nonchalance. Public-interest radio spots were suggested, since one member of the team has the relevant expertise, but this would require some funding. My search of subsequent issues didn't turn up anything more on this yet.

OBL Speaks: Human Rights and Islam

What? not those cartoons again! Osama Bin Laden's latest tape, in which he dealt with the high-level subject of a general jihad against "Crusaders," included a pronouncement on the cartoons of Mohammed. To Westerners the cartoons were such a trivial matter we may have thought that it was a tempest in a teapot, and one that had blown over by now.

Not so. Osama begins the tape by calling for the deaths of the Danish cartoonists. He issued a fatwa, in effect, though he is not formally qualified to do so because he lacks the religious status. But he cited as his authority "the Umma" [ an Arabic word meaning the community of the believers, which = the whole Islamic world] which "has reached a consensus that he who offends or degrades the messenger [Muhammed] would be killed" ). Based on this "decision" against the cartoonists Osama Bin Laden calls for their death. Well, actually, for their murder.

Bin Laden didn't utter the word "cartoon" according to al-Jazeera's apparently hasty translation. Perhaps it seemed too trivial to justify his words. He said:

...I am directing this speech to all the Islamic Umma, to continue talking and urging them to support our prophet Muhammed, and to punish the perpetrators of the horrible crime committed by some Crusader-journalists and apostates against the master of the predecessors and successors, our prophet Muhammed.

The holy verse of the Quran and the holy prophetic teachings have all clarified the need for according love, respect and obedience to our prophet. Allah, the Almighty, has made it a taboo to offend him, saying in the Quran those who harm Allah and his messenger would be damned and severely punished.

...Therefore, the Umma has reached a consensus that he who offends or degrades the messenger would be killed. Such offense is regarded as kufr (infidelity).

...we vow to Allah to avenge for those whose blood have [sic] been spilled. [Presumably referring to people killed in the riots protesting the cartoons.]

He goes on to denounce the West as being "incapable of recognizing the rights of others" and as categorizing "human beings into white masters and colored slaves." Rulers of Muslim countries side with Europe,he says, and perceive "the jihad groups that fight against the Crusaders in Iraq and Afghanistan as terrorist groups" just as the West does. Muslims face a choice of only two courses of action because of the West's intransigent determination: Muslims may choose jihad or slavery (to the West). Then he goes on to review jihads of the past, present and future jihad, from Bosnia to Somalia.

But, going back to the matter of the cartoons. Osama Bin Laden judged them important enough to begin his speech, and to justify calling for the murders of several Danish cartoonists. This seems like a disproportionate penalty to Westerners and others, and also like a wildly wrong way of responding when someone has insulted your religion---or, as Muslims view it, violated your rights. To understand this response we must realize that Islam has a different definition of "rights" than we do.

There is no better illustration of this than the official document, the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in Paris in 1981. It's much longer than the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and its table of contents lists 23 points, including  Right to Life, Rights of Minorities, Right and Obligation to Participate in the Conduct and Management of Public Affairs, Right to Fair Trial, Right to Freedom of Religion, and Rights of Married Women. Seems quite proper and complete.

At the very end, however, something catches your eye:

Explanatory Notes

1 In the above formulation of Human Rights, unless the context provides otherwise: ...

b) the term 'Law' denotes the Shari'ah, i.e. the totality of ordinances derived from the Qur'an and the Sunnah and any other laws that are deduced from these two sources by methods considered valid in Islamic jurisprudence.

All of the rights exist in a legal and cultural environment completely defined by Islamic religious law. It is Sharia, Islamic law, not any noble Declaration, which sets the limits of the rights of individuals. When we look at what punishments and prohibitions have been ordered under Sharia judges in various countries, it's clear that Sharia is reality, rights are illusion. Women are stoned to death for adultery ["Punishment shall be awarded in accordance with the Law, in proportion to the seriousness of the offence", Article 5 of the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights;a Koranic discussion of stoning as punishment for adultery may be read here]; someone who converts from Islam to Christianity faces the death penalty ["Every person has the right to freedom of conscience and worship in accordance with his religious beliefs", Article 13 ibid.]; Christian missionaries are prohibited from talking of their religion, and importation of Bibles is forbidden ["There shall be no bar on the dissemination of information provided it does not endanger the security of the society or the state and is confined within the limits imposed by the Law", Article 12]; women are denied the right to vote or hold office in many countries ["Subject to the Law, every individual in the community (Ummah) is entitled to assume public office" Article 11 -- Since the Law is Sharia, which sets forth different standards for men and women as regards behavior, dress, participation in the workplace, rights of marriage and divorce, etc., the first clause of this "right" negates the rest of the sentence, the "entitled to" part.] When you look back to the beginning of the document, just after the list of 23 detailed protections, there is the Foreword, which reads:

Islam gave to mankind an ideal code of human rights fourteen centuries ago. These rights aim at conferring honour and dignity on mankind and eliminating exploitation, oppression and injustice.

Human rights in Islam are firmly rooted in the belief that God, and God alone, is the Law Giver and the Source of all human rights. Due to their Divine origin, no ruler, government, assembly or authority can curtail or violate in any way the human rights conferred by God, nor can they be surrendered.

Human rights in Islam are an integral part of the overall Islamic order and it is obligatory on all Muslim governments and organs of society to implement them in letter and in spirit within the framework of that order.

... The Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights is based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah and has been compiled by eminent Muslim scholars, jurists and representatives of Islamic movements and thought. May God reward them all for their efforts and guide us along the right path.

And the Preamble to the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights states, in part,

WHEREAS Allah (God) has given mankind through His revelations in the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah of His Blessed Prophet Muhammad an abiding legal and moral framework within which to establish and regulate human institutions and relationships;

Therefore we, as Muslims, who believe

a) in God, the Beneficent and Merciful, the Creator, the Sustainer, the Sovereign, the sole Guide of mankind and the Source of all Law;

b) in the Vicegerency (Khilafah) of man who has been created to fulfill the Will of God on earth;

... d) that rationality by itself without the light of revelation from God can neither be a sure guide in the affairs of mankind nor provide spiritual nourishment to the human soul, and, knowing that the teachings of Islam represent the quintessence of Divine guidance in its final and perfect form, feel duty-bound to remind man of the high status and dignity bestowed on him by God...

Do hereby, as servants of Allah and as members of the Universal Brotherhood of Islam, at the beginning of the Fifteenth Century of the Islamic Era, affirm our commitment to uphold the following inviolable and inalienable human rights that we consider are enjoined by Islam.

In contrast, the corresponding part of the UN Declaration of Human Rights:

Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore, The General Assembly, Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations...

The rights of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights are asserted for all human beings, not limited by being governed by any religious or secular law or definition. No religion, god, or culture is given primacy or supreme power; the document speaks to and for all human beings.

There is no table of contents, but among the rights which the document seeks to guarantee are

Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6 Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13 Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14 Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 18 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

I would like to discuss Shariah law at length another time. For now, it is enough to realize that for the Muslims the foundation of all law, including human rights law, is Shariah law, based on the Koran and hundreds of years of decisions by Islamic jurists--very scholarly men, but not working in any system that produces consistency, or has a highest authority whose decisions become precedent for all "lower courts" (as, for instance, where there is a Supreme Court ruling over a country's laws).

Inconsistency is one problem. The very content of the laws is another: Shariah brought us the recent prosecution of the Christian convert in Afghanistan, who faced the death penalty, and any number of horrendous incidents regarding women being sentenced by Shariah courts to be stoned to death, or to be raped by all the village councillors.

And yet, it is the West, according to Osama Bin laden, which is "incapable of recognizing the rights of others."

Can't we all just live together and be nice?

Can't we all just live together and be nice?

Since the cartoon riots began we have heard this from both Westerners and Muslims. In fact, this innocuous-sounding statement really means that they want to limit freedom of expression to that which doesn't offend anyone. For “anyone,” read “Muslims,” because that is the truth of the matter. I can't see Europeans and Americans accepting “hate speech” laws or pronouncements such that cartoonists, writers, and comic performers couldn't make fun of blondes, lawyers, Poles, priests and rabbis, drunks, guys carrying “End of the World” signs, politicians, celebrities, the British Royal Family, and anyone else who appears in the newspapers—so if we cave on this issue, believe me, it'll just be Muslims protected.

Britain tried last year, for the second time, to pass a law protecting religions from overly critical speech. The effort failed, as it did in 1991; this time it was opposed vociferously--there were gospel-singers protesting outside the buildings of Parliament--by an extraordinary alliance: clerics from all sorts of Christian denominations, a multitude of ordinary citizens fearful that their ability to practice their religion freely would be affected, as well as members of non-Christian religions, and atheists and agnostics. The former Archbishop of Canterbury, that is the former head of the Church of England under the nominal head, the Queen, said: he wanted to live in a society where people were sensitive to the feelings of others. "But in being sensitive, what we mustn't do is create a society in which certain stories are not told," Lord Carey told a news conference. The former archbishop said that, following the publication of Salman Rushdie's book Satanic Verses, Muslim groups came to him asking him to support their campaign against the novel. "They were very offended by Satanic Verses but I said you are living in a country and civilization where we are quite used to this," he said. "They say: 'Why as a Christian don't you condemn the Life of Brian?' I said: 'I love the film and I think it is good for religion to be knocked, to be criticized, to be challenged because we have done a lot of damage in the past'. We know religion is a force for good but I don't want to control a writer not to criticise me, because I may need that criticism."

My own observation is that Muslims are really the only ones objecting to freedom of speech about religion. The rest of us are used to priest-rabbi-pastor jokes, and have learned that even nastier stuff does not hurt our faith or our relationship with God. In the last couple of decades artists have really pushed the issue, with the always-cited example being a 1989 painting of a crucifix suspended in a jar of urine (though the only way you knew this was from the title). Christians hated this, some demonstrated (peacefully, as far as I know), a picture of the painting was torn up on the floor of the Senate, the artist’s government funding was questioned, the Museum in Victoria, British Columbia even closed an exhibition that included the work. There were no arsons, no death threats, nobody tarred and feathered the artist (a traditional North American way of showing someone that he’s persona non grata, but one that has not been used for quite a while). And by 2001 the work was being exhibited at the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine in Manhattan, which is described as being the largest cathedral in the world. And there was no public outcry at all.

Maybe this just seems like an example of how our mores have declined. The Islamists would say that.

But consider previous causes of public outrage: women demanding the vote, chaining themselves to gates and going on hunger strikes in prison (and being brutally force-fed); the anti-slavery and anti-war movements; the 1914 display, also in the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine, of angels sculpted by Gutzon Borglum, the visionary who carved Mt. Rushmore. It was the first time female angels were depicted in church art, and it became a headline-making scandal, according to a cathedral spokesman.

Women voting, the abolition of slavery, the depiction of female angels—at one time all of these were anathema to the Establishment (political, religious, or both). Yet, due to the design of our European and American political systems, individuals were able to go on expressing these ideas. Though their advocacy was sometimes at great harm to themselves, they persisted and changed the minds of the majority. This is one purpose of freedom of expression: that society may correct its errors, and even grow over time.

If historical examples are sufficiently distant, we regard them with an "Of course!" attitude. Of course it is wrong to burn "witches," torture in order to extract testimony (oops, my country has backslid on that one a bit lately!), own the bodies of other human beings, flog women and children with rods for disobeying their male "owner" (husband or father), force animals to fight for our amusement, drink from the river right next to the sewage outflow, poison and crucify unpopular philosophers, force women to remain married to brutal syphilitic husbands, allow the children of the poor to be sold into prostitution. Of course.

Yet when these practices were common, they were defended violently by governments and persons absolutely convinced that they were right. Books were burned, the mouths of authors and speakers were stopped with death. After many centuries of this, after societies became more diversified as a result of travel, trade, and learning, after countless small incremental increases in the definition of human rights, we learned that one man’s faith is another man’s heresy. And they may both be good human beings. We learned that faiths could co-exist; my knowledge that you’re singing the hymns your way on the holy day doesn’t cause my faith to evaporate or even be weakened at all. Perhaps we came to believe, with a certain Archbishop, that “The greatest heresy in the world is a wicked life.” [Archbishop John Tillotson, c. 1690]

Tolerance doesn’t mean ignoring harmful actions. But it does mean that we have agreed to define those actions through secular law, so that harming someone's body or property is a crime, but criticizing their religion, their politics, their art, is not a crime. Speech which deliberately seeks to arouse people to violence, such as forming up a lynch mob, is generally a crime, as is speech which does material damage to a person. Asserting that John Smith is an embezzler, or a dishonest businessman, or an adulterous husband, these things do damage a person and redress may be sought in civil or criminal law. But if John Smith has been formally accused or convicted of embezzlement, then the newspaper reports it and anyone may repeat it.

On the other hand, if I say that Joe Smith’s religion is nonsense—whether I mean my neighbor Joe, or Joe Smith the Mormon founder—I speak of matters no one can prove, matters we all hold different opinions about, and Joe and his friends will simply have to ignore me, or perhaps insult my religion in turn. Or they might “turn the other cheek,” refusing to be drawn into the fray, and continue to live such exemplary and admirable lives that even I may eventually conclude that their religion has some good points.

Do we of the West really want to surrender our standards and have forced upon us the repressive standards we abandoned long ago? Since religion touches daily life everywhere, what may not be banned?

What about the ability to discuss the violation of human rights in the name of religion?

The Roman Catholic Church caused immense human suffering by permitting priests accused of molestation to continue working in parishes where they had contact with children, and by keeping allegations secret. Should this have been ignored by parents, citizens, the legal system? Should it have gone on being handled by secret agreements between prosecutors and church officials in order to spare the feelings of Catholics, and avoid criticizing the high-ranking clergy who enabled the priests? The issue has been made public in the US, but probably exists in other countries too, where there will be considerable resistance to public discussion and investigation. Should investigators, and the victims, be silenced because "feelings will be hurt"?

Female circumcision, or female genital mutilation, is said by some to be a cultural, not an Islamic law issue, yet the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi , consulted 3/5/06 , states:

"Actually, this is a controversial issue among jurists and even among doctors. It has sparked off fierce debate in Egypt whereby scholars and doctors are split into proponents and opponents. However, the most moderate opinion and the most likely one to be correct is in favor of practicing circumcision in the moderate Islamic way indicated in some of the Prophet's hadiths – even though such hadiths are not confirmed to be authentic. It is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to a midwife: "Reduce the size of the clitoris but do not exceed the limit, for that is better for her health and is preferred by husbands". The hadith indicates that circumcision is better for a woman's health and it enhances her conjugal relation with her husband. It’s noteworthy that the Prophet's saying "do not exceed the limit" means do not totally remove the clitoris."

Many women, Muslim and not, Western and Eastern, regard this practice as unjustifiable mutilation; frequently the cutting removes an extensive amount of tissue, sometimes the labia are sewn shut to “preserve chastity”. Female circumcision is very common: “The procedures are nearly universal among women in Egypt, Eritrea, Mali and northern Sudan. In these countries, about nine out of 10 women have had at least some part of their external genitalia removed...Nearly 30 million women have undergone some form of cutting in the countries surveyed. An additional 21 million girls under the age of 15 are estimated to have undergone cutting already or be likely to undergo cutting in the near future...the operations are performed under poor hygienic conditions and many infections result quite aside from complications during childbirth.“ [Inter-African Committee conference on harmful traditional practices, 2001 ] In Egypt, 75% of the young women are circumcised before the age of 11.

Shall discussion, education, efforts to change this practice, all be suppressed to avoid causing distress to religious people? As shown above, the practice is supported by some (not all) Islamic scholars, and is also widely supported by men in the areas where it occurs. They prefer to marry circumcised women and refer derogatorily to women who have not had the operation. Change will meet much resistance.

It should be clear that I am speaking specifically of discussion here, freedom of expression in speech and in print, not of foreigners forcing the government of, say, Egypt to change its laws regarding female circumcision. Such efforts do take place—the US receives a good deal of foreign pressure regarding its failure to abandon the death penalty for the most severe crimes. Some countries won’t return an accused murderer to the US, if the state in which he would be tried has the death penalty. Similarly, the US may give refugee status to women fleeing female circumcision in their native countries. But my discussion is solely about freedom of expression.