An Open Letter to the US State Department
KO
An Open Letter to the US State Department
To: PA/PL, Rm. 2206
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20520
202-647-6575
To: Diplomatic Enclave
Ramna 5
APO/FPO
Unit 62200 APO
AE 09812-2200
Phone: 92-51-208-0000
Fax: 92-51-227-6427
From: Tracy R. Twyman
Editor, Plus Ultra
3/12/2006
To Dr. Condoleeza Rice, the US Diplomatic Enclave in Pakistan, and all other concerned parties:
My name is Tracy R. Twyman. I have been an American citizen my whole life. I am, with my husband Brian, co-owner and editor of a website called Plus Ultra, which can be found by going to plusultrablog.com. We have recently found ourselves in the middle of an international incident that your department may already be aware of. Nevertheless, allow me to recount the story, from my perspective.
It has been almost two months since we first republished the Jyllands-Posten Mohammed cartoons on the Plus Ultra website. It was shortly after doing so that Plus Ultra was successfully attacked by cyberterrorists, who managed to bring the site down for about a day and a half. At the time, I thought the site had been targeted simply because we had republished the Danish cartoons, and because we had been critical of Islamofascism in our many articles, which can be found throughout the entire website.
However, when we got Plus Ultra back up and running, we noticed that our site was constantly being visited by people from Turkey, who were following links that had been posted on Islamic cyberterrorist discussion forums based in Turkey. I had a friend who knows Turkish translate one of these messages. The post listed plusultrablog.com amongst 11 other websites, and proclaimed that all 12 were guilty of not only republishing the Danish cartoons, but of creating new Mohammed cartoons, and of encouraging others to do so as well. These Turkish hackers had copied the list of 12 websites from drawmohammed.com, where on the front page the webmaster had listed his own URL, and those of 11 other websites, and labeled the list, "friends." Plus Ultra was listed there because we had submitted a piece of Photoshop art to drawmohammed.com. So the Turkish cyberterrorists had just picked these 12 sites to target because they were listed on drawmohammed.com, even though there are many other websites besides those 12 that feature much more offensive Mohammed drawings.
We continued getting hits from these hacker forums, but nothing happened. Then about a week ago, my husband Brian was reading a BBC article that said 12 websites had been blocked by the Pakistani government because they were encouraging people to create new Mohammed drawings. This action had inadvertently caused all blogs hosted by the company "Blogspot" to be banned, angering many Pakistanis. Brian thought that it was beyond coincidence that there were exactly 12 banned websites, and so we posted a story on the Plus Ultra blog speculating that they might be the same 12 who were listed on the Turkish hacker forums.
Sure enough, the next day Brian was able to find a copy of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority's order to ban the 12 websites on the Urdu-language version of the BBC website. It was only a thumbnail, with no larger photo available, so it was very hard to see, but through sheer pattern recognition we knew right away that it was the same list of 12. And it was. Plus Ultra was #7 on the list. We have since notified all of the other webmasters whose websites are on the list.
The Pakistani Supreme Court is currently considering the matter. They have already had one hearing about this, with another one scheduled for March 13. Lawyers have petitioned the court, asking them to do the following:
1. Charge Pakistani citizens who are caught attempting to circumvent the website ban with blasphemy.
2. Charge with blasphemy all Pakistani government officials who have not done their "utmost" to prevent people from seeing the banned websites.
3. Attempt to extradite and try for blasphemy all of the webmasters responsible for the offensive websites, which they believe they can do under "existing international treaties."
4. Push the global community to enact some sort of international law against blasphemy.
Of course, in Pakistan, the penalty for blasphemy is death, or life in prison. I quote from the Pakistani Penal Code:
295-B Defiling, etc, of copy of Holy Quran. Whoever will fully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Quran or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable for imprisonment for life.
295-C Use of derogatory remarks, etc; in respect of the Holy Prophet. Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. (Emphasis mine.)
It will be interesting to see what happens on March 13, when the Supreme Court of Pakistan meets again on the matter. They have subpoenaed Yahoo, among other internet companies, to explain why they have failed to censor these blasphemous websites. We know that Yahoo has a history of turning dissidents over to totalitarian governments, so we shall see if they can resist the temptation to hand those Pakistanis who have tried to get around the ban over to a certain death.
But what I want to know is, what will your department do when the Supreme Court of Pakistan attempts to have me, my husband, and other writers for Plus Ultra, as well as the webmasters for the 11 other banned websites, extradited and tried for blasphemy? I fear that you will make another conciliatory statement like this one, from State Department spokesman Justin Higgins:
"We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable. We call for tolerance and respect for all communities and for their religious beliefs and practices."
The effect that this statement has had on the right of free expression around the world has been devastating. In fact, just a few days ago, Brian was having an argument with some Pakistani bloggers, from a group called "Don't Block the Blog", who were upset that their favorite blogs were being blocked. Their complaint was that the Pakistani government should have found a way to block the 12 blasphemous websites, and leave the rest untouched. They did not object to censorship. So Brian argued with them, in the comments' section of a Washington Post article, telling them that it would be better to have total freedom of expression and information in Pakistan, rather than selective censorship. Do you want to know how they responded? They quoted the same State Department statement I quoted above, and said that since our government supports censorship, we, as Americans, should do likewise. Frankly, I find this attitude disgusting, and I am ashamed at the way the State Department has behaved in response to this "cartoon problem." And now we find that the State Department's statement has indeed had a chilling effect on the right of free expression around the world.
Perhaps it was the State Department's pro-censorship statement, quoted above, which has emboldened the Pakistani government to seek an international blasphemy law. In fact, according to this article in Qatar's Gulf Times Newspaper from March 8, 2006, the governments of Pakistan, Turkey, and Spain have all gotten together to push the UN to pass such a law. They are planning a conference on the matter soon, which they are calling, oxymoronically, the "Alliance of Civilisation Conference." Here is a quote from the newspaper article, which you really need to read:
ISLAMABAD: Spain agreed yesterday to work with Pakistan towards drafting a resolution at the UN against the defamation of religions and religious symbols, in the wake of the publication of caricatures depicting the Prophet Muhammad deemed insulting to Islam.
"We understand and respect the sufferings of Muslims and the Islamic countries after the publication of the cartoons," Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos told reporters after meeting his Pakistani counterpart Khurshid Kasuri in Islamabad at the end of his two-day visit to the country…
While supporting freedom of expression, the Spanish foreign minister emphasised that it has to be observed with responsibility.
Minister Kasuri said Pakistan has proposed to host a meeting of the so-called "Alliance of civilisation" initiative, co-sponsored by Spain and Turkey, to promote understanding among different cultures and beliefs.
Moratinos said his country would support Pakistan's efforts to hold the meeting. (Emphasis mine.)
I am shocked that a European state would support such an effort, and I feel personally offended by the Spanish government. But that doesn't even come close to how I will feel if the State Department of the United States does not whole-heartedly object to and condemn this effort to create international blasphemy laws. In fact, the purpose of writing this letter is to encourage the State Department to make a public statement on this matter, covering the following points:
1. The State Department condemns the execution or jailing of Pakistani citizens, or citizens of any nation, for the crime of "blasphemy."
2. The State Department will not cooperate with or condone any attempt by any foreign government to extradite American citizens for the crime of "blasphemy."
3. The State Department will not cooperate with or condone any attempt by any foreign government, or by the United Nations, to create "international blasphemy legislation."
4. The State Department supports the right of free expression in every country on Earth, without any caveats or exceptions, as a basic human right, which needs to be respected by all governments.
If your department can make these simple statements publicly, it will make the work of those who fight for international freedoms and human rights a lot easier. As it stands today, your Department has done nothing but undermine those efforts for the last two months. If Pakistani citizens end up getting executed for looking at "blasphemous" websites, or if the webmasters of these "blasphemous" websites are extradited to Pakistan for execution, you cannot say that you are blameless. So please, take this seriously. Human rights, and human lives, are at stake.
Sincerely,
Tracy R. Twyman
Editor, Plus Ultra
Zohare
husband, Brian, was actually the guy on the washington post commentary
section.
a sane voice
insults) than the rest of humanity. This is a cultural difference. They
think nothing of trading insulting and abusive language.
KO
>>They think nothing of trading insulting and abusive language.
ko
Zainub
KO
Zainub
KO
there is no way to discuss such things. The way it works throughout the world is by strength of arms. For example, because they can and they are very afraid of their people, the House of Saud have outlawed the bible in order to appear all muslim like. (ironically the bibe is one of Islam's holy books).
Christian kings and popes declared many men of science blashphemers and killed them over the centuries.
The Taliban when they could, killed many men and women, and declared watching tv blasphemous.
Burma is another shining example, where the ruling Generals feel free to declare anything at all blashpemous.
Libya, Syria, the poorest parts of Africa - whereever there are strongmen to be found... the list is long.
The strong decide what is blasphemy and the rest have to live with it.
ko
Zainub
Moid
But the ban is wrong as much as ban on Muhammed's cartoons is wrong.
Lets try to remove this ban, rather than try to impose more bans.
-Moid
> ------=_Part_11331_30764023.1142276541835
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Google-AttachSize: 678
>
> <div><font face="trebuchet ms">Other countries have no business telling us how we should make our laws or not, I'll be outraged if the State department actually responds to this and tells the government to have a re look at our laws regarding blasphemy. And I don't see anything wrong either in the government campaigning for an international law against the same. If you can have laws against Holocaust denial, then there is no reason why you cannot have one against blasphemy.
> </font></div>
> <div><font face="trebuchet ms"></font> </div>
> <div><font face="trebuchet ms">My message to the State Department: Mind you own bloody business<br></font></div>
>
> ------=_Part_11331_30764023.1142276541835--