Journalists fined over Islam joke

The BBC reported on an interesting case today from Morocco. Two journalists, Driss Ksikes and Sanaa al-Aji, have been handed sentences of three years for defaming Islam and breaching public morality. The court also banned publication of their magazine for two months and fined them about $8,000.

The two journalists had written an article entitled How Moroccans laugh at religion, sex and politics. The article had featured jokes about God, the prophets and the Moroccan king. The journalists claimed they did not invent the joke about Islam but rather used something that was already in general circulation.

So here's an interesting case study:
From the journalists point of view: they have newly-won press freedom which has been been swept away by this verdict. They claimed to make jokes was not something to be ashamed of, that making jokes did not in any way contradict with religion as there is a time for laughter and a time for seriousness, and that they were merely recording the jokes rather than inventing them. Laughter above all things, should not be suppressed as it allows a society to express itself. The journalists are backed by many international organisations and intend to appeal their sentances.

From the judges point of view: Morocco is new to freedom of press and it is fragile - therefore the prosecution argued that that there must be limits to freedom of speech, i.e that some things are better left unsaid as a mark of respect. The jokes, they claimed, deeply insulted many ordinary Moroccans and their religion. Moreover in the Koran it says there should be no image or personification of Allah and the jokes were doing just that. So the prosecution argued for Islamic traditions to be upheld and as it was, it recieved the backing of most of the Arab world.

Its interesting that one might side differently with a case such as this in Morocco compared to if such a case arose in England. In Morocco , since freedom of speech is still developing and could be so easily taken away, i would say the journalists were perhaps a bit reckless in using this joke. Even if laughter and jokes are more permissable, perhaps printed in a magazine isn't the most subtle thing to do. But then perhaps they were making a point that things had to improve more! But if this happened in England......................I wonder what would happen. One only needs to remember the cartoons published in Europe last year to imagine that if such a case arose, the outcome might be similar, except dressed up in a different wording.

Morocco - no tolerance for any religion except Islam, therefore don't mock/criticise
England - supposed tolerance for all religions, therefore don't mock/criticism

Rallies

Today I attended my first rally outside Parliament - and in many ways it lived up to its definition "a large gathering of people intended to arouse enthusiasm ". This rally was not in any militant - there was some hearty chanting, singing and holding of bill boards but the numbers there were impressively large but subdued - the police presence was in the end unecessary. But it does beg a few questions regarding the use of rallies to make points (i.e are they the best option):

• Some dislike rallies because they feel it taints them - especially if extremists turn up at rallies and make their points in violent ways. Rallies have a feeling of confrontation in that people want to force the issue into the spotlight in order to make a point - some by nature of their personality, may prefer a subtler way. Does a rally mean you become labelled/sterotyped and therefore might not get so many people ready to talk to you about your cause, because of your actions?
  
• Others attend rallies because they want to make known the strenght of feeling regarding a particular issue and perhaps feel other methods of lobbying are ineffective - such as writing to your MP . A rally shows conviction and commitment to a cause, as you are prepared to give up time etc for something that may not have a clear/measurable outcome.
  
• Rallies are indeed more visual but at the same time are very hard to control - you can organise one but you can't plan who will attend and thus what kind of result you will have - rallies can end up being detrimental to organisations credibility if they turn bad.
  
• What matters most at a rally - many associate rallies with the noise they make or the trouble they cause - but surely it is more about the number of people that turn out to protest and the indeed the manner they conduct themselves if it is decent and peaceful.
  

My personal opinion is that rallies do have a place - especially when very serious issues are at stake. Governments have no choice but to take notice when large groups of people gather on their doorstep - if they are a democracy they should listen to the people who elect them, if they are not a democracy they should be afraid of their citizens - as if they have taken to the streets as their own way to get their views across, things must be wrong.

New EU members - Bulgaria & Romania

Yesterday at midnight, the countries of Bulgaria and Romania celebrated their entrance into the EU. Their accession means the EU now has 27 members and half a billion people, and stretches as far east as the Black Sea. Moreover Slovenia became the first of the group of 10 countries that joined in 2004, to adopt the euro.

The accession of the two new countries comes amid falling enthusiasm in Europe for the bloc's continuing expansion. They will now be subject to strict monitoring, to ensure they make more progress in the fight against corruption and organised crime. They face export bans on certain foods, and Bulgaria has been warned that 55 of its aircraft could be grounded unless they reach EU safety standards.There are also fears about mass immigration given that both Bulgaria and Romania are much poorer than the rest of the EU.

There is some concern in Britain with predictions on how many will come to Britain varying from 56,000 to 180,000 in the first year. However others say the accession of these two countries will be nothing compared to when 10 joined in 2004. The immigration pattern of these two countries has typically been towards the Mediterranean rather than to the north and most who wanted to come to the UK would already have done so. Regardless of this the Home Office had earlier revealed its plans to limit the right to work for Bulgarians and Romanians.

The new curbs contrast with the "open-door" policy adopted in 2004, when 15,000 migrant workers were expected to arrive each year. Instead 600,000 arrived in two years. That's Labour for you!

So the questions are:

• Will these countries be a hinderance to the EU in its bid for further unity (e.g the constitution and euro)? i.e the more states you have to accomodate, the harder it gets to rule from the centre.
  
• Will the fears of mass immigration prove to be a fallacy?
• Will the two new nations gain from entry into the EU - will they be buried under new EU reqirements? there are predictions that once trade barriers are down they will fail to compete and will mis spend EU aid because their institutions are too disorganised.
  
• Will Europe gain from having Bulgaria and Romania in the EU or will they have to be carried along?
• Who will join next and under what conditions?