Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Censorship in the New Iraq
The dream that the new Iraq would be a western-style liberal democracy has suffered another blow, as Baghdad
moves to ban sites deemed harmful to the public, to require Internet cafes to register with the authorities and to press publishers to censor books.
The government, which has been proceeding quietly on the new censorship laws, said prohibitions were necessary because material currently available in the country had had the effect of encouraging sectarian violence in the fragile democracy and of warping the minds of the young.
"Our Constitution respects freedom of thought and freedom of expression, but that should come with respect for society as a whole, and for moral behavior," said Taher Naser al-Hmood, Iraq's deputy cultural minister. "It is not easy to balance security and democracy. It is like being a tightrope walker."
But opponents of the proposals question why Iraq would seek to impose the same sorts of censorship that had been among the most loathed aspects of daily life under Saddam Hussein and suggest that they are another example of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki's working to consolidate his power. The new policies will put Iraq more in line with neighboring Islamic states.
Among the new developments: a government report urging the authorities to block websites concerned with "drugs, terrorism, gambling, negative remarks about Islam and pornography." Say what you will about censorship, but I'm glad to hear that those negative remarks about pornography are finally going to go.
kilroy|8.4.09 @ 10:05AM|#
I'm guessing the US will never learn this lesson.
Trillions of US dollars, thousands of lives and hello new
dictator.
Next up...Afghanistan.
|8.4.09 @ 10:07AM|#
Say what you will about censorship, but I'm glad to hear
that those negative remarks about pornography are finally going to
go.
See, folks, that's why I go to the wall for serial commas.
|8.4.09 @ 10:11AM|#
They're blocking porn, thus maintaining the support of the evangelicals who wanted the invasion in the first place.
|8.4.09 @ 10:14AM|#
Yup, nukes should have been the order of the day 6 years ago. These people can't be saved. No porn? Really? It's the internet, for Pete's sake. That's what it's for!
Vehical Driver|8.4.09 @ 10:15AM|#
So basically, Iraq has censorship rules not much different that Western Europe then?
|8.4.09 @ 10:21AM|#
This can't possibly surprise anyone. Well, except for maybe the neocon douchebags who told everyone that Iraq was going to get turned into a sandier version of Burlington.
Jordan|8.4.09 @ 10:26AM|#
I'm shocked. I wonder if the Iraqi police have manuals detailing
how to properly beat suspects?
Chinese training manual offers advice how to beat offenders without
leaving marks
So basically, Iraq has censorship rules not much different that Western Europe then?
Somebody had to say it.
|8.4.09 @ 10:26AM|#
What's so bad about Islamic pornography? Is it worse than the
Christian variety?
I think Iraq is just taking the European view to speech rights,
rather than the American.
JD|8.4.09 @ 10:26AM|#
Not surprised. Because - and I really don't mean anything
against individual Iraqis by this - they just don't fucking get it,
where by "it" I mean Western-style liberal democracy. They have no
history of it. It is not part of their set of cultural norms.
Think about it this way: if the government of the US were somehow
suddenly swept away and we had to create a new one, do you think
we'd install a hereditary monarchy? A military dictatorship? No,
we'd probably end up with something similar to what we have now,
because that's what matches people's concept of "what a government
is/does". In the Iraqi conception (and, it must be said, many
peoples' around the world), the purpose of a government is "to
ensure social stability and promote good stuff", not "to defend
individual rights". Us invading them and overthrowing a tyrant was
not going to magically change that.
kilroy|8.4.09 @ 10:33AM|#
JD,
If you think most people in the US believe the purpose of
government is "to defend individual rights" you must not live
here.
Abdul|8.4.09 @ 10:42AM|#
Even under this regime, it still seems like Iraq will have a freer press then any other middle eastern country, and one not much different from some western european ones.
Vehical Driver|8.4.09 @ 10:52AM|#
Liberal Democracy was an 18th century experiment now long dead. If we (U.S.) created a new government nowadays, it would look a lot like the government of Iraq or England or Venezuela.
|8.4.09 @ 11:00AM|#
Can we just wipe out the people in government and start over with the same framing document? Oh, and can we also wipe out people who vote for Republicans and Democrats? I think we'd be OK then, at least for a while.
|8.4.09 @ 11:00AM|#
I don't make too much out of this sort of thing. Even if Iraq retains a liberal government, it isn't going to be as liberal as the U.S. I imagine gay marriage isn't doing too well over there, either.
|8.4.09 @ 11:02AM|#
Is it really that surprising that Iraq is going to be some sort of mix of Turkish theocratic led democracy and Iranian democratic looking theocracy?
NeoCondiment|8.4.09 @ 11:09AM|#
"The dream that the new Iraq would be a western-style
liberal democracy"
Who said or dreamed that? Iraq is full of freakin'
Muslims! How many Muslim "western-style liberal democracies" are
there in the world? Let's see...ummm...well, there's, ummm...
|8.4.09 @ 11:22AM|#
Should've partitioned the country. Then we'd at least have gotten liberal Kurdistan. Or, as I prefer to call it, Kurdlahoma.
|8.4.09 @ 11:40AM|#
What's so bad about Islamic pornography
As the Messiah's© self appointed Porno Czar, please send all
Islamic porno links to me in order for me to thoroughly and
indefatigably research them for hotness and possible
corruption.
Mad Max|8.4.09 @ 11:48AM|#
'Chinese training manual offers advice how to beat offenders
without leaving marks'
And these aren't murder suspects they're beating. According to the
linked article:
'The book was reportedly designed as a training guide for the
Chengguan, an urban control force charged with keeping the peace,
ridding China's cities of illegal street hawkers and unlicensed
taxi cabs, and checking permits. . . .
'In Shanghai, hawkers said they had heard of several cases of abuse
by the Chengguan, who they described as generally uneducated thugs.
Chen Juan, a 28-year-old hawker who sells trinkets and hairbands,
said: "They are different throughout the city. The ones near the
centre of town are very violent. They do not always beat you up,
but they intimidate us and usually confiscate and stomp on our
goods. I was once chased down the street by a gang of them and that
left me quite rattled."
'However, another vendor, who asked not to be named, said it was
easy to "play the game", suggesting that casual bribery took care
of most problems.'
Chicken Bones of Justice|8.4.09 @ 11:50AM|#
And I was so hoping they'd follow the Venezuelan free press/speech model. It's to freedom what the cuban system is to heathcare. Total utopia.
|8.4.09 @ 11:54AM|#
"Who said or dreamed that? Iraq is full of freakin' Muslims!
How many Muslim "western-style liberal democracies" are there in
the world? Let's see...ummm...well, there's, ummm..."
There's no way around the fact that this sounds like a weak
argument. But it isn't. It's right on target. Iraq may not be a
liberal democracy, but it's a democracy. You have to start
somewhere--afterall, the US wasn't exactly a paragon of liberalism
in its early days (or its mid-days) either, now were we?
Chicken Bones of Justice|8.4.09 @ 11:57AM|#
"There's no way around the fact that this sounds like a weak
argument. But it isn't. It's right on target. Iraq may not be a
liberal democracy, but it's a democracy. You have to start
somewhere--afterall, the US wasn't exactly a paragon of liberalism
in its early days (or its mid-days) either, now were we?"
Look. The whole point of this post is to kick America. Toe the
lion, mkay?
hmm|8.4.09 @ 12:07PM|#
There's a finger, toe, camel, lion joke in there somewhere, but I'm not going there.
JB|8.4.09 @ 12:09PM|#
Stupid Iraqis. They are like dumb battered wives and want more of the same after they get rid of the first abuser.
|8.4.09 @ 12:12PM|#
I've been making comments similar to this one for years.
J sub D | February 27, 2009, 10:27am | #
That date, Jan. 1, 2012, was set as the deadline for final withdrawal of all U.S. forces, in a status of forces agreement signed last year by former President George W. Bush and the Iraqi government.
Assuming that this holds up and a representative democratic government with respect for basic human rights still exists in Mesopotamia on Jan 1, 2013, all of the red teamers that claimed the tree of freedom we've planted in Iraq will bear fruit, are cordially invited to say "J sub D, we were right and you were wrong, nyah, nyah nyah".
I haven't been and won't be moving the goal posts. I still predict it won't happen.
Michael Ejercito|8.4.09 @ 1:43PM|#
Is it really that surprising that Iraq is going to be some sort of mix of Turkish theocratic led democracy and Iranian democratic looking theocracy?
No, it should not.
Are there any quotes from anyone claiming that Iraq would have the
same protections of individual rights that Americans
have?
You have to start somewhere--afterall, the US wasn't exactly a paragon of liberalism in its early days (or its mid-days) either, now were we?
This was true. There was no nationwide protection of women's
suffrage until 1919 (although some jurisdictions in America had
women's suffrage by 1860).
I should also add that the privilege against self-incrimination
only exists in America and a few other places. In most
western-style liberal democracies (never mind the rest of the
world), accused criminals have a legal duty to answer questions
truthfully, even if the answers would incriminate them.
Jesse Walker|8.4.09 @ 2:06PM|#
Iraq may not be a liberal democracy, but it's a democracy.
You have to start somewhere--afterall, the US wasn't exactly a
paragon of liberalism in its early days (or its mid-days) either,
now were we?
That is, actually, the strongest argument a defender of the war (of
the we-went-to-war-to-spread-freedom school) could make. The
counterargument is that the country currently seems to be
regressing, not progressing, in terms of individual liberty. The
counter-counterargument is that you should map such trends in
decades, not months.
My position is that the war, and the sanctions that
preceded it, made it less likely that an indigenous push toward
democratization like what we're seeing in Iran would break out in
Iraq. But that's a much broader argument.
|8.4.09 @ 2:33PM|#
If Iran becomes successful in it's democracy push, would Iraq perhaps follow? How much of a bitch slap to the warhawks would that be, if Iran led the way instead of us?
Chicken Bones of Justice|8.4.09 @ 2:41PM|#
"If Iran becomes successful in it's democracy push, would Iraq
perhaps follow? How much of a bitch slap to the warhawks would that
be, if Iran led the way instead of us?"
???
hmm|8.4.09 @ 2:43PM|#
Iran and Iraq are about as far apart as you can get. Why would
they politically follow each other?
Persians and Arabs aren't exactly known for their loving hand
holding relationship.
mark|8.4.09 @ 2:48PM|#
the we-went-to-war-to-spread-freedom school
I am sickened that there is such a school, and that George Bush
went to it, and graduated, and downplayed it until Saddam had
fallen, and then pretended that was the whole point from the
beginning. And there are still people who believe it was a worthy
cause, and have managed to convince themselves that the war was
always about Democracy from the beginning, and WMD's? La la la la
la la!
I will never again support a military action code-named Operation
[insert Nationality here] Freedom.
|8.4.09 @ 3:01PM|#
I only mentioned Iraq following Iran because of the shia relationship of the dominant Iraqi party to Iran's shia population. If Iran's moderates somehow gain success, would Iraq follow in some way? It was a real question that I don't know the answer to, which is why I asked it.
|8.4.09 @ 3:04PM|#
Should be have expected anything different from a government
freely-elected (code word for hand picked) under the watchful eye
of neocons like Bush and Rumsfeld? Then, the fact that the vast
majority of Iraqis are Muslim (many of which are highly
conservative or fundamentalists) does not help much either.
But hey, it's none of my business. Iraq's domestic policy is their
deal, not ours. Or at least that's how it should have been.
Chicken Bones of Justice|8.4.09 @ 3:19PM|#
Nick,
What I don't get is your premise that Iran is further down the road
to representative democracy than Iraq.
There have been years of democratically elected representatives at
all levels of government in Iraq. The same does not hold true with
Iran (see ongoing post-presidential election riots and the death of
protesters both on the street and in the secret prisons now holding
protesters).
Therefore: I found your original remark to be nothing more than
standard-issue, liberal Maheresque sniping.
|8.4.09 @ 3:53PM|#
Iraq is going to be a shit hole for a long time. Killing a
million or two Iraqis didn't fix anything but balance sheets of the
Military Industrial Complex. The stupid republicans that voted for
George Bush and John McCain will worship socialism as long as it
has a R stamped on it and a old white guy selling it.
The stupid demcorats who voted for Obama have an amazing ability to
be "glamoured" and lose all memory of the previous 18 years of
conflict in Iraq. As long as government is promising to confiscate
more wealth and spend it on stuff they are happy. Dropping bombs on
weddings and tasering pregnant women is all good again.
|8.4.09 @ 4:16PM|#
CBoJ, Jesse's 2:06 said something about Iran's indigenous push
toward democracy vs Iraq's forced democracy. I took that and kind
of ran with the premise that if Iran's home grown push went quicker
than Iraq's slow and confused method, would they eventually lean
towards the Iranian version of a push? Home grown and more
forceful...
I didn't mean to imply Iran was closer now, but if they have a
revolution of sorts it could be quicker from point A to point B.
Iraq is kind of going from point B to something else right now, or
so it seems.
|8.4.09 @ 4:19PM|#
Was my original statement liberal and Maheresque because I took a swipe at warhawks and the idea that our way is always the best way? If so, guilty, but I thought that was just an anti-warhawk type statement that could be used by libertarians as well. Will have to check my manual.
JD|8.4.09 @ 4:26PM|#
@kilroy - Eh, valid point. But I think you'd find a lot more people in the US who would agree with the statement "the purpose of government is to protect individual rights" than you would in Iraq, or Venezuela, or even England.
|8.4.09 @ 8:44PM|#
"drugs, terrorism, gambling, negative remarks about Islam
and pornography."
Not to be a douche, but it's relevant to point out that much of the
supposedly "western liberal democratic" world censors speech in
those areas.
Check out Britian's hate speech laws protecting Muslims from
offense, or our own child porn laws, drug laws, etc. Do we let
jihadi websites operate freely in the US? No...
Not that we SHOULD be censoring those things. It just doesn't put
Iraq out of step with the western world as much as we'd like to
think.
Michael Ejercito|8.5.09 @ 1:59PM|#
Child porn hurts the children who are the subjects of it. It is
far different from the hate speech laws in Britain, Canada, and
Iraq.
And on criminal justice issues, you can count on one hand the
countries that protect the privilege against
self-incrimination.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245