Who are the hypocrites?
(CNN) The
past few weeks have brought a head-spinning display of pronouncements
from people claiming to speak on behalf of “freedom.” Of those
pretending to defend basic rights for everyone, it’s hard to judge who’s
the most egregious and insincere. So here are my nominees for the most
hypocritical defenders of human rights of recent days.
Did you know that Iran’s Supreme Leader is deeply troubled by the plight of African-Americans in Baltimore? Did you know that ISIS shares his concerns? Touching, isn’t it?
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei unleashed a barrage
of tweets, gleefully rubbing his virtual hands at the anguish in the
United States. “Power with cruelty isn’t favored by #Islam. #Police
should embody justice and mercy by being potent,” he tweeted.
Clearly, the Ayatollah makes a fine
distinction between police and other “law and order” groups such as
Iran’s infamous Basij militias, who help the ayatollahs keep control
when people protest about, say, stolen elections. The Ayatollah’s worries about abuse of power could be more usefully channeled toward well-documented human rights violations that are endemic in Iran, a place where his power is nearly absolute.
You know who else is worried about the
police killing an innocent man in Baltimore? ISIS. Yes, the
self-described Islamic State, which slaughters Christians, Yazidis and
any Muslim who disagrees with it, posted pictures of black and white
jihadis play-sparring to let us know that “In the Islamic state is no
difference between black and white.”
ISIS is known for its brutality.
North Korea’s news agency carefully downplayed the notion of protesting against injustice. But its Baltimore story explained that Americans “are human butchers without equals.”
In Turkey, where the increasingly autocratic government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was internationally criticized for its violent suppression of anti-government protests,
an Erdogan loyalist, the mayor of Ankara, put on an undiplomatic show
of schadenfreude, calling out the State Department’s Marie Harf, “Where
are you stupid blonde, who accused Turkish police of using
disproportionate force?”
These statements of purported support for
targets of reprehensible police actions in the United States have
nothing to do with concern for the victims. The hypocrisy is an effort
to score political points and blunt criticism against regimes with
continuing human rights violations in countries where abuses have
triggered no prosecutions, self-examination or change in behavior.
The self-proclaimed free speech defenders who actually promote hate.
When two gunmen opened fire in Garland,
Texas, trying to make their way into a hall hosting a cartoon contest
about the Prophet Mohammed, there was little doubt what their ideology
would turn out to be. The shooters, who were killed, are the ones
responsible for the attack. No one should be the target of assassins
because of the cartoons they draw or the contests they promote.
That said, the event organizer, Pamela
Geller, and her American Freedom Defense Initiative are a study in
hypocrisy. They claim to defend free speech — a right worth defending —
but instead they foment hatred. Geller holds that all Muslims are
potential enemies. Her Stop the Islamization of America group claims
that “The U.S. constitution is under attack.”
Her views and tactics have been repudiated by the Anti-Defamation League and even right-wing conservatives are speaking against her.
When Geller compared herself to civil rights hero Rosa Parks, someone — was it Fox’s Martha McCullum or the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue — suggested Geller should act in a “Christian way,” an awkward plea for interfaith tolerance.
The PEN writers who support free speech — unless they don’t like it.
When the respected writers’ group PEN
decided to award its Freedom of Expression Courage honor to the French
satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, it seemed an obvious choice. Charlie
Hebdo displayed immeasurable courage when it continued publishing
despite an earlier firebombing and threats over cartoons that many
Muslims found deeply offensive. The courage was beyond doubt, as was
proven in January when Islamic radicals killed a dozen people in the
magazine’s offices.
At the time, everyone declared “I am Charlie.” But now six prominent writers
— Francine Prose, Teju Cole, Michael Ondaatje, Peter Carey, Rachel
Kushner, Taiye Selasi — have decided Charlie should not be honored. It
turns out they believe free speech should be respected only when one
approves of its content, which is precisely what those who oppose free
speech argue.
These critics accuse the magazine of
having an anti-Islam agenda. But that is patently false. Ten years of
covers prove Charlie’s agenda is opposing dogmatism. Cringe-worthy
cartoons mocking Christian and Jewish dogma are just as common. Islam is
a less-frequently mocked religion. The president of the anti-racism
group SOS Racisme called Charlie “the greatest anti-racist weekly in the
country.”
The writer Salman Rushdie
— whose writings prompted Iran to issue a fatwa, a religious ruling,
which called for his killing — fulminated against the writers who
decided to boycott the PEN award event, saying, “I hope nobody ever
comes after them.” He called them “Six authors in search of a bit of
character.”
Amnesty International defends human rights for most people.
Amnesty International normally acts as a
force for good and has arduously defended many against human rights
abuses, so it is with no small amount of displeasure that I note its
regrettable demonstration of hypocrisy.
When the organization held its annual
meeting last month, members raised motions to sharpen the pursuit of its
mission to protect human rights around the world. Every one of the
proposals won approval — except one.
A motion calling on the group to combat an
epidemic of anti-Semitism spiraling in the United Kingdom was the only
resolution defeated at the meeting. The proposal would have Amnesty
support the recommendations from a British study that found record high and rising levels of anti-Jewish violence.
It had nothing to do with Israel or the Palestinians, the usual
explanation given for dismissing charges of anti-Semitism in Europe.
Amnesty, which approved motions to defend
Colombian trade union members, Guatemalan rule-of-law violations, and
other issues, explained, “We can’t campaign on everything.” With that,
Amnesty became a finalist in my hypocrites list.
No comments:
Post a Comment