|
By Jim Coggins
 |
| The militant views of Pakistani speaker Israr Ahmed are at the centre of a Canadian controversy. |
VISION TV has banned Israr Ahmed, a Pakistani Muslim, from appearing on the station after a controversy erupted over statements Ahmed made about Jews and the Islamic concept of jihad. The issue has some observers pondering the limits of religious freedom.
Ahmed made some of his comments on a July 14 broadcast of Dil Dil Pakistan, a program in the Urdu language that airs Saturday afternoons. It is funded by producer Khalid Cehdai and the Islamic Academic Foundation, which says it is a registered Canadian charity.
During the broadcast, Ahmed said: "Jihad in the way of Allah, for the cause of Allah, can be pursued either with your financial resources, or your bodily strength when you go to fight the enemy in the battlefield . . . Jihad, the highest form, is fighting in the cause of Allah."
This teaching was controversial primarily because of what Ahmed has taught outside of the program. Based in Lahore, Pakistan, he leads a seminary, a bookstore and a self-described "revolutionary" organization called Tanzeem-e Islami, whose aim is to turn Pakistan into a fundamentalist Islamic state. His ultimate goal is the "global domination of Islam." He has called Jews "parasites," and claims that they currently dominate the world. He also foresees a time when they will be exterminated.
Ahmed is a well-known Muslim teacher who also has a regular program on Peace TV, described as a "24-hour Islamic spiritual entertainment international satellite TV channel" -- based in Dubai, Saudi Arabia and India.
The wife of Qayyum Abdul Jamal, who was arrested last summer for his alleged role in a plot to detonate truck bombs in downtown Toronto, has claimed that her husband is a follower of Ahmed.
Protests
In response to early complaints about the program, Vision TV's vice-president of programming Mark Prasuhn defended Ahmed's right to speak, based on "the fundamental freedoms of religion and expression enshrined in the Charter (of Rights and Freedoms)." He said Vision had approved the program based on its content, not on what Ahmed may have said elsewhere.
Prasuhn further stated Ahmed was simply offering an interpretation of the "difficult concept" of jihad -- which carries a range of meanings.
Jihad can mean the struggle to overcome sin in one's personal life; the struggle to spread the teachings of Islam throughout the world; and the defence of Islam through violence. Some terrorists have also used the term, to justify violent acts. Prasuhn said Ahmed was offering his interpretation of the Koran in its "historical context," and that he had not applied the jihad concept to advocating violence in the present day.
After the issue was reported in a lengthy story in the National Post on July 20, Vision pulled the next episode of Dil Dil Pakistan, which also featured Ahmed and was due for broadcast on July 21. In its place, Vision broadcast a rerun of an older episode of Dil Dil Pakistan -- though that episode also included one of Ahmed's talks.
This prompted further protests, and on July 23, Vision president Bill Roberts issued a strongly worded statement which read in part: "I condemn any reference to or suggestion of holy war or violent jihad by any group. I regret that Mr. Israr Ahmad's statements may have conveyed such a suggestion, and we will redouble our efforts to ensure that it does not happen again . . . . VisionTV unequivocally rejects all violence -- or support for violent activities -- in the name of religious faith."
Roberts later told the National Post that Vision and Dil Dil Pakistan producer Khalid Cehdai would be issuing an on-air apology and that Ahmed would not be allowed on the program again.
Roberts told CC.com he has sent all the relevant materials to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, a voluntary agency set up by the broadcast industry, to ask for "a guiding opinion."
Roberts also said Vision is setting up a task force, including representatives of Jewish groups and anyone at Vision who wants to participate, to review its broadcast standards.
Ethics
Vision TV describes itself as "Canada's multi-faith, multicultural broadcaster." Its mandate is to provide "balanced programming focused upon the varied religious practices and beliefs of Canadians." About half of the station's content is provided -- and paid for -- by about 75 faith groups.
Roberts said Vision has "the 'gold standard' of ethics policies." It has both a 'Code of Ethics and a 'Code on Violence.'
The code of ethics states: "Neither the content nor the tone of programming will incite people to commit violent acts or attacks on any other group or person. Violence will neither be glorified, nor exploited, nor used out of context to shock -- or for trivial reasons."
Roberts said all producers must sign on to these codes. He recalled one previous incident in which a US televangelist was accused of violating the code's provision that "programming must not . . . incite discrimination, hatred or violence against any individual or identifiable group" because of his teaching on homosexuality. Vision thought the program was "close" to violating the standards, but the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council ruled it had gone over the line; the televangelist agreed to abide by the ruling, and the issue never came up again.
Continue article >>
|
Roberts said the July 21 program represented "an embarrassing failure of process". He told CC.com every program on Vision is screened by both the producer and by Vision staff. In this case, the producer was preoccupied with his daughter's wedding, and did not do a proper job of pre-screening the July 14 program.
Vision staff had also screened the program, but while they are well versed in Vision's Code of Ethics, they are not necessarily trained in all of the theological issues, said Roberts. In particular, they do not have the time or resources to do background checks on all guests on Vision programs, and they were unaware of Ahmed's other teachings.
Roberts said the examination of Vision's broadcast standards gets at some "deeply important issues." He noted that while he has been "a defender of human rights and free speech" as a member of Amnesty International, a broadcaster sometimes has to make a "wrenching judgment call" between Charter guarantees of free speech and laws against hate crimes.
Roberts said it is clear in this case that Ahmed is "a dangerous man" who should not be given air time, but a broadcaster might be on shaky ground if it starts to evaluate not just programming but also those who produce it.
"Are we going to do a background check on everyone who goes on air?" he asked. "Should we pull Mel Gibson's movies?" he added, referring to Gibson's comments about Jews during an arrest for drunken driving last year. Roberts also raised the question of whether the broadcaster should ban a televangelist who says derogatory things about homosexuals in public meetings in the U.S. even if he doesn't make them in his Canadian programming.
Roberts said the broadcaster also risks getting into difficult privacy issues. "Where do we draw the line? Should we do credit checks?" he asked, adding that measures like these could have "a chilling effect on freedom of speech."
Doug Cryer, director of public policy for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, told CC.com that Vision's "willingness to receive input from the various stakeholders in the faith community is a positive move."
Cryer also talked about the balance between maintaining freedom of religious expression and limiting hate speech. "Religious freedom requires a high degree of tolerance for those with whom we disagree," he said. "As Christians, I believe our standards should be higher than the threshold established by the government.
"While we may disagree on the basis of Scripture and conscience with others over the morality of lifestyles or practices and religious dogma, our basic stance is one of speaking the truth in love."
Related stories:
VisionTV defends airing 'jihad' lecture
Muslims urged to take up fight against 'the enemy'
National Post, July 20
Gay rights group gets Canada's help at UN
Muslim and developing countries had opposed giving 'observer' status
CanWest News Service, July 21
Islamist roots tug in Turkey
Secularism enforced by the military challenged by support for fundamentalist ruling party
Matthew Fisher, CanWest News Service, July 21
Pakistani inferno
There are two big questions worth pondering gravely: 1. Are we witnessing a repetition of the events in Iran, in 1979, in which all the relatively "liberal" elements in Persian society fell to squabbling among themselves, while the totalitarian Islamists under Ayatollah Khomeini deposed the Shah? 2. Whether or not this could happen, will it come to appear so likely, that India will resolve to prevent it by main force?
David Warren, Ottawa Citizen, July 21
VisionTV gives Islamic radical more air time
Jewish groups outraged; Vision backpedals on 'regret' to air preacher
National Post, July 23
Muslim allies of U.S. dwindle
Moderate Turkey alienated by war on Iraq
Matthew Fisher, National Post, July 23
VisionTV to strike standards task force
Will also air apology; CEO expresses regrets in wake of jihadist's broadcast
National Post, July 24
Inevitable divergence
Let that be a lesson to us. The Islamic world is not going to become more Western and "modern" over time. For Turkey was the farthest "West" any Islamic society could be taken, and then only by force. We must confront that reality plainly, and stop dreaming that "democracy" will make the Muslims just like us.
David Warren, Ottawa Citizen, July 25
Earlier: Stories about Islam and the West
July 26/2007
|
ended with the death of 50 million people. How can you think that sane citizens would endorse the teachings of men who promote the extermination of any population?
I am not a follower of Ahmed. However,I've seen a couple of his broadcasts. He is a great speaker with a wealth of knowledge and a deep understanding of the essence of Islam. His lectures offer a much needed philosophical insight into the philosophy of Islam. The people behind the banning of Ahmed's programmes strike me as being either shallow or just plain 'anti-Islamic".
I think some going back to the basics in democracy would be good for us all.
As a Muslim, your comments are deeply disheartening and I wish that you go educate yourself, rather than continue to spew this religious hatred that idiotic fundies spew against other faiths.
Had there been some other fundamentalist from any other faith spewing hate against Muslims, you would protest in anger for allowing such a thing, but when it's a Muslim doing it, why do you defend it? This utter hypocrisy has got to stop.
As a Canadian, I'm proud that we can have a discussion like this in a civilized manner and that we have a station representing all faiths, furthering inter-religious understanding.
God Bless Canada
Assalamo alaykum