Here’s a bookish story developing down in Australia. Federal and state counter-terrorism officers will investigate at least one Islamic bookshop in Sydney following revelations it is selling literature promoting jihad and justifying suicide bombings.
The Australian reports bookstores face closure and their owners could be charged with terrorism offences as pressure intensifes in the wake of the London bombings to crack down on radical literature sold in Australia.
An Editorial From The Australian says we need to proceed with caution before we place limits on freedom of expression.
The Age reports the books, promoting Islamic holy war and the killing of non-Muslims who insult the prophet Muhammad, are being examined for possible breaches of the Crimes Act following complaints from the Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Council.
The BBC says Australian police are investigating claims a Sydney bookshop has been selling extremist Muslim books.
Another bookstore in Melbourne, run by the country’s most fundamentalist cleric, was yesterday selling a book calling for Christians to be trampled underfoot.
“It is either Islam or death,” says the book, which is sold from the bookshop attached to the Brunswick prayer room where Sheik Mohammed Omran delivers his fiery sermons.
“Obviously, in this investigation it will be necessary to seek qualified legal opinion … as to who actually commits the offence: is it the author, is it the publisher, is it the retailer, is it the purchaser of this particular material, or is it all of the above?”
Here’s a bookish story developing down in Australia. Federal and state counter-terrorism officers will investigate at least one Islamic bookshop in Sydney following revelations it is selling literature promoting jihad and justifying suicide bombings.
The Australian reports bookstores face closure and their owners could be charged with terrorism offences as pressure intensifes in the wake of the London bombings to crack down on radical literature sold in Australia.
An Editorial From The Australian says we need to proceed with caution before we place limits on freedom of expression.
The Age reports the books, promoting Islamic holy war and the killing of non-Muslims who insult the prophet Muhammad, are being examined for possible breaches of the Crimes Act following complaints from the Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Council.
The BBC says Australian police are investigating claims a Sydney bookshop has been selling extremist Muslim books.
Another bookstore in Melbourne, run by the country’s most fundamentalist cleric, was yesterday selling a book calling for Christians to be trampled underfoot.
“It is either Islam or death,” says the book, which is sold from the bookshop attached to the Brunswick prayer room where Sheik Mohammed Omran delivers his fiery sermons.
“Obviously, in this investigation it will be necessary to seek qualified legal opinion … as to who actually commits the offence: is it the author, is it the publisher, is it the retailer, is it the purchaser of this particular material, or is it all of the above?”
Radical literature: take its audience away
Just some thoughts. The idea of censorship and seizing books sounds more dangerous than whatever hate literature those bookstores may be peddling. I do abhor hate speech, and I can understand the issue of using literature or speech to incite terrorism and/or treason. However, going down a path of censorship is not a good idea. Once down that path it can easily become a matter of time before other things get classified as “dangerous.” I think the editorial puts it well in pointing out that “the challenge for moderate Muslims, which many have taken up, is to build bridges to other communities and mainstream values. If they are successful in this task, the need to confiscate or ban extremist literature will be irrelevant–because it won’t find an audience.” Regardless of who promotes hate, violence, and intolerance, the best remedy is to take away their audience. This happens with education and more ideas, not less. Maybe it’s my belief in the power of educating others and denouncing those who promote hate, but censoring is not the way. Just a thought or two.
Re:Radical literature: take its audience away
I think the ALA should have a position on this issue that spells out the point at which this sort of censorship is justified. It would be very bad public relations for librarians to continue to insist on the sanctity of free speech for hatemongers after an Al Qaeda attack on the U.S. that inflict severe casualties, e.g. hundreds of deaths.
Slippery Incline
I too abhor hate speech but speech codes still enjoy popularity among many colleges, many of the more liberal ilk. But I have to take issue with the “slippery slope” argument of progressive censorship. I won’t argue that the Nazi’s were keen on literary bonfires. But their censorship could hardly be construed as gradual. So Hitler et al. notwithstanding, I just don’t see any example of Western (Australia too) piecemeal censorship.
If we are discussing libraries specifically, one can easily the say that the slope has been reversed. For example, today I can find as much hate, vile, pornographic,… “stuff” as I my appetite desires. In mulitmedia to boot. How much could I have found just 10-15 years ago?
Re:Slippery Incline :)) , but it is continually being challenged as well. I don’t see a wave of censorship coming, at least I hope not. But it is definitely the type of thing to remain vigilant about. As for the public relations angle, libraries should stand for intellectual freedom because it is right, not because it is politically convenient. Do I think hatemongers who bomb children should have a special place in hell for them? You bet I do. But having knee jerk reactions to take materials out of libraries means the terrorists win. I don’t know about other readers, but I for one don’t think these people deserve to be rewarded for their vile actions with our fear. Then again, just a thought. Best.
Well, I think on the “slippery slope,” all we have to do is look at all the challenges libraries face in this country, especially school libraries, from people with agendas that boil down to restricting access to others who do not follow their agenda. I am sure a quick search here in LIS News will show some examples. True, the internet has made it easy to get your daily dose of whatever “vice” you may choose to indulge (I know it makes it easier for me as well
Where to Stop
There are several problems with censorship of hate speech coming from religion. all religions have dark passages in their sacred teachings. Selectively chosen, they can cause reason to pull items because of “hate speech” conflicts. For example, there are a number of bone chilling verses in the Old Testament about killing unbelivers, even the “little ones”. Sacrifice and death for religious principlesare celebrated in the New Testament.
As a result, dierivitive texts and brochures can be removed, and the next step would be to forbid the original scriptures- either the Koran, the Bible or the New Testament.
Besides, censorship is a tripod- it always has been. Attacking one leg always implies attacks on the other legs. The three legs are the same things your mother taught you not to bring up in conversation in polite society at the dinner table- sex, religion and politics. We know sex is attacked through censorship. Religion is the next leg, and then politics. It is rare when you have a sucessful censor program to have one leg, and not have other ones attacked as well.
So, censorship will continue until it becomes unpopular- about the time some clever policeman decides to make the whole thing funny by forbiding the sale of Bibles due to hate speech. The resulting uproar would make him lose his job, but would show the whole farce for what it is- an attack on “others” by “us” so the “others” will one day become like “us.”
We know what we mean, don’t we?
Lee