GagWatch

Two weeks ago YouTube deleted a 10,000-subscriber channel run by well-known Scientology critic Mark Bunker. The reason they gave for pulling Xenutv1 was that they had already axed Bunker’s earlier account, Xenutv, for infringing a few copyrights. The Register points out:

YouTube’s terms of service clearly say “A user whose account has been terminated is prohibited from accessing, possessing or creating any other YouTube accounts.”

But the world’s largest video sharer hasn’t applied this rule to the brand new channel launched by Scientology itself - and trumpeted with an official Scientology press release. Like Bunker, Scientology had an earlier account erased after it violated site policy.

In March, the New York Post reported that Scientology launched a YouTube channel in an attempt to discredit members of Anonymous, the internet group intent on making life difficult for the cult. Dubbed the “Scientology Official Report on Anonymous Hate Crimes,” the channel identified individual members of the group, describing them as “terrorists.”

YouTube doesn’t allow videos that broadcast personal information. And the account was suspended.

In a conversation with The Post, a Church spokesperson confirmed the organization was behind the channel. “We absolutely made the videos,” they said. “We have researchers that have found these men. When you get death threats and bomb threats directly going after the church, we don’t take it lightly.”

A similar statement was made by a church minister speaking to The Battle Creek Enquirer after an alleged Anonymous bomb threat.

And now, in contravention of YouTube’s terms of service, Scientology is back on the video sharing site. And not only are they back, they are also paying for ads on the site, looking to drive some traffic onto its new channel.

Not surprisingly, Mark Bunker is annoyed. “I hope YouTube does the right thing,” he said. “It certainly looks like there’s a double standard at work.

Bearded cave-dweller, Osama bin Laden has released a five minute audio message warning Europe that it faces a severe response for publishing the Muhammed cartoons, claiming that they are “part of a new crusade in which the Pope of the Vatican had a significant role.”

Mike Myers’ latest film, The Love Guru has outraged (via) some of the more sensitive sections of the Hindu community for “lampooning” the Indian based religion.

In a spirited opinion piece on popular Indian news website merinews.com, calls are being made for outraged Hindus to rise up in protest against the Canadian comedians creation.

‘With all the ridicule showered at our holy men and women in the film The Love Guru, we should not only brace ourselves against Hollywood comedian Mike Myers, but also assert our rights to not let aliens poke fun at us when we revere our revered ones!’

There is, of course, no such thing as a right not to be poked fun at. That hasn’t stopped Raja Zed, President of the Universal Society of Hinduism, and teacher at a U.S college from asking Paramount Pictures for a special preview screening that can be viewed by Hindu leaders.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is drawing up plans (via) to demand legal redress from nations, like Denmark, that allow freedom of speech.

The new charter, drafted at a meeting in Dakar commits the OIC “to protect and defend the true image of Islam” and “to combat the defamation of Islam.” The report urges the creation of a “legal instrument” to crack down on defamation of Islam, although the nature of such a “legal instrument” has not been spelled out.

The International Humanist and Ethical Union in Geneva released a statement accusing the Islamic states of attempting to limit freedom of expression and of attempting to misuse the U.N.

Human Rights Watch said in a statement that objectionable depictions of the Prophet Muhammad do not “give them the right under international human rights law to insist that others abide by their views.”

David Thompson gets to the heart of the matter:

[P]erhaps we should peel away the rhetoric of victimhood, used so indecently, and look at what’s actually being demanded here: A right not to hear that one is being irrational, dishonest or mortifyingly stupid, regardless of just how irrational, dishonest or mortifyingly stupid one actually is. That’s a license of no small magnitude, and one that a person of good faith would neither grant nor desire.

In light of the renewed threat against Danish cartoonist, Kurt Westegard, Ayaan Hirsi Ali - who has also been on the receiving end of death threats - has called on MEPs to set up an EU fund to pay for security for citizens facing such threats.

Appearing before a small audience of MEPs - several of whom are petitioning for the EU to foot the bill for Ms Hirsi Ali’s security team - the Somali-born Muslim said: “The threats to my life have not subsided,” but she had found herself in the “embarrassing situation” of having to fundraise for her own security.

Her case is being picked up by the media - especially in France where she arrived last week, with the backing of prominent French intellectuals, to request French citizenship. According to the French media, Elysee Palace has been considering establishing a European fund to help people like her and there is speculation that Paris may suggest something during its EU presidency in the second half of this year.

Ms Hirsi Ali has been under high level security since 2004 when Theo van Gogh was murdered by an Islamist extremist. A letter found on the Dutch film-maker’s body threatened her by name.

She left the Netherlands for the United States in May 2006 following a row over the details of her original asylum request for the Netherlands and, in October 2007, the Dutch government stopped paying for her security detail.

The Dutch position is that she that is no longer based in the country and the US government says it does not pay for personal protection of citizens.

This leaves her in the position of being unable to remain in the US and unable to return to the Netherlands because of the continuing death threats.

She has some high-profile backers for her campaign to get a European protection fund set up.

French writer Bernard-Henri Levi referred to the Fatwa death sentence issued on British author Salman Rushdie, noting that the British government continues to pay for his protection although he resides in the US.

He said the “shame should be put on the people [in the Dutch government] who took this decision [to stop the funding]” and called on Europe “to prove itself.”

The petition for a fund, initiated by French socialist MEP Benoit Hamon, has around 100 signatures.

Mr Harmon is intending to take the issue up with leaders of the parliamentary political groups to try to persuade them to launch a pilot project using the parliament’s own budget. This would release about €50 million for the fund.

Wikipedia has become the latest target for Muslims seeking to impose their sensitivities on everyone else. These people have taken offence (via) to the online encyclopaedia’s article on Muhammed, specifically the fact that the article includes pictures taken from medieval manuscripts.

In addition to a lot of “similar sounding, similar looking e-mails”, an online petition has been started demanding that the pictures be removed. At the time of writing, the petition has 120,000 signatures, although many of them are anonymous - which rather defeats the point of a petition.

According to the article’s Talk Page:

Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them.

The site has also set up a FAQ page which points out, reasonably enough, that “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group.”

The Times (via) reports that feminist author, Taslima Nasreen is to rewrite her autobiography after she was forced to flee from Muslim extremists who placed a bounty on her head. She said on Friday that she hoped the move would appease fundamentalist groups and end a controversy that forced her to leave Calcutta last week.

“The book was written in 2002, based on my memories of Bangladesh in the 1980s, during which time secularism was removed from the Bangladesh constitution. I wrote the book in support of the people who defended secular values. I had no intention to hurt anybody’s sentiment,” she said today from a secret location.

“I have done what I have never done in my life. I have compromised even in a secular India.” She added that she hoped she would now be able to “live peacefully” in India.

Prashant Mukherjee, her publisher in Calcutta, refused to divulge the exact text that had been deemed offensive by Muslim fundamentalists, but indicated that two paragraphs would be deleted.

Ms Nasreen, who describes herself as a “secular humanist”, fled her homeland of Bangladesh in 1994. Her other works, including the 1994 novel Lajja (Shame), have provoked extremists to call for her execution for blasphemy.

For various reasons, I have a lot less time than I did two years ago and - as you may well have noticed - posting on this blog has become a lot more erratic over recent months. Worse is that stories are coming and going without my mentioning them at all (the Bloggerheads affair, for example). I am not in a position to properly maintain this blog at present so GagWatch will be going on hiatus for the foreseeable future.

Other sites - namely Media Watch Watch, The Melon Farmers and Freemuse - are all doing an excellent job of highlighting censorship issues, both in Europe and around the world, and I strongly recommend that you add all three of them to your daily reads, if you haven’t already done so.

This does not mean that I have left the internet entirely, as I also run the Savage Popcorn blog which discusses films and film related issues including, as of now, any film censorship issues about which I have something to say.

Hope to see you over there.

The 7th Annual Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression awards will take place at LSO St Luke’s, London, on 14 March 2007. They are currently inviting nominations for the people and organisations that have made a significant contribution to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of information.

Click here for more information.

Leaking sensitive information can mean risking a jail sentence - or worse. But not for muck longer if a new website - Wikileaks - gets off the ground.

Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interests are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact; this means our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by non-technical people. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources.

The creators of the site are keeping their identities secret but are thought to include political activists and open-source software engineers. Their goal is to ensure that whistle-blowers and journalists are not thrown into jail for emailing sensitive documents - as happened to Chinese journalist, Shi Tao who was convicted after Yahoo! divulged the details of his email account to the authorities.

WikiLeaks is raising funds and testing its software. It hopes to launch in February and we wish them the best of luck.