Qatari tensions rise over press freedom

"(BTW -- this is called sarcasm, in case you failed to pick that up...)"

REALLY???!!! Wow!!! How very (american) brilliant of you!

And I 'thought' that you were serious about the majority of Nobel prizes going to americans, and that your universities are educating the people here!!!

By the way, what does "BTW" mean?

You did not explain that to me!

I guess we Americans aren't known much for our brains and educational institutions.

Guess that's why the OVERWHELMING majority of the Nobel prizes have been awarded to us, and why HH chose to bring all of OUR universities over here to educate her people.

Clearly the great thinkers of YOUR country/culture outnumber those of my own.

(BTW -- this is called sarcasm, in case you failed to pick that up...)

"Most plain girls are virtuous because of the scarcity of opportunity to be otherwise."

-- Maya Angelou

very funny, ummjake!

Out of ALL the people, it is you who is talking about 'messed-up thinking'?

Don't you think that you need to develop a brain, first?

(but I guess you can't have both....brains & american nationality, I mean)

that Arab families have so many children, because if they hate the Zionists more than they love their own kids, they'll need to ensure a steady supply of human shields and TV-promoted casualties for the future.

Your thinking is so messed up, it boggles the mind...

"Most plain girls are virtuous because of the scarcity of opportunity to be otherwise."

-- Maya Angelou

EsYyCmdcer/airsupply/previous banned member

'But isn't it a typical "western" mentality to cancel the brain when it comes to divine evidence about God,'

Whaaaaat - George bush told palestinians that God told him to invade Iraq!

Dont generalise on the west.

speeches like yours bring the two sides exactly where they are...

that says that he has landed on the moon. But did he really land on the moon, ummjake?

But isn't it a typical "western" mentality to cancel the brain when it comes to divine evidence about God, religions & prophets, while they'd cling to some fancy tatoos that are supposed to link to some fabricated holocaust?

You are free to create/imagine & believe in any holocaust you want as long as that gives you some justification to the elimination of the poor helpless Arabs, who are the real owners of Paleastine.

Golda was right. It would be shameful if my people would love their children more than they hate the zionists. It would be even disgracefull to think of having peace with the criminals who stole your homeland & killed your people.

This is why Golda's people will never understand why Arab parents are proud when their sons bravely sacrifice their lives in fighting the invaders

ngourlay..

I will be honoured...you are more than welcome

CuriousButDetermined,

Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

--ngourlay

E5 (for short), just a point of fact. It is not illegal in the US to deny the holocaust, did you know that? So it is NOT true that " they'd put you in jail if you dare tell people the truth about the imaginary gas chambers."

Mandi

and I know people who have the tattoos on their arms and survived the Holocaust.

So no matter how hard you squint your eyes closed and wish it, your anti-Semitic prejudice doesn't change that fact that it happened.

But if denying it makes you feel better about yourself, then go right on ahead. :-)

As Golda Meir said, "We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us."

"Most plain girls are virtuous because of the scarcity of opportunity to be otherwise."

-- Maya Angelou

Curious, "difficult to find perfectly true information". Yes, indeed. Everything is a distortion when looked at closely, maybe there are some broad themes that are true.

The press should be doing its best to give the future a picture of what seems true today.

Your final question echoes what King Abdul Aziz asked 65 years ago - and, of course, the answer is that it doesn't.

Doha Steve's writing is excellent and he would sure be brilliant at writing an editorial column - thankyou

Alex thanks for copying and pasting that article - i thought that dark side of dubai article was the slackest piece of journalism in a long time.... could be written about anywhere

"I realize that many Arabs/Muslims want to believe what Mr. Ahmadinejad theorizes, that it never happened. I guess it makes them feel better about themselves in some strange way, like nobody else has had to endure suffering like they have. Again, it kind of fits with the whole "victim" mentality that I've found many people in this part of the world love to play and perpetuate."

It's a common mistake! If you ever meet an Arab who'd tell you: "I like Hitler because he did the holocaust"

Tell them: "I don't...because he didn't"!

(that's a fact...hushshsh)

does not exist anywhere in the world.

If somebody is ALWAYS going to use the homosexuality example to condemn Qatari press, then I am ALWAYS going to use the so-called 'holocaust' example to expose the ugly face of the western culture(where they allow hatred against the Prophet/Islam, but they'd put you in jail if you dare tell people the truth about the imaginary gas chambers)

Paul,

It is difficult to find perfectly true information. We, here in GCC, as you may have known already, have serious issues and concerns over Iran especially its nuclear program. We are potentially the first victim should something happen. However, when western countries like France, with infiltration of UK & US, equip Israel with nuclear program which is more threatening than Iran's, then we pray that Iran gets nuclear weapon so a balance is achieved. Unfortunately, no one is just in this world, but western powers have really misused power.

Back to holocaust, as far as I know, it did happen without a doubt but note the following please:

- it is believed that the reported number of victims, 6 million Jews, was so inflated.

- There are many people who were victims of the ghettos, so what is special about Jews? like you said earlier.

- There are people who survived the gas chambers who later, after WW2 ended, who stated the facts which was not pleasamt to Zionist. Those are eye witnesses!

- even if it is 6 million Jews, casualties of WW2 across the globe were 60 millions, so why only Jews are brought up and sympethised with?

- Even if the whole Jews were murdered by an Evil man like Hitler, how would it be justified to implant them in Palestine?

These are some thoughts.

I should probably not deviate from the topic too.

Curious - I think you will find it very interesting indeed. Brenner is a Marxist Jew so he does have an agenda but when I have raised points he makes with American Jewish Zionists all they can say is "you don't understand" or "people's actions then cannot be judged by today's standards" or "the Israeli court was wrong (to find Eichmann's pal guilty of complicity in the Holocaust) he was a great man".

So I am inclined to think that Brenner is an accurate historian.

Which means, of course, that Ahmedinejad has a record of talking ignorant rubbish. But the (Brenner's) truth is damning and much more interesting that Ahmedinejad's appeal to what seems convenient to him. After all, if there had been no holocaust, why would the Zionists have gained from the great outpouring of sympathy after WWII (whether they deserved to benefit from it or not?)

But I'm afraid I'm dragging this thread off topic, which I shouldn't do.

RD..

I cannot give you precise info but the following may address your question:

1- We believe Torah & Bible came from God to Moses and Jesus respectively. However, we believe that the current Torah & Bible have been changed and are not what God has given.

2- We don't consider Palestine the Land of Israel.

3- Shortly after the prophet died, Muslims opened Jerusalem and allowed only Christians and muslims to use Al-Quds for worshiping. I believe that church still exists until now.

4- Jews have refused to enter Jerusalem when Moses asked them for support. Some people use this as an extra evidence from history to prove they have no right on this land.

I hope this answered you question.

CBD

"but later some Zionists insisted on having it on what they call the promise land"

Don't muslims accept the old testament/torah, that like them they are Abrahams people, and so the land belongs to both jews and muslims/palestinians?

It is still online at:

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres/LBzad.pdf

Judging by the preface, it is worth reading.

Many thanks!

Curious, your position is correct but I know quite a few people who don't seem able to make the distinction between Jews and Zionists.

I know Hitler had no interest in a Jewish state, but there is no doubt that his actions helped to create it. In fact, there were pro-Nazi Zionists who saw Hitler as an answer to their dreams. One eminent Jewish Zionist actually worked with the Nazis - with Adolf Eichmann in particular, if my memory serves me - to trade non-Zionist Jews who would be delivered to the death machine, for the lives of healthy young Zionists who would be allowed to leave for Palestine.

One major Jewish leader in Palestine also wanted an agreement that his men would fight with the Nazis against the British, in return for German support for Israel.

It is all in LEnny Brenner's "Zionism in the Age of the Dictators" which is (or was) available free online.

Paul..

we hate Zionists..not Jews...

what hitler did to Jews was magnified and used as an argument to create Israeli state. Hitler never planned to create a state for them except the Ghettos and if you don't believe me, read Hitler's book, my Campth.

However, Herzl, planned to have a state which was a plan that got implemented. I believe he also suggested to base it in Argentina or South Africa, but later some Zionists insisted on having it on what they call the promise land.

Hitler criticised the Jews for acting like a religious group where they were, as he claimed, racists revealing thier intention to have a national home in Palestine.

I have never understood why people who hate Jews (Israelis) 1) like Hitler because he did, too; 2) Are outraged by the fact that people say Hitler acted on his hate; 3) Hold conferences to "prove" Jews weren't persecuted 4) are in favour of the obliteration of Israel and all the Jews living there.

I don't know about anybody else, but I can see certain logical contraditions in this.

There are equally strange contradictions on the other side: Never forget the Holocaust victims, says Israel, but when a Holocaust memorial rightly pays tribute to the Jews, homosexuals and gypsies murdered in the Holocaust Israel goes berserk and demands (successfully) that the other victims be removed and forgotten.

And for all the fuss about the Holocaust and "Never Again", nothing was done to stop it when the same thing happened again in Cambodia and Rwanda.

The irony of Arabs/Muslims admiring Hitler because they hate Israel is that without Hitler there would have been far less chance of Israel emerging in the form it has. King Abdel Aziz put his finger on it, when he asked Roosevelt why, when Europeans committed a crime, the punishment for it - Israel - had to be inflicted on the Arabs. The Muslim-Jewish problem is primarily the creation of Hitler and Herzl. Before then, the Ottoman Empire offered refuge to Jews being persecuted by the Catholics.

speaking their mind, even if it opposes my own beliefs. I think there is ample, horrific evidence from a variety of sources that the Holocaust actually occurred, so nobody will convince me that it is a hoax.

I realize that many Arabs/Muslims want to believe what Mr. Ahmadinejad theorizes, that it never happened. I guess it makes them feel better about themselves in some strange way, like nobody else has had to endure suffering like they have. Again, it kind of fits with the whole "victim" mentality that I've found many people in this part of the world love to play and perpetuate.

If it makes you sleep better at night, go right on ahead, E5X8GH2SA.

It's no skin off my back.

"Most plain girls are virtuous because of the scarcity of opportunity to be otherwise."

-- Maya Angelou

Airsuplly, this topic is about freedom of press in Qatar. Which have been proven over the past week that it doesn’t exist. Nor will it ever be

Homosexuals should be treated equally as anyone else, holocaust supporters/denialers should't.

Back on topic -

Did the striking qatari's get into the newspapers?

Let's take your comments, substitute the word "homosexuality" with "holocaust", and see how it sounds:

"On a different thread, when the issue of holocaust came up, another poster said that they (westerners) wouldn't tolerate openly talking about it because that would somehow make it mainstream and acceptable behavior, which they disagreed with.

Therein lies one big difference between our two cultures. We see an open and frank discussion as a necessary step if we are to understand and deal with a situation effectively. They see it as tacit endorsement.

And my mentioning holocaust was merely to illustrate the point that people in that part of the world seem to find it threatening to openly discuss "forbidden" things, as if the simple act of voicing the words out loud gives them the power to sway otherwise resolute citizens."

So, ummjake? Who is better? "us" or "they"?

LIVING IN QATAR

I salute Mr Meinard that he Uphold press freedom and at the expence of being kicked out or be send to jail in Qatar because of conservative press law in Qatar, Negative news about Qatar is consider bringing down its economy.

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI and ANNA JOHNSON, Associated Press Writers Ali Akbar Dareini And Anna Johnson, Associated Press Writers – Tue Apr 14, 3:27 pm ET

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran said Tuesday its national security court put an American journalist on trial behind closed doors on allegations she spied for the U.S. — a charge Washington calls baseless.

The unusually swift one-day trial threatened to anger the U.S. at a time when the Obama administration is showing willingness to engage its longtime adversary after many years of rocky relations.

Roxana Saberi, a 31-year-old dual American-Iranian citizen, was arrested in late January and initially accused of working without press credentials. But an Iranian judge leveled a far more serious allegation against her last week, charging her with spying for the United States.

"Yesterday, the first trial session was held. She presented her final defense," judiciary spokesman Ali Reza Jamshidi told reporters. "The court will issue its verdict within the next two to three weeks."

It was unclear why the trial was moving at such a fast pace — especially because the charges leveled against Saberi were so serious. Under Iranian law, those convicted of spying normally face up to 10 years in prison.

Saberi has been living in Iran for the last six years, working as a freelance reporter for news organizations including National Public Radio and the British Broadcasting Corp. Her father has said his daughter, who grew up in Fargo, North Dakota, was finishing a book on Iran and had planned to return to the United States this year.

Her lawyer, Abdolsamad Khorramshahi, said he was not authorized to speak to the media about the trial, which he was permitted to attend.

"I will comment only after the verdict is issued," he told The Associated Press.

Washington has described the charges as "baseless" and has repeatedly called for Saberi's release. Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the United States was "deeply concerned" about the espionage charges.

State Department spokesman Robert Wood said Tuesday that the U.S. is committed to getting Saberi released.

"We remain very concerned about her situation," he said.

But Jamshidi criticized the U.S. for saying Saberi was innocent and calling for her release.

"That a government expresses an opinion without seeing the indictment is laughable," he told reporters.

One Iran analyst said it was not a coincidence that the charges against Saberi come as Obama is making overtures to Iran.

"There are powerful hard-line factions in Tehran who do their best to torpedo or sabotage efforts to improve (U.S.-Iran) relations because they stand to lose both politically and financially, and I think I would put Roxana's case in that context," said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Since taking office earlier this year, Obama said his administration is looking for opportunities to open direct talks with Iran and has pledged to rethink Washington's relationship with Tehran. The U.S. broke off diplomatic relations with Iran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by hard-line students. Under former President George W. Bush, relations deteriorated.

Obama's overtures have drawn lukewarm responses from hard-line Iranian leaders. Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — who has the final say on major policy decisions — has criticized Obama, saying he would continue the policies of the Bush administration.

Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also has said Iran would welcome talks with the U.S. — but only if there was mutual respect. Iranian officials say that means Washington must stop accusing Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism, charges Tehran denies.

Saberi's jailing also comes months ahead of June's crucial presidential elections. Ahmadinejad is up for re-election, but his popularity has waned as the economy struggles with high-inflation and unemployment. The race is pitting the hard-liners against reformists — led by a former prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi — who support better relations with the U.S.

Sadjadpour said Washington needs to handle the Saberi case delicately.

"The (U.S.) government clearly wants to express its concern. But on the other hand, too much emphasis on her case might not be in the interest of Roxana's expeditious release because Iran may feel like they do not want to appear to be giving in to U.S. pressure," he said.

The fact that Saberi has been charged with espionage and stood trial is rare for an American citizen in Iran, even with the poor relations between the two countries.

Human rights groups have repeatedly criticized Iran for arresting journalists and suppressing freedom of speech. The government has arrested several Iranian-Americans in the past few years, citing alleged attempts to overthrow its Islamic government through what it calls a "soft revolution." They were never put on trial and were eventually released from prison.

Iran has released few details about the charges against Saberi. Iranian officials initially said she had been arrested for working in the Islamic Republic without press credentials and she had told her father in a phone conversation that she was arrested after buying a bottle of wine.

Her parents, who traveled to Iran from their home in Fargo in a bid to help win their daughter's release, could not immediately be reached for comment on Tuesday.

____

Anna Johnson reported from Cairo, and Associated Press writer Matthew Lee contributed from Washington.

A fool and his money are soon parted.

-Thomas Tusser

It’s refreshing and hopeful to come across with genuine truth (for a change) about what is really going on in this part of the world!

ummjake..

If you are going to use words like 'bullshit' then keep it to yourself please. It won't help strengthen your argument anyway.

PM,

good to hear that from you, although you did not have to state it to let me know. The reason I had to point it out, is that I was accused of being westophobia person so I wanted to clarify.

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer Robert H. Reid, Associated Press Writer – Mon Apr 13, 1:39 pm ET

BAGHDAD – Iraq's Shiite-led government criticized foreign and Iraqi media Monday for reports about recent arrests of U.S.-backed Sunni paramilitaries, accusing news organizations of stoking religious tension and threatening national unity.

At the same time, Iraq's military threatened to sanction a major Arabic newspaper and a satellite television station for falsely quoting a spokesman about efforts to arrest former detainees recently freed by the Americans.

Those moves stem from growing tension between the Shiite leadership and Sunnis who turned against the insurgency, as the United States presses for progress on national reconciliation before the end of the American military mission in 2011.

Also Monday, an American soldier was killed by an armor-piercing bomb south of Baghdad, the U.S. military said. It was seventh combat death suffered by U.S. forces in Iraq since Friday.

Government anger at the media followed news reports that recent arrests of Sunni paramilitaries, known as Awakening Councils or Sons of Iraq, may have been politically motivated.

The paramilitaries were organized and funded by the U.S. starting in 2006 to help maintain security in their neighborhoods. The U.S. transferred control of the councils, whose ranks include former insurgents, to Iraqi authorities last year.

Since then, a number of council members have been arrested for alleged criminal activity and ties to subversive groups, including Saddam Hussein loyalists.

Leaders of the Awakening Councils have claimed that the arrests were aimed at marginalizing Sunni groups, which the U.S. credit with helping turn the tide against the insurgents.

In a statement Monday, the government said "local, Arab and international mass media" had launched a "coordinated campaign" against the national leadership by accusing it of "targeting the Awakening Councils in some areas."

The statement said those arrested were detained because they had committed crimes and not for membership in the councils.

The government accused unspecified news organizations of portraying "wanted men as heroes" in an attempt "to provoke hateful sectarian strife with the aim of damaging Iraqi unity."

The statement said officials were wondering "about the real goals of these campaigns and the groups behind them."

In the other move against media, the Iraqi military announced a lawsuit seeking to shut down the Iraq operations of Al-Hayat, a major London-based Arabic language newspaper, and Al-Sharqiya television station, for falsely reporting that orders had been issued to arrest ex-detainees recently released by the U.S.

Military spokesman Maj. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi insisted he said only that ex-detainee files would be reviewed to determine if any of them were involved in a recent uptick in bombings. Most of the former detainees are believed to be Sunnis.

Al-Hayat issued a correction on its Web site on Monday, saying its information did not come from al-Moussawi but another unidentified official. Al-Sharqiya, which quoted the newspaper report, said the military complaint "is not worthy of a response."

In August 2004, the government closed the Baghdad bureau of Al-Jazeera television, accusing the station of inciting violence. The office is still closed, but the station operates in the Kurdish-ruled area of the north.

Iraq also shut down two privately owned TV stations in November 2006 for broadcasting protests over Saddam's death sentence.

About 200 newspapers publish in Iraq. Although some have been fined for their reporting, only one has been closed since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003.

The American soldier was killed near Karbala, a Shiite holy city 30 miles south of Baghdad, when an armor-piercing bomb, known as an explosively formed projectile, exploded near a U.S. vehicle.

U.S. officials believe those projectiles, or EFPs, are manufactured in Iran and smuggled to Shiite militias — a charge the Iranians deny.

Six other U.S. soldiers have been killed in recent days, including five who died Friday in a suicide truck bombing in Mosul. Another soldier was killed Saturday in a bombing in Salahuddin province north of Baghdad.

A claim of responsibility for the Mosul blast was posted Monday on a militant Web site in the name of the Islamic State of Iraq, an al-Qaida front. It also claimed responsibility for the Saturday suicide attack that killed nine members of an Awakening Council group south of Baghdad.

Also Monday, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas made a surprise visit to Iraq's self-ruled Kurdish region, said Kurdish government spokesman Fouad Hussein. Kurdish officials have signaled a willingness to accept Palestinian refugees from elsewhere in Iraq.

About 11,000 Palestinians live in Iraq, mostly in Baghdad. Some have been targeted in Iraqi sectarian attacks because of their perceived privileged status under Saddam.

___

Associated Press Writers Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Sameer N. Yacoub contributed to this report

A fool and his money are soon parted.

-Thomas Tusser

By BARBARA SURK, Associated Press Writer Barbara Surk, Associated Press Writer – Mon Apr 13, 12:55 pm ET

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – A rights group criticized a proposed media law in the United Arab Emirates, saying the pending legislation continues to stifle the press, restricts free speech and strengthens self-censorship among journalists.

Human Rights Watch said in a new report released Monday in Dubai that the Emirates' draft media law is plagued with problems such as "draconian fines" and "harsh registration requirements," and will tighten the government's control of the media.

The proposed law has sent a chill through the local media. It has also left foreign news organization in Dubai wondering about the legislation's impact on their operations.

Journalist groups in the Emirates have previously accused officials of trying to muzzle the press with the new law. Some said it was an attempt to force news outlets to become part of the country's image-building machine in challenging economic times and after years of basking in coverage of hyper-growth.

As in the rest of the Middle East, local media in the UAE have typically avoided stories that could anger ruling officials. But when inviting foreign media to set up offices here, the authorities promised to allow more press freedoms than in other countries of the region.

"We were hoping for a model media law (in the UAE) for others in the region to follow," Samer Muscati, a researcher with the Human Rights Watch, told The Associated Press Monday.

The draft media law can impose fines up to about $136,000 for "carrying misleading news that harms the national economy." It also includes fines of a staggering $1,350,000 for "insulting" members of the government and the ruling family, the New York-based watchdog said in the report.

The National Media Council, a governmental body overseeing the media, rejected the group's criticism of the draft that was passed by the Emirates legislature in January and is awaiting the final approval of the country's president.

The Council emphasized the law's improvements — lack of criminal penalties for journalist and protection for reporters against revealing their sources — and said the group's report shows "real lack of understanding of the situation in the Emirates."

Some of the watchdog's remarks were an "attempt to promote concepts ... that are not compatible with the laws of the UAE and its value system," the Council said in a statement, carried by the UAE's official WAM news agency Monday.

A fool and his money are soon parted.

-Thomas Tusser

its time for dcmf to leave

call you on your bullshit, CBD, doesn't mean that you've raised the level of the debate one iota.

Nor does it necessarily mean that we think you've raised ANY valid points. Usually, it just means that we're simply trying to show you the error of your way of thinking -- usually to no avail.

Why don't you respond to pointed questions put to you, instead of vaguely saying 'obviously you didn't read my earlier post on blah blah blah...go find it yourself and then you will know'. Clearly you don't care to make yourself understood and your main goal here is to obfuscate the issue at hand.

Maybe that's not exactly "whataboutism", but it's definitely another lame tactic to avoid a genuine debate.

"Most plain girls are virtuous because of the scarcity of opportunity to be otherwise."

-- Maya Angelou

Roadtester..you don't see well if that is what you think.

I know many things can be expressed in the west but this does not happen. Now there are improvements, but big effort is needed to reach a satisfactory level.

If you question why should I judge the british media based on BBC, please go back to one of my earlier posts in which I replied to a similar question reaised by someone, I think Mandi, who asked why I judge US media based on CNN.

Alot of the posts were centred about the points I raised, so why would you challenge it if you sincerely believe it was timewasting and a form of whataboutism?

The BBC is more imapartial than most news sources - its not perfect but - but no news source is, but it tries.

Curious all I have seen is that you want to live in a bubble? which is fine, just dont complain about the pres anymore.

Great minds think alike, but fools seldom differ. (English Proverb)

To the people who don't believe in free speech - stop posting ;)

Roadtester..

My article is more recent than yours... People in my article are more credible than in yours..I won't accuse you of whataboutism although you are better in it..

British, people themselves condemn the BBC, while your article is a Jews Forum.

Also, after having many critics, does this not tell you something about BBC impartiality!

let us raise the standard of the debate please.

The answer to your question will be found within my posts. I know I could simply summarise it, but this is a penalty for your for not being a good follower of what I have been wrtiting.

this is 'whataboutism' at its best but well......

That article you posted I agree with? i dont know what your point is?

I usually stay away from blogs as they are some of the worstly biased journalism but as you seem to think BBC completly pro west/isreal/islamophobic etc - obviously this isn't true;

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:Cm9cgdDw7UkJ:factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000221.html+bbc+antisemeitic&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

At the end of the day Curious answer me this -

Do you want to know whats going on in Qatar or are you happy with being told only what the government wishes you to know??????

Great minds think alike, but fools seldom differ. (English Proverb)

To the people who don't believe in free speech - stop posting ;)

Roadtester..check this and judge the BBC for yourself:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/26/blogpost1.aspx

Why Am I criticized for diverting the debate while others do the same without a blame!

Let us get over this please.

My conclusion, Eastern governments & Western Governments Say something and do something else. Freedom of expression is just one area which can be used to check the validity of this conclusion.

Having said this, I see no issue of talking about western media even it had been aimed at Eastern (Qatar in this case) media.

I had enough. I may reply if something grabs my attention.

Lastly, I don't accept namings such as Western-hater or west-ophobia because it is not true. Those terms are invented, by the media, to be used against people who differ in opinion. My critics about the western governments on my posts, have been based on actual events/crimes that happened. It is also against figures and entities involved on those events/crimes, whether humans or corporations, and NOT against the western culture or people.

Peace to all

Tallg,

I thought you gave up!

Like the rest of the world....

You can't teach experience...

title of a book by Natan Sharansky. A great read that ties into the leading post on this thread and may help posters too.

A fool and his money are soon parted.

-Thomas Tusser

ha ha, you're right he didn't; I just saw a blank page.

;-)

"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365

not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the

many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers

were given. Satan - 10."

Adey ... no, you've got it wrong: he COULD HAVE written those things, but he didn't ;-) He said nothing.

Sultan Sooud Al Qassemi' s article is all 'what-aboutery'

"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365

not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the

many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers

were given. Satan - 10."

I wasn't being serious, just some advice for CBD

"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365

not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the

many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers

were given. Satan - 10."

Johann Hari: How to spot a lame, lame argument

Saturday, 11 April 2009

"There is one particular type of bad argument that has always existed, but it has now spread like tar over the world-wide web, and is seeping into the pubs, coffee shops and opinion columns everywhere. It is known as 'what-aboutery' - and there was a particularly ripe example of it in response to one of my articles last week.

As a rhetorical trick, it is simple. Anyone can do it, and we are all tempted sometimes. When you have lost an argument - when you can't justify your case, and it is crumbling in your hands - you snap back: "But what about x?"

You then raise a totally different subject, and try to get everybody to focus on it - hoping it will distract attention from your own deflated case.

So whenever I report on, say, atrocities committed by Israel, I am bombarded with e-mails saying: "But what about the bad things done by Muslims? Why do you never talk about them?" Whenever I report on the atrocities committed by Islamists, I am bombarded with e-mails saying: "But what about Israel? Why do you never write about the terrible things they do?" And so it goes on, whatever the subject, in an endless international shifting of blame, united in the cry: "What about them! Talk about them instead!"

This argument is almost always disingenuous. How do I know? Because when you write back and explain that, why, I do actually criticize Islamists/Israel/the US/China/whoever-you-have-picked-out-randomly, and here are the articles where I do it, nobody ever writes back and says: fair enough; you consistently condemn human rights abuses, no matter who commits them. No. They scrape around for another "what about." What about Tibet? What about Sri Lanka? What about North Korea? This list never ends, as the other side tries to draw your attention further and further from what you were discussing.

Independent readers have just seen a classic example. Last week I reported from Dubai, pointing out that this glittering city was built on what Human Rights Watch calls "slavery" - bitterly poor people who are conned into going there and forced to stay by a medieval dictatorship. Amongst others, I interviewed an Emirati man called Sultan al-Qassemi who passionately defended this system, saying that it is absolutely right that these workers are blasted with water cannons, arrested, and deported if they try to strike against their slavery-style conditions.

He did not react to my article by responding to the many criticisms I made of Dubai. He can't. He knows they are true. Instead he wrote a piece for the Independent asking: But what about Britain? He listed many things wrong with Britain - homelessness, detention without trial, the abuse of trafficked workers - and cried: talk about them instead!

As it happens, I have criticized all these things about Britain myself, in the British press, and in publications across the world. The difference is - Sultan doesn't oppose the appalling things about his own country. He cheers them on - and all he can do to distract from this shameful fact is to try to change the subject.

The best way to respond to what-aboutery is to state a simple truth. Say it slowly: there can be more than one bad thing in the world. You can oppose American atrocities, and Chinese atrocities. You can be critical of Israel, and of Islamism. You can condemn Dubai's system of slavery, and the fact people are detained without trial in Britain. You can stand independent of governments - including your own - and criticize anyone who chooses to abuse human rights. The world is not divided into a Block of Light, and a Block of Darkness; you don't have to pick a tribe and defend its every action.

So whenever you hear the cry "But what about?!", you can reply: what about we ignore this crude attempt to change the subject, and focus on the subject in hand?"

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-to-spot-a-lame-lame-argument-1667373.html

"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365

not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the

many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers

were given. Satan - 10."

Don't think I do, really.

I will freely admit that I often notice the differences between people more than the similarities. My bad, I guess.

The big reason, I think, is that I've been here for 16 years now, and in that time I've been friends with Gulf Arabs, taught them, lived with them, worked with them, dated them, loved them, married and divorced one...

All of this is to say that for me, I think there are, fundamentally, many cultural differences between us, much as I believe that men and women are hard-wired differently. So I don't think we approach problems the same way, I don't think we share the same values on certain issues, and on some topics I think we're probably mutually frustrating and incomprehensible in our views.

The point I raised earlier, about the perceived merits and drawbacks of open discussion of volatile topics, was simply an illustration of this point of view of mine.

"Most plain girls are virtuous because of the scarcity of opportunity to be otherwise."

-- Maya Angelou

Not really! You bring on homosexuality in every thread. Only in this, did I bothered to replay back (As I’m really intrigued). You’re no different than CBD, as you share the same mentality of us vs. Them.I’m sorry as I don’t really share that. I don’t have any anti-agenda against homosexuals, west, or Jews.

be it Arab, western or other.

I wouldn't exactly say that it is "crammed" in the media, as you put it, though. As people begin to realize that homosexuals DO exist, they're being represented more fairly (rather than them and their contributions to society being ignored).

And my mentioning homosexuality was merely to illustrate the point that people in this part of the world seem to find it threatening to openly discuss "forbidden" things, as if the simple act of voicing the words out loud gives them the power to sway otherwise resolute citizens. Hence, the Sheikh's sermon about it not being advisable for papers to cover stories on infidelity.

Apparently, he seriously believes that if people hear that it's happening, then they'll run out and hump a complete stranger.

I am intrigued, genesis, that your ears prick up every time I mention homosexuality... ;-) LOL!

"Most plain girls are virtuous because of the scarcity of opportunity to be otherwise."

-- Maya Angelou

that’s what I thought too. Now for the sake of the argument & not be misunderstood. Mods must delete all homosexual related posts ;)

about homosexuality! after all those heart to heart comments you guys say it's not? "the free press" title is just a curtain. It INDIRECTLY is "Qatari tension rise over homosexuality freedom!"

Heh! I realise that genesis. I just wanted clarification.

This thread is not about homosexuality in Qatar. This have been extensively discussed dozens of times before , use your search button ;)

CBD - the BBC biased - what the same people who published the report that the British Government lied about Iraq? Who got called antisemitic for the coverage of Isreal and Palestine?

Seriously CBD -check your facts.

On the lesbian thobes topic, there could be another reason, a friend who used to work in a shop in Qatar discovered a man and women dressed in hijab having sex in the store room.

Great minds think alike, but fools seldom differ. (English Proverb)

But it's still illegal to be homosexual in Qatar, isn't it genesis?

I’m really intrigued, why do you bring up “homosexuality” in all of your argument?

whoever said that homosexuality is not mainstream nowadays in the arab world, I think is living a lie.

Like elsewhere homosexuality is crammed in the media by writers, directors, interior & fashion designers. Best selling Arabic novel turned movie (Jacobin Building) featured a gay character, the movie even contain an explicit gay scenes. Exposure to gay is seen in everyday Arab TV (and that’s not limited to Lebanese Channels or music videos). Qatar TV host a weekly Beauty show featuring a gay makeup artist.

Clearly the idea that publicly talking about something is akin to consent on/promotion of that issue seems to be common here.

On a different thread, when the issue of homosexuality came up, another poster said that they (Arabs/Muslims) wouldn't tolerate openly talking about it because that would somehow make it mainstream and acceptable behavior, which they disagreed with.

Therein lies one big difference between our two cultures. We see an open and frank discussion as a necessary step if we are to understand and deal with a situation effectively. They see it as tacit endorsement.

"Most plain girls are virtuous because of the scarcity of opportunity to be otherwise."

-- Maya Angelou

"outbreak of homosexuality, lesbianism"

These types of comments make me laugh in the gulf, saw a similar one in Bahrain News last year!

You know one day you walking through city centre, a man coughs and 24hrs later you want to jump in bed with him ;P lol

CBD too often plays a troll victim and then flip-flops if he cant get a rise out of someone to turn it into a racism/islmaphobia thread and then all the other trolls turn up.

Great minds think alike, but fools seldom differ. (English Proverb)

"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365

not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the

many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers

were given. Satan - 10."

PM, as I said earlier, ground and conditions available in the west are by far better than conditions available in Qatar. However, at the current situation, western media is as bad as our media. Yes our media says what governments wants, your media does the same too. Difference is that, in the west, opponents can have their say but they don’t, for various reasons among which is control and lying by omission and diverting attention to small issues during critical times. So many tricks. In the future, hoping that the west learns the lesson and they correct the situation, western media will be significantly impartial. That is yet to happen.

I won’t argue that some feel Qataris cannot be trusted with the knowledge the media would report on, but this is exactly the same reason for which the west, governments, is using its previously mentioned tricks. They cannot trust the people to support their policies once they have a full and clear picture. Same thing. Western governments talk about spreading democracy and free media, while they themselves have strongest control ever.

PaulCown, you are right, but this is why I say conditions in the west are by far better than conditions here because once the people know and will to change and capitalize on past record, then they could make correction happen to a level where there can be true free media. This is something, if things stay as they are, we may not be able to have because of restrictions. Granted. However, Currently, we are at the same level.

Believe me people, we (people to people) have more in common than we each do have with our governments. It is only when we become victims of the propaganda does that rule get violated.

Adey, if you are going to talk about cats and elephants, Perhaps the zoo would be a better place for you to hold that discussion.

The sheikh is probably talking about court reports. The Arabic Press used to (and probably still does) restrict its court reporting pretty much to domestic quarrels, since criminal trials raise issues they don't want to address - such as the existence of crime.

I wonder if the sheikh truly does believe that the way to prevent wrongdoing is to ignore it and pretend it doesn't happen, which is the broader meaning of his sermon. Perhaps he does.

"Scholar slams stories on ‘illicit relationship’

A Muslim scholar yesterday slammed the publishing of “illicit relationship” stories in newspapers, saying that such news would only help undermine the ethics of society and spread adultery.

In his Friday sermon, Sheikh Mohamed Hassan al-Mreikhi said that publishing the news of adultery cases in newspapers posed a threat to the community.

“Some people think that freedom of speech should be without restrictions or rules. They misunderstand freedom as exceeding limits and turning their back on ethics and modesty,” Sheikh al-Mreikhi told a congregation of the faithful at the Omar bin al-Khattab mosque at Khalifa town.

“It is silly to highlight adultery cases in newspapers and delving into its detail. This will hurt people’s feelings, particularly children. It will only help promoting such behaviour,” he added.

The scholar also said that communities which allow the publishing of such news are “on the very of collapse and will be self-destroyed”.

“It is one of the main factors that contribute to the destruction of communities when the talk about adultery in public and publish it in newspapers,” he added.

He also said that communities which previously tolerated the publishing of such news, retracted after they found out the dangers of such freedom.

“These communities are now calling for outing restrictions over publishing such news. They felt the pinch of that freedom in terms of an outbreak of homosexuality, lesbianism, and incurable diseases. They started to ban TVs with pornographic content as well as articles which promote illicit relationship” he added."

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=283997&version=1&template_id=36&parent_id=16

"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365

not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the

many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers

were given. Satan - 10."

Don't feed the troll.

It's an eye-opener, too. The saying that "travel broadens the mind" is certainly true. And for all the failings of the Gulf Press, the breadth of information in the international section is exceptional.

Or the point of being here? I'm not one of those who would say "for the money." I think that is as insulting to locals as I find it for myself. I don't do distasteful things for money. I am here because we were asked to provide a professional education in a setting that brings together many cultures. It may not be comfortable but it is vital in all senses of that word.

Mandi

Yes, because out of the clash of cultures will come some new path, neither the old path nor the Western one, but some compromise or tangential route that will help the country to progress.

Otherwise, what would be the point of even talking about it?

Yes, shocking! (I say while chuckling.) I'm sorry, but it's funny sometimes to watch us Westerners when we finally "get a clue." But honestly, I do believe in a cumulative, positive effect in these clashes of culture.

Mandi

But, Curious, it is not "just the same" because every newspaper here is under direct state control. There are several mechanisms in place that the government can use to guarantee the media says what it wants, including halting publication of papers that offend it in some way. There is no voice that is immune from government control and it is illegal to try to set up a paper without government approval.

Whatever level of freedom there is here only exists within the bounds permitted by the government.

That is the difference.

And the work of the Doha Centre for Media Freedom is limited in much the same way, as they are just realising. I'm really at a lost to understand how there was ever any doubt about who calls the shots there, in view of who is paying for it, whose ministry officials chair both its main committees and who appoints its senior staff. And now we have the edifying sight of a former Trotskyite activist and media rights campaigner apparently being shocked that the leadership in a traditional Arab monarchy don't have an agenda identical to his. Oh well...

Why don't you start an new forum topic to discuss Western Media, instead of pushing that here. I don't see any misinterpretation, just you not interested to discuss the issue at hand.In my opinion,passing a free press decree, is not an easy task. Even if the power to be are looking forward to implement it. A decree like this must be approved by both ministry & Advisory councils.A whole generation mindset must be changed.Officials, Landlords, companies & malls owners are all Qataris.Qataris are not yet ready to be questioned publicly. Even if the law is passed, it will mean nothing. More than a week have passed after issuing the new HR law for Qataris. Yet, not a single government official have addressed the people of how this affect their lives.Will it be reflected on all government offices, is the housing allowance reduced,Will their salaries be deducted?no one knows.

"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365

not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the

many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers

were given. Satan - 10."

I hope we don't have a situation where truth hurts but I can not stop it from happening.

it was not well today. As soon as it is better then all cats in the west/qatar/throughout the planet will feel better.

Thankyou

ps my cat is a pro Iraqi scandal truth-seeker, although he is somewhat of a hypocrite.

what say you all?

*Sigh*

"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365

not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the

many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers

were given. Satan - 10."

Ladies and gentlemen,

Thins can go on and on forever, I just keep repeating myself.

Why would someone moan about the fact that Qatari government is claiming free media while they are not free. as it was laid out: had they been honest and all the rest of it. Why would you specifically moan about Qatar in such a strong way when it is the same situation just everywhere else. Lay down the story, have an impartial comment and that is it. Don't tell me you are angry or obsessed for the hypocrisy.

This is the reason why i push back. If the topic was handled just to report something has happened in Qatar, it would have been fine by me. Even if it was critical to Qatar. I am not claiming we are a perfect society.

Umjakke, You cannot use the fact english is my 2nd language as an execuse for misinterpretation.

Fubar, If you read my last post earlier, you would not say what you have said. I mentioned that situation is now improving in the west, as result of the recently discovered lies. this led people of the west to wake up. Now they hopefully will start to check the truth for themselves and won't be mislead by the propaganda. I agree that the environment in the west is set for truely free media, but this is not what is happening now and long time is required to reach that stage. Until then, we are even steven. Please remember that the british spies captured on Iran were ordered upon thier retur by the british government not to contact media. Now this is free media! US forces banning Al Jazeera from Iraq! double standard!

Yes, our press has redlines which does not exist in the west. However, in terms of free media, western media is as worse as is our media. We have restricted areas, while you have directed policy. Over coming years, I expect western media to probably improve a big deal.

You are probably the 3rd person stating that I did not addres the topic at hand which I keep explaining. Is anyone reading ? It should be clear by now. Additionally, This would not stop you from commenting if you were a truth seeker.

Cynbob, not all westerners are like that, this is why i say there is improvement because of the recent scandlas. Now they got the lesson and hopefully it will grow to a level significant enough to bring thing in proper order and overcome any propaganda. Not to say all westerners are like that.

Example, George Bush, who ruled the US for 8 years, did not know the name of the Pakistani leader, when asked. We just call him the general!

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/455616/pervez_musharraf_the_world_leader_whose.html

Sarah Palin who was so close to becoming the US president, did not know africa was a continent in addition to other info.

This does not make me only question the propaganda and control over western media, but it makes me go deeper to how educated are influential people in the west.

Bush violated the US constitution, went to Iraq knowing the truth and lies, Blair did the same just to name a few. If all those crimes and lies were discovered after the damage has been done, which is the case, do you believe you have effective and/or free media?

Well this thread has gone to the dogs.

CBD - we can see that you have things that you'd like to say about the US/UK/wherever.

I would be interested to hear if you have anything to say about Qatar and the DCPF.

Do you know what it is? What it is trying to do? What it's grievance is? Have you even read the attached article?

Despite your numerous postings, you seem to have never actually addressed the topic at hand.

From reading your entries on this thread, I get the impression that basically you have no clue what freedom is.

I also get the impression that you think that we, in the west, do not have minds of our own; thus, not having the ability to pick and choose what mediams to believe. We are not sheep just blindly following a leader of the flock.

You said, "There are efforts made by the media in the west to control images depicted and to hide information critical to public that would make a big difference."

We, as westerners, know and understand that fact. We enjoy the freedom to pick and choose what mediam we want to believe and even compare it to other mediams that may not follow our beliefs to make a comparison and then analytically come up with our own opinion.

WE HAVE THAT freedom. The freedom to read what we want and to believe what we want depending on the various mediams we choose.

IMO you don't know what that kind of freedom is, so you can't possibly understand the importance of freedom of the press.

We are neither sheep or puppets, my friend.

CBD - you have some strong points about the Western media. The blind group-think of the leading US Press over Iraq was a disgrace, the complete lack of regard for the available evidence was unbelievable, the media seemed to be in the grip of mass hysteria. There were some voices of reason on both sides of the Atlantic - Robert Fisk and some other commentators - but they were drowned out.

However there WERE some respected journalists talking sense which you do not get without a free press. The people just weren't listening to them.

One point nobody has mentioned - probably few people know about it - is that nobody can publish a newspaper or magazine in Qatar without a license from the government. Any paper offending the government can have publication stopped instantly by suspension of the licence.

If any Qataris (or media freedom centres/experts here) want a free press the thing to do is to campaign for the abolition of publishing licenses so that anybody can print what they like without breaking the law.

misinterpretations" -- which implies that the other posters here are so obtuse that they have completely gotten your message wrong -- why not presume that perhaps YOU have not stated your point as clearly as you might have, and give it another go?

I find it really off-putting and exasperating when people get so defensive about their statements on here -- especially when they come from second language speakers (which I am guessing you are since you list yourself as Qatari, CBD).

Even I, as a native English speaking educator, often don't say things so that I make myself clear -- so don't get your panties all in a bunch (at least not initially).

Just restate your point and, inshallah, people will understand you better the second time.

That doesn't mean that they will agree with you or like your point (or even that it will be on topic), but hopefully it will be more comprehensible.

"Most plain girls are virtuous because of the scarcity of opportunity to be otherwise."

-- Maya Angelou

I give up. Feel free to turn this into a thread about the UK and US curious, as that seems to be your agenda. I'm out of here.

Tallg. I am not responsible for misinterpretations.

I am sure you don't speak for everyone else.

My point was, as clearly stated, lying by omission.

Good. I'm glad you've changed your tune on that curious. Every one else read your previous comments to mean that no one is allowed to comment on any government but their own.

CBD

My first link shows UK ranked 10th and US 9th, respectively, when it comes to freedom of the press. The source is Freedom House, a company based in Washington DC.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=1

A fool and his money are soon parted.

-Thomas Tusser

You may talk about Qatar, I never told not to.

You are living here, and you are most welcome to.

At the end of the day, we are only debating and discussing which I believe is a healthy process provided we do it professionally and respectfully.

Tallg..I consider you a citizen and respect you fully...

you wrote earlier:

( tallg said I kind of agree with what ...

I kind of agree with what you're saying, and it would be fine if that was the line the government were touting. But they're not. They claim there is a free press here, which clearly isn't true. Going back to fubar's point, if they were honest and just came out and said "hey, we're not going to allow a free press, that's not how we do things round here" then people would know where they stood.)

I wonder why you are so obsessed about Qatar's government while US & UK governments do the same. You should have written that in you post too and things would have been fine.

cbd - why are you allowed to talk about the UK and US but we're not allowed to talk about Qatar???

Mandi,

you have a point, I should have probably elaborated more. CNN was just an example, and I am not basing my argument based on a single media entity.

You may need to read the history of rupert muroch to understand the extent of control and harmony of the western press. Please read it.

Just to clear some assumptions, which I feel exist amont some posts, I have a prefect segregation between people and government. I believe US & UK governments are criminal, while at the same time I have nothing against any of thier citizens unless proven otherwise.

The heart of the matter, is that US & UK people are decieved and led astray, and the FREE PRESS & MEDIA, some people claim, has been instrumental in making that happen. It is not possible to hide facts from the huge public like US & UK populations unless there is a coordinated and wide spread union of media, which is happening. Now, situation is improving after many scandlas have been discovered which is too late. How many Iraqis died? how many british and american soldiers who went and died in Iraq, sincerely fighting for a good cause which is now known to be lies! George Bush & Tony Blair knew about it and designed information to lead thier country into war. After all that, is there anyone who can truly question the bias of Western media.

I wonder what the impression American & British people have on a scandal like the oil for food? Can you believe that the US Senate led that case to investigate on why the problem happened and who they broght to justice??!! and whom they have eliminated?

At this point on time, the answer to my wonder above will be a good measure on the chances to improvment impartiality of western media. What is the effect of free press, if it will present true information and hide other true information?? I am being helpful here because the western press goes much beyond lying by omission.

Perhaps you need to see this vedio: (please watch the whole trial)

&feature=related

I take my hat off for the hope called George Galloway. This man is critical about so many arabs and I support him too on that because he sticks to facts based on actual ground.

a democratic nation or not, CBD...

And as Mandi rightly pointed out, the difference is in the sheer abundance of news outlets and media sources and their ability to say what they want unfettered by the threat of imprisonment or other consequence.

There is no such thing as unbiased news anymore. Media outlets are controlled by governments or big business; journalists have their own personal agendas that color their reporting; words and phrases are loaded with additional meaning beyond their original definition; audiences bring their own preconceived notions to the table and this colors their reception of news and information.

But journalists having the freedom to report on things as they see fit, and audiences having the freedom to look at and listen to various news sources, and then to decide for themselves what they think the accurate truth is from among all those sources, is what we're talking about (I think).

Don't distract by dragging US politics into this discussion, CBD. My government has done some really disgraceful things, as well as some really wonderful things, but neither is relevant to the discussion at hand -- which is about press freedom in Qatar.

"Most plain girls are virtuous because of the scarcity of opportunity to be otherwise."

-- Maya Angelou

About you:

I am from Qatar...I value all cultures and people and try to stay away from narrow minded people who think they are something but they are nothing.

Facts are proven, opinions are not.

http://www.arab.de/arabinfo/qatar-government.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/udeid.htm

Am I one of those narrow minded people . . . that is nothing?

I do not mean to insult you or your countrymen. Overall, I have seen a hospitable country and see a strong future here. The focus on education and diplomacy speaks volumes of your leadership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamad_bin_Khalifa

'as-salaamu 'alaykum

A fool and his money are soon parted.

-Thomas Tusser

Hmm, in response to one specific point ... You say that the US does not have a free press and you point to the bias of CNN. While we could argue about whether or not CNN is biased, the US also has Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, AP, UPI, every newspaper in every large and small town, every news reporter who wants desperately to be an investigative journalist and a completely uncensored internet. While each may indeed have a bias, it is the breadth and balance that provides a free press for the consumer to digest.

Mandi

I see alot of attention here...and going around in circles...

We don't really have to do that and our discussion will keep on and on without a conclusion...

I am not denying the importance of having free press while most of you got it wrong in thinking I condemn that. This is a problem.

additionally, who says that press or media in general is free in US or UK?

I agree that the president of United states or the prime minister of UK can been publicly criticised but that does not mean free press if they won't publish all points of view.

CNN and BBC for example are biased and directed in such a way to create a carefully designed outcome. There are efforts by the media in the west to control images depicted and to hide information critical to public that would make a big difference. You still think you have free press? I don't think so.

I believe some of the responses above pop up as a result of my critical view of the UK & US government. I am not sorry if they are criminal.

If you don't think this is relevant to this thread, then I respect your POV but I disagree. For reasons laid above, I see great relevance.

The DohaSteve first post is really a good hope for me and for sure I will read it over and over again.

South land, your problem is sticking to facts which may or may not be proven. Has not the US invaded Iraq based on facts which turned out to be pack of lies?

Why did the US deny Hamas as a government where the people chose it? is not that what democracy asks for? This shows US hypocrisy. Believe me, the last I would care about is being called a democratic nation based on US classification, If i cared at all.

Freedom of speech? Not in a non-democratic nation.

http://photius.com/rankings/freedom_of_the_press_2008.html

Qatar barely better than Iraq?

A fool and his money are soon parted.

-Thomas Tusser

Here = Qatar, though I probably wouldn't embarrass QL if I was living somewhere else.

Here = Qatar

or

Here = Qatar Living?

:) I'd be surprised if anybody agreed with everything I have to say. I don't ask them to ... I'm just glad to be allowed to contribute. Even if there are things I won't say here that I would say if I was living elsewhere.

Thanks Paul. I didn't say I agree with everything Steve had to say. Come to it, I don't agree with everything you have to say. But I've enjoyed hearing your arguments and understanding your perspectives. And to that end I've found what each of you had to say (and others on the thread) compelling and insightful.

I'm grateful to people like you Paul who do take the time to compose cogent arguments, which makes threads like this so interesting.

Unesco makes Qatar the main centre for World Press Freedom Day ... oh dear. I suppose the main venue for World Human Rights Day is going to be China. I'm sure the Chinese government would give every assistance to such a celebration and even provide speakers. Can't these people see what they are doing?

Genesis - re. lesbians ... can't you see the irony? This is the rubbish that appears when you DONT have a free press. In the UK we have the Daily Mail to peddle bigotry and hatred, and to foster ignorance and stupidity. Fox News does the same for the US.

Without a free press you are compeletely free to engage in persecution of minorities, as long as the government doesn't choose to protect them. But you aren't free to report serious issues. Hitler's Press was free to attack homosexuals but not to report on Gestapo torture chambers or concentration camps. And who says Nazi Germany didn't have a free Press? Well, just about everyone, I suppose.

Without knowing any of the details, I do wonder about this story. Why would lesbians dress up in thobes? Are they meant to be in pairs, one dressed as a man and one as a women? If so, why? Can't they have more public contact with each other if they are both dressed as women. How does the paper know that women dressed in thobes (if it is right about that) are lesbians? Cross-dressing doesn't make you lesbian/homosexual, there can be other reasons for it.

Curiousbutdetermined: Sure, there are plenty of wrongs that have been committed by British and American governments down the years and as they had global reach, unlike Qatar, the effects and scale of what they did were far greater than the impact of anything Qatar has done or is doing. However, your argument amounts to saying that nobody may ever express any criticism of another country, whatever it is doing, because no country is perfect.

In fact, by your own logic you should not have entered this discussion, because you know that Qatar is not perfect so you have no right to criticise any other country for its imperfections. We should all just shut up and only talk about the country where we were born (if we are allowed to talk about it).

If you listen to Brits and Americans, you will find that we do criticise our governments, all the time. In public. A little while ago, Jeremy Clarkson called our PM a one-eyed Scottish idiot on TV (and lots of us thought the reference to his origins and disability was tasteless ... he's just an idiot). But that's not what this thread is discussing.

[I find myself in complete agreement with Fubar's post above, except that Steve's conclusion was effectively "knuckle under or get out" which I disagree with, as it is actually saying the same as Curiousbut's argument that no foreigner should criticise the system].

PS: Kudos to Qatar Living and its members - I'll lay odds that this is a far, far better debate than anything that will take place during the Unesco Press Freedom Conference.

Let's move through this step by step:

***Fubar..failure to see is your problem...

I would argue that since you've taken the time to post on a public forum, you might at least want to ensure that people understand your point, otherwise you are wasting your time.

***My point is to tackle the problem at its root...

Is there a problem? You seem to be arguing either

a - there is no problem in Qatar

b - any problems that exist in Qatar are dwarfed by the problems that exist elsewhere, so we should ignore Qatar's problems and focus on the US/UK/elsewhere.

I agree that there are lots of problems elsewhere, but the topic isn't a general discussion on press freedom and government honesty, but is a discussion about Qatar and the DCPF.

***I feel disgusted by people who have the nerve to criticise our government for small issues and ommit criticising guilty governments...

So are you arguing for more press controls, to stop people voicing their opinion?

***Anyone reads this thread may have an inaccurate picture of how we feel about our government..

this thread is not right when you close your eyes on your own problems....

Sure, that's a risk in any media. If something is inaccurate you are free to provide evidence to the contrary to refute such claims.

***Whi is no one discussing accomplishments which our government has done for Gaza, Darfur, Lebanon and all successful peace efforts?

They did. On the Gaza, Darfur, Lebanon et al threads. This isn't one of them.

***This is why I reply to this note.

Okay, but I still question the relevance to the initial topic.

***I reply to this note to address the way and probably remind them of how they should be posting. Another reason, is to put things in the right context and not magnify the problem as is depicted.

QL has guidelines regarding how people should post. If you feel someone has breached then by all means report it, otherwise please don't presume to lecture people about how you feel they 'should' be posting.

***I advise you to read what DohaSteve posted first time on this thread. Please read it carefully once or twice.

I did. I found Doha Steve's arguments compelling. They were intelligent points, clearly presented, and backed up with specific examples. You would do well to follow his lead.

Curious obviusly no government is perfect and we all know that so stop being tit for tat. The difference is in that many countries you are allowed to publically criticse it, here you are not. Do you think that is right?

When international bodies say "the press in qatar is not free' its not because of islamophobia, zionism or any other of the crazy conspiracies people come up with, its because it truly isn't.

Great minds think alike, but fools seldom differ. (English Proverb)

freedom of speech means, CBD -- people will post and say what they think about a topic, regardless of your desire to "remind them of how they should be posting". ;-)

Generally speaking, people find it easier to criticize than to praise. While that may annoy you, it is what it is.

Nobody here is denying the many good things that have happened here in Qatar. But as fubar rightly pointed out, this IS a thread about the issue of the DCPF in Qatar.

You shouldn't expect people to shout Qatar's praises on other issues from the rooftops here..

"Most plain girls are virtuous because of the scarcity of opportunity to be otherwise."

-- Maya Angelou

Fubar..failure to see is your problem...

My point is to tackle the problem at its root...

I feel disgusted by people who have the nerve to criticise our government for small issues and ommit criticising guilty governments...

Anyone reads this thread may have an inaccurate picture of how we feel about our government..

this thread is not right when you close your eyes on your own problems....

Whi is no one discussing accomplishments which our government has done for Gaza, Darfur, Lebanon and all successful peace efforts?

This is why I reply to this note.

I reply to this note to address the way and probably remind them of how they should be posting. Another reason, is to put things in the right context and not magnify the problem as is depicted.

I advise you to read what DohaSteve posted first time on this thread. Please read it carefully once or twice.

Perhaps Curious it is you who needs to read the original post again.

This is discussion about the Doha Center for Press Freedom. The topic is about Qatar, and the press.

I fail to see how statements like this:

"Why are you so concerned about freedom and opression which is nothing compared to British & US governments guilt."

are even tangentially related to the very specific topic at hand.

If you want to discuss British guilt, or US press freedom, then perhaps you should start a thread about them. I just don't see how it is of relevance to this thread.

Roadtester..

I can talk about French guilt, South African guilt, Israeli guilt, Russian guilt, Japanese guilt, German guilt, Arabs guilt and the list goes on...

I am not talking about non English speaking langauge countries, though I could, because UK & UK are the prime criminal on what is happening. Not only that, but they are responsible for so many crimes for the past 300 years or so all over the world.

Also, because most people, especially the one who post this article, who discuss this issue are British.

Why are you so concerned about freedom and opression which is nothing compared to British & US governments guilt.

Among all people who discus this issue; I find DohaSteve as the most independent, realistic and understanding debator. Perhaps you need to reread the postings all over again.

everybody must be responsible on proper information dissemination (whether it is small or what so ever), they must think 100X before anything else...

Curious why are you soooo obsessed about UK and US - you do know that there are soldiers from all around the world in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nigel gourley - also picks up on one of the main problems I have with with news and the false perceptions about countries. You can find out so much about the problems in the Uk/Australia/Americas but not so much on other non english spreaking countries unless you can speak the local language. Fair comparisons are rarely made, because there is so much 'english' news material.

A perfect example is when certain posters keep going about how rape is so much higher in west than middle east, and they'll happily quote rigid scientific data which has been collected in the west, even though they have no foot to stand on because there is little or no no rigid independant studies for midle east.

Great minds think alike, but fools seldom differ. (English Proverb)

World Press Freedom Day to be marked in Doha

Web posted at: 4/9/2009 1:26:2

Source ::: THE PENINSULA

DOHA: For the first time, Doha will celebrate World Press Freedom Day on May 2 and 3 in an event at the Intercontinental hotel. The celebration, being organised jointly by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and the Doha Center for Media Freedom, will focus on the media and its role in promoting dialogue, mutual understanding and reconciliation.

The World Press Freedom Day celebrations will include workshops, dialogues and lectures on the media’s role in promoting freedom of speech and bridging cultural gaps between nations around the world. The event will bring together around 200 journalists, editors and media experts.

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=Local_News&subsection=Qatar+News&month=April2009&file=Local_News200904091262.xml

ngourlay...You are right..they exist here and everywhere...

However, Scandals made by UK & US governments are larger by far against humanity at particular.

Please note this is about governments not people.

Genius. So now all the lesbians know where to head, and so do all the lesbian watchers. That's gonna be a busy park!

Yes they did name the park...!now look, who said we don't have a free press ;)

Haha! Imagine the editor giving that assignment to someone; "We want you to go down to this park and spy on the lesbians".

And were they clever enough to name the park, so the rest of Doha's lesbians know where to go?

I'm not.It's on Alraya front page!

genesis - are you joking, or was that really the subject of today's editorial?

CuriousButDetermined,

The reason there are endless scandals in the USA and UK is exactly because there is freedom of the press. In Qatar, you hear nothing about disagreements and corruption. That doesn't mean that they don't exist.

nigel

This is to DohaSteve..

I believe I have over reacted to your earlier post and used an inappropriate term.

Mistakes happen, and I hope you accept my appology.

A shocking editorial appeared in today’s alraya newspaper. Claiming that local thob-wearing lesbians hangs out at one of the public parks!

That’s what a free press will do here, Prosecute people who are different in the name of threat to society & religion

Tallg, money seems to be your ultimate goal.

Professional does not necesaerily mean you are paid. It means in one dimension that you should apply independent unbiased thoughts and not lie by ommission.

another problem, you misunderstood. I did not say it is now allowed to voice your thought, If you read carefully, you would know, hopefully, that your way of putting your thoughts as if you were deeply touched. This is hyprocracy while you know that you will be leaving and don't care anyway. Criticising Qatar government while not looking at UK & US government. Honestly, given the endless scandals by these two governments, I look at this issue as not worth talking about.

What annoys me, is the garbage impressions people have about others.

This issue is being tackled like it is the end of the world! it is nothing compared to Free World's Evil.

...

We all deabte. It is not like the old days when all we had was the press.

Use google.

You're kidding yourself.

I hope they are not doing homosexuality in public.

How do you know that the drinking men at the Ramada or the homosexuals are hypocrites?They do it in public, don't they?

But then, remember where we are. This is a country/region rife with hypocrisy.

Marry your first cousin and create a solid family unit (but you can still take those sex junket trips to Bankgkok and Cairo and have sex with underage girls).

Muslims don't drink (those must be imposters in thobes at the Ramada I see all the time).

Homosexuality is evil and wrong (but that guy over there gives the best head ever!).

They will never be as up front about this issue as we would like them to be, because that's not how things work here. The appearance of something and what others think about it is vastly more important than the substance of what it really is.

Public perception > reality

"Most plain girls are virtuous because of the scarcity of opportunity to be otherwise."

-- Maya Angelou

Like TallG I've said (over and over, if you read the above comments) that I really don't give two hoots what values this country chooses to embrace.

I don't pay tax here, so I have no right to feel that those in power should listen to me as I would in a democracy.

All I ask is that the government has the backbone to admit that the ways things are is the way thing are, rather than lie and call the sky green and desert blue.

Have a free press, don't have a free press. It's up to you. I don't particularly care. But stop lying about it.

I am actually at a loss for words in how to respond to that. So you're saying no one is allowed to voice their opinions or express their thoughts? Unbelievable.

For the record, I'm not annoyed in the slightest. I'll leave this country soon and what it does or doesn't do will have very little effect on me. I just find it confusing and nonsensical that a country claims to have free press when it's so clear that it doesn't.

And as for not being professional, I'm not getting paid to comment on QL so that doesn't really make sense.

Will you are British too who is annoyed by what is happening here.

It is common now that every government has its own issues. Had you just posted the article, that would have been fine. But expressing your thought the way you did, showing how annoyed you are, is not really professional.

Have you not heard of the proverb: don't through stones at other houses if your house is made of glass.

Alexa, I agree that coming here and trying to turn Qatar into some vague approximation of a Western country is arrogant and potentially disastrous. But the government has officially acknowledged that a free press and transparency in business and governance are ideals they want to embrace. If that is what they are asking us to provide then it is our job to do our best to provide it.

Qatar is in a constant state of flux. The media is at the heart of a battle of ideas and aspirations that will go on for a very long time.

Ngourlay - Roth's statment about coming to make a better tomorrow is valid enough. The trouble is that he decided to make himself a propaganda weapon against press freedom by parroting the government line (and, of course, in an orgy of self-flagellation the papers duly printed these insults to their integrity). As with Menard, one has to conclude that Roth is either deeply naive or thoroughly mendacious (neither of which are good advertisements for a journalism school). He should have done his research before making statements - there are plenty of journalists around who could have told him how things work.

Fubar, as I understand it there is no prohibition against publishing the names of companies who violate the law. GT did it in the mid-late 90s. However, firms can sue for harming their reputation and the fact that something was true is not seen as mitigation. The No.2 of one of the Arabic papers told me he would not print names because he had no confidence that he reporters would get the story right (sad but true). In addition, these companies or their owners often have advertising tie-ins with the local papers.

I have always wanted to say this to a muslim:

You have taken the meaning of 'Righteous' in DohaSteves's "Righteous Indignation' out of context.

"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365

not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the

many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers

were given. Satan - 10."

curious - I'm living in Qatar, discussing issues regarding Qatar, on a site called Qatar Living. That's why I've made no mention of the British and US governments. Try to keep things on topic will you.

DohaSteve..My stand against your statement is when you said...Righteous indignation...I totally disagree.

What justification do you have to make it righteous? given the relative free press anywhere else.

.... it's taken me a long time, and a lot of practice, to perfect my hypocricy.

I'm glad at last that someone has recognised all my efforts.

Cheers!

.

"I told the doctor I broke my leg in two places. He told me to quit going to those places". - Henny Youngman

Tallg...

Do you not know there is a difference between people and government?

You think you are deeply concerned over Qatar to the extent you cannot keep your mouth shut on what the Qatari Govt. is doing?

British government, US government too claims things which they never possess.

Why do you not condemn the British government if you are that human? a government which has been guilty and hypocrite for as long as the past 300 years..

Having said that, I have nothing against British people at all and I mean that. But all I have for the British government is righteous hate and anger.

DohaSteve...You are a perfect hypocrite

I kind of agree with what you're saying, and it would be fine if that was the line the government were touting. But they're not. They claim there is a free press here, which clearly isn't true. Going back to fubar's point, if they were honest and just came out and said "hey, we're not going to allow a free press, that's not how we do things round here" then people would know where they stood.

Mandilulur, in my country we say it's better to have a soul full of hope than a hole full of soap, but be that as it may, I agree with Alexa .... if WE try to do things OUR way, tears will follow.

The brand of freedom and democracy practiced in the West is just not suitable in the Middle East, Central Asia, or even Russia, because the mindset of the people who are born, live and die there is completely different.

Some of our Western cousins have been trying to ram their brand of freedom and democracy down the collective throats of developing countries for quite a while now .... and that's really worked well, don't you think?

Come to Qatar, one and all (provided you can get an RP), drop your righteous indignation (RI) at the airport on the way in, take the money, enjoy whatever you can find to enjoy, and then pick up your little package of RI on the way out and spend the next few years standing outside your favourite pub or restaurant in the pouring rain (because you're not allowed to smoke inside) telling all and sundry how wonderful life in Qatar was, how much you miss it, and how they (your listeners) could never understand what you're trying to convey because they haven't EXPERIENCED it.

Innit though?

.

"I told the doctor I broke my leg in two places. He told me to quit going to those places". - Henny Youngman

lol

Well, ngourlay, that was five moths ago! I think we all come to Qatar with stars in our eyes and hope in our souls. It takes time to see and sift through all the layers of this complex society. I'd say three years ought to do it. I've been in the Gulf for 8 years now and still have the hope in my soul but the stars are long gone.

Mandi

Alexa..I like that to a great extent

Five months ago, I tried to get Richard Roth to qualify his public statements -- that freedom of the press in Qatar was being limited by journalists' self-censorship, and that the authorities were pushing the newspapers to become more liberal. I told him that his private hotlines to senior figures were useless. He replied with this insult:

With that kind of cynicism and negativism, I’m surprised you are still here. Go home, or believe in a better tomorrow. I came here to make a difference, not to despair about what is or what was.

Eventually, people in Chicago will start to wonder what the feck Northwestern is doing in this country, beyond providing cover for an increasingly difficult environment for journalists. Roth should be ashamed of himself.

freedom comes always with a price. In my home country, death cannot silence them (journalists),the price they always paid.

Yes, that was posted on QL a couple of weeks ago.

I think it has been a culmination of things ever since the Centre was set up.

Perhaps there are other reasons why Menard is pissed:

QATAR: Doha Centre journalist forbidden to leave Qatar

NEW YORK, March 25, 2009 (RSF/IFEX) - Hajar Smouni, head of research at the Doha Centre for Media Freedom and former member of the Reporters Without Borders staff, was prevented from leaving Qatar on March 24, while on her way to meet with Bahraini authorities to discuss the country's new press law.

Reporters Without Borders said they are deeply concerned about a hardening in the attitude of the Qatari authorities towards the Doha Centre.

"The Doha Centre has for months been struggling to keep its independence and is under pressure from the Qatari authorities," Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Jean-François Julliard said. "This ban is a violation of the undertakings Qatar gave to the Doha Centre."

Smouni was to have accompanied Doha Centre director-general Robert Ménard to Bahrain, where they were to meet with Culture and Information Minister Sheikha Mai Al-Khalifa and parliamentarians to discuss Bahrain's press law. On arrival at Doha airport, she was told she was forbidden to leave the country. The ban was eventually lifted after the Centre intervened but Smouni missed her flight.

The Doha Centre was set up in 2008 with Reporters Without Borders support and the cooperation of the Qatar Foundation, which is headed by Sheikha Mozah, the wife of Qatar's Emir, Hamad Ibn Khalifa Al Thani. ime.

Copyright

Copyright © 2009 Menassat

All Rights Reserved

http://www.menassat.com/?q=en/alerts/6256-qatar-doha-centre-journalist-forbidden-leave-qatar

curious - the DCMFs main aim is to provide shelter and support for journalists who find themselves in trouble for whatever reason. I'm not sure how that fits in with your assessment.

Well taking china as an example, they have very little press freedom, and economically they were until recently very strong. But then again there is a different mentality, people were prepared to give up some freedom to be protected and looked after by the state, and kind of sleepwalk politically.

I sometimes feel the middle east is the same as you have large tracts of people with a common family/religon all looking out for each other. People really have to fight for change and the barriers that get put up can deter all except the very determined. Press freedom would rock the boat too much and would make it difficult to maintain the status quo.

Curious, in the west newspapers often have certain leanings either, left/right conservative/liberal. But people know this and know that stories are being spun in a certain way. Statistics/data can be abused in many ways to prove a point, as we even find here on QL.

Regarding companies who violate labour law, I read in one of those US backed assessments of Qatar, that it is illegal to publish names of companies violating labour law.

I can understand why it would be potentially libelous to publish the names of companies accused of violating labour, but it seems in Qatar even once you are found guilty you are protected from media scrutiny.

2 years ago, (for the 1st time) the scandal of Siemens involvement in corruption in Sudan appeared in international press. How long it took to have that story covered up?Not to mention who interfered to have it covered-up.

Tallg, please read my earlier post carefully once more which I believe is enough elaboration.

In other words, based on the following:

1- Bad record of influential powers over our countries, which happen to be mainly western countries.

2- Consequences and implications of press freedom in light of international laws proven to be ineffective and totally biased.

I don't trust influential powers given the bad record and I am concerned of thier exploitaion when they capitalize on free press.

It is about the better the devil you know.

curious - can you please elaborate on why you would like the DCMF to leave Doha forever?

genesis,

I am just giving an explanation for the press freedom and obstacles that face it.

genesis - Surely you should care about violations taking place in your own country, even if they're not perpetrated by Qataris. At the end of the day it's Qatar's reputation and image that is affected. Perhaps exposing the corruption prompt the government into making a more concerted effort to get the companies black listed for good.

Please don’t turn this into yet another anti-west anti Semite holocaust denial post...

Since you brought up the issue of Violating companies. I don’t care about it, because very few Qataris are to blame here. Most violating companies are international, Qataris involvement in it can be nothing more than a signature. Government corporations in association with the ministry of Labour do get the violating companies black listed. Somehow their “embassies “ interfere to have the ban lifted. I think I don’t need to tell you about the corruption in the infrastructure, oil/gas & energy companies

Propaganda exists everywhere you go...

In journalism, there are news and articles.

News should be reported impartially where all sides of the stories should be reported.

In articles, you may present facts and analysis supporting your point of view and it is up to the people to take it ot leave it.

This is how journalism should be practiced in my opinion.

However, if you reported News, even impartially, without presenting critical information or other sides of the story, then it is called lying be omission which is not good for press freedom which is too bad. This is where most of the damage is done.

There is no press freedom in the world.

The problem I see is that when certain countries accuse other countries of not having press freedom especially when it comes from the west.

George Bush & Tony Blair are suspected to conspire over bombing Al-Jazeera's office in Baghdad, as an example of those countries promoting democracy and liberty.

One of the big problems is shedding lights in some countries while avoiding others.

Another example, France, Germany, Australia, to name a few, consider denying the holocaust against the law!! where is the press freedom here??

To give my opinion about the DCMF..I hope they leave Doha and not return forever. I would have changed my opinion had there been signs of true and sincere efforts to promote peace and justice at the international level.

However, having no trust and no credibility for the west given the bad record for the last 10 years, explains many things.

But people do get angry and the 'free press' here offers them an outlet for dissent.

I give you Exhibit A from todays GT:

"Changes in store

Dear Sir,

I read a report about the changes the authorities are planning to make in the Al Meera brand of supermarkets (Gulf Times, April 2). I am a regular customer of the Al Meera supermarkets, especially the one in Wakrah. I would like to urge improvement in many basic features even as the complete makeover is underway.

The trolleys in the Wakrah store are in poor condition and they need urgent attention. Some of the newly-recruited salesmen seem under-experienced. Another problem is the state of lavatories at the store. I request the authorities to attend to these before embarking upon the makeover."

The start of a crusading(can I say that?) journalistic campaign if ever I saw one!

"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365

not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the

many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers

were given. Satan - 10."

If the media report issues then the people of the country will read them. And if the people of the country feel strong enough about these issues they'll cause enough of a stir to prompt the government into considering making change. This is true anywhere in the world.

What differs around the world is how likely the government is to make changes at the request of it's countrymen. But even in Qatar, if enough Qataris were p!ssed about something I think the government would be forced to take notice and address certain issues.

And that brings us back to one of the reasons why Qatar doesn't want a free media; because it will arm people with the knowledge that not everything in Qatar is perfect, and that could lead to the effectiveness of the government and ruling family being questioned and potentially challenged.

But to say that the media have no influence over what happens in any country is wrong.

Good point ... maybe bad example :)

As you may have picked up from my posts, I can see that there are things to be gained and things that might be lost from a really free press. To a considerable degree, it depends on where you are in the social hierarchy.

it was just an example to say that to build a robust economy that can weather the harshest of conditions one needs a system of transparency that a free press can maintain and question.

"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365

not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the

many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers

were given. Satan - 10."

Adey - I think that linking famine to a political system is a mistake. Functioning democracies exist in a small part of the world and have existed for a very short time, not enough to draw such broad conclusions from. There are plenty of accidental statistical correlations and - if the original claim here is accurate, which I'm not sure about - this is probably one of them.

Everyone can think what they like about the causes of whatever happened. In a place where everything is private, nobody is credited with anything. Genesis could at least credit the person who lost their job for their principles instead of just "knowing who it was".

Between Genesis and Alexis, it seems that nobody should do anything to help anyone, because nothing can ever make anything better.

Genesis, if whether the airport is delayed is an "important issue" to you, but whether labourers are being paid on time is something you don't care about, then you have distorted values and are probably not Muslim, as the Qur'an teaches that a labourer must be paid before his sweat is dry.

A blogger in Dubai, Dessert Blogger, was having similar thoughts last week:

"I concluded that an economy could grow, and growth could even by facilitated, over the short term, via the considered prohibition of free expression, which was a difficult but necessary conclusion to find myself drawing. But, to create the conditions within which an economy could grow over the long term, at a controlled and sustainable rate, a larger degree of free expression was an absolutely necessary correctional mechanism to employ.

There was one argument which struck me, and backed up my conclusion, that I wish to share as the subject of this post. On 3rd May - World Press Freedom Day - 2006, former US Ambassador to Zimbabwe Christopher Dell delivered a speech to the School of Journalism at the National University of Science and Technology, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.

"The Nobel Prize-winning Indian economist Amartya Sen offers a noteworthy historical truth that drives home the relationship between freedom and prosperity, especially in the developing world," Dell said.

"Of all mankind’s terrible famines, none has ever occurred in a functioning democracy with regular, credible elections, healthy opposition parties, and an unfettered media.

"Famines historically have been associated with one party states, such as 50s China or 70s Cambodia; military dictatorships, such as Somalia or Ethiopia; or colonial arrangements such as pre-independence India. Notably, not just rich countries avoid famines; poor societies that are open and democratic have never experienced famine either." "

http://desert-blogger.livejournal.com/1379.html

"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365

not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the

many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers

were given. Satan - 10."

with all due respect Paul, but GT has no role in the camel jockey issue.As local, i know the whole story behind it, who pushed to have it abolish and who lost his job because of it(someone paid the price you know).

I think Alexa figured it all out.

To be honest i don't really care which company delayed in paying its works or why family day at malls is applicable on Asians only. We need a press that's able to Question offcials in important issues that concerns both Locals & expats alike:

- Roads, when will the high way prject be over?

- New doha international airport, is it stoped, postponed,is it true there is a law suit going on?

- HR law, will government corporation salaries will be deducted?

Thank you Tallg, this is by far the best post from a while

Paul,

Thanks for bringing to light many controversial issues here. I do remember the heat over camel jockeys which eventually forced the govt. to act to put the robots...

well said alexa...

No, you're wrong, Alexa. When GT printed stories about construction companies not paying their labourers back in the late-90s the government called in the owners of these companies and told them to get their act together because they were harming Qatar's image. After we published the camel jockey report, they came under so much pressure that we now have the robo-jockeys. There were quite a few areas in which GT made a significant difference ... and they never took action against us over it, though I was always afraid they might.

Another one, while I think of it: the first place anyone ever read the idea of bringing foreign univerities to Qatar was a letter to the editor back in 95. We did a little campaign, with a couple of editorials supporting the suggestion and numerous other letters. I have no idea if that led to Education City but I would like to think it did. Nobody will ever tell you.

Oh, yes: we had the head of the postal service sacked and replaced, too, because of our campaign about long delays in mail delivery - and there is no doubt at all about that being the result of GT's efforts.

What's at stake? Social disruption, I suppose. Things cease to be private family matters and become public property. Shameful behaviour is exposed causing loss of face to those concerned and the country as a whole. The political system could fall apart if everybody knows who is getting how much and people start to want a bigger slice for themselves. Ultimately, the ruling family's grip on power could be fatally weakened... so everything is at stake.

I think they recognise that once the cloth of absolute control starts to fray around the edges, it will be eaten away thread by thread until nothing is left.

A few years ago the Emir said in a speech that the Gulf had to move towards democracy because if the rulers didn't give the people more power, the people would eventually take all the power. That struck me as an honest assessment - the democracy issue (associated with the free press issue) is all about keeping control. In a way, any absolute ruler is only the custodian of absolute power; the test of his rule is whether he manages to pass the reality of that power to the next generation of his family.

why is it so- a semblance of free press but actually not. What is at stake here if they allow a true free press? Afraid of their own shadows? Maybe so, a simple case of this: just a few days ago genesis initiated a thread about an internal memo from a govt. corporation, which was btw, also published by a local broadsheet(?). But the mods deleted it here. Another pile of dust swept under...

If a caricature were to be made of Al Jazeera it would be this: a reporter peeking from a fence reporting the garbage that he sees on the other side of the fence, but he is standing on a pile of garbage within his side of the fence!

Those rules I just gave you are the guidelines from 1995 which remain in force, as far as I know.

In fairness, the government has engaged in very little direct political interference since then. A journalist being arrested because some policeman or citizen objects to a report is not political interference. Nor is someone in the bureaucratic hierarchy banning his subordinates from speaking to the press, it is just obstruction. Obstruction isn't censorship and it isn't interference, it just makes working impossible.

Commercial organisations, on the other hand, do try to engage in censorship, threatening advertising bans if something they don't like is published, and threatening to cut advertising if their press releases aren't printed in full. They also routinely bribe journalists with "gift bags" containing pens, watches etc. and, of course, we have the ubiquitous "journalism award" bribe - eg for the "best story" about Dubai shopping festival (meaning "the biggest free advertisement"). I actually loathe this appeal to the venality of local journalists more than I dislike a direct order from the Palace.

I was under the impression that Sheikh Hamad decreed an end to any press censorship in 1995 and apparently removed political interference from the media, which seems a little odds from what we are seeing now, almost 15 years later.

Is there, or isn't there, official press censorship in Qatar???

I really don't think there is any difference, fubar. There are offical, clear lines here - but that is not where it stops. Officially, the press may not publish anything that endangers Qatar's national security, harms its relations with friendly countries, insults religion or insults the the ruling family. I don't know what the rules are in Dubai, I doubt if they are much different.

Do they print stories in Dubai about incompent performance by government officials (and I'm not talking about counter-clerks who are on the phone instead of serving you), dangerous water supplies or safety issues with Emirates aircraft? I don't follow the Dubai press, but when I have seen it I have never been struck by the thought "that could never have been published in Doha". I have sometimes been struck by the thought "Oh, they say that about Qatar, but they'd never dare say it about Dubai".

Have the Dubai press asked why there hasn't been an aviation accident in Qatar for almost 30 years, during which time there have been 16 in the UAE, including 10 in the last decade (the entire UK, by comparison, has had 30 in the last 10 years)? That UAE tally is actually quite worrying, even though most are non-fatal, considering how few flights the UAE has compared with Gatwick, Heathrow, Stanstead et al.

Just being told that certain things are definitely swept under the carpet doesn't mean that other things aren't.

How did you manage to sum up my drivel so succinctly? :/

At least someone understands my point!

i.e. it would be less dangerous if the government just admitted that there is media censorship and came out and said what can and can't be talked about, rather than pretending that there is freedom of media. At least then everyone would know where they stood; journalists and readers/viewers alike.

I'll try and answer your question, because I didn't think when I was writing it that I was being all that clear.

"What I don't understand is why you say in one post that you don't think press freedom is of any importance in a little place like Doha, then you say you want to feel assured that safety standards are properly applied. That's exactly the sort of thing press freedom is for, along with exposing abuses of people's rights, overlooked hazards and anything else that should be rectified."

As DohaSteve points out, at some point when we all moved to Qatar, whether it was researching the place prior to arrival, or at some point after we settle in, we all come to realise that the media here isn’t free. It would be great if it was, sure, but we know that it isn’t.

We don’t need an NGO report to tell us that the press here is ‘not free’, because we don’t believe in our hearts that it is.

What is of concern is when the powers that be tell us, or lead us to believe, that the press is free, because then you move from a disingenuous situation where the government pretends it is free without acknowledging it as such, and into a territory where we are lied to. A lie about press freedom erodes the collective confidence of the citizenry about what other lies the government told.

Let’s look at a parallel situation. Let’s pretend that there was no quality control of the drinking water supplied to your house by the government. The government may say something like ‘we have no reason to believe that there are lethal contaminants in the supply of potable water’, which means that perhaps the water is deadly, but the government just isn’t acknowledging the existence of the risk. Imagine, though, the government saying ‘we have tested the water and it is 100% safe for consumption’. The second statement is a lie, and on hearing it you would rightfully have your doubts about the safety of anything else that the government claimed was 100% safe.

The freedom of the press, to me, isn’t all that important to me personally. I’m reasonably confident that newspapers are restricted regarding what they can publish and that there are all manner of human rights abuses occurring in the country that I would never expect to see in the paper. I would just be more comfortable living in a country that wasn’t lying about the situation, because you are left wondering what else they are lying about. I’d prefer a secretive government that sweeps things under the carpet than one that audaciously lies to the populous.

There isn't a national censor, Fulbar, just an unwritten understanding that you shouldn't write anything that:

a) upsets the government

b) upsets an advertiser (or your company will be really angry with you)

c) upsets a family of any significance

This is reinforced by the fact that hardly anybody is "authorised" to speak to the media. The police won't tell them anything, without a written request to the PR department, hospital staff aren't allowed to talk to them (there is a PR department there to ignore requests for information).

Businesses obviously only want to push promotional information to the media and know that if they refuse to talk about a problem the press can't go to - for example - the Ministry of Commerce to find out if some problem is under official study, because nobody at the ministry will be authorised to speak.

Are projects delayed? No comment. What does the purchase of bank's assets by the state mean? It is a sign of the State's commitment to economic progress. Did a fatal pile-up happen on the roads today? Send a written request for information to the police PR department, who will consider whether to make any response. Is it true that firm X has not paid its workers in three months? Sent a written request ...

Whether the press freedom centre shuts (which it won't) or not will have no relevance at all to your question about whether buildings are built to the correct safety standards, whether financial institutions are sound, or whether food or drugs standards are being properly implemented (as for Qatar Airways, remember that they are subject to checks in places like New York and London - they can't affort to be banned from foreign airspace for failure to apply international standards).

The only way to know for sure about implementation of food, drugs and building safety standards is to have a government which is open at all levels to discussing these issues with the press, together with the action taken. Why, exactly, was Turkey Central Restaurant shut down a couple of weeks ago? As far as I know, the only info is the "non-compliance with health standards" sticker on its door.

What I don't understand is why you say in one post that you don't think press freedom is of any importance in a little place like Doha, then you say you want to feel assured that safety standards are properly applied. That's exactly the sort of thing press freedom is for, along with exposing abuses of people's rights, overlooked hazards and anything else that should be rectified.

Every single day, he has to perform this balancing act between all of the many many many many cousins, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, in-laws outlaws, and various other materially rich people who (mostly) have absolutely no desire to dirty their well manicured hands on anything as grubby as controvertial truths when they could be enjoying themselves spending their filthy lucre on important things such as jewellery, cars, French Chateaux, Italian lakes, Australian crocodile farms, former British Army barracks, ad nauseum.

Added to this, he has the pressure that is surely being exerted (albeit in the most diplomatically acceptable manner) by Europe, the US, the UN, and others to reform press, labour, and personal freedoms, while at the same time most of those same diplomats are toadying up to be the next country that Qatar spends it's oil and gas billions on.

It's the curse of any ruler that whichever way he (or she) turns, there is usually a knife ready to be plunged into their back, and the ability to balance all of the demands, requests, pressures and politics can't be an easy trick to pull off every day of your life.

While there are business, financial and humanitarian practices being perpetrated here that would cause your average PC westerner to curl up in a corner sucking an organic thumb, wee still need to remember that this little peninsula that some of us currently call home is not our country.

Most of us will leave here as soon as we have made enough money to call it a day, or some other sleepy little backwater becomes a more attractive prospect than Qatar for whoring ourselves to.

Meanwhile, there will be others who follow us, possibly full of righteous idealism, and possibly even willing to stand up and be counted. Until the RP is suddenly not valid any more, or the bank account back home begins to bulk up attractively enough to quell all but the bravest of hearts.

We all (including Mr Menard and his colleagues) know what we are getting into when we come here. If we don't, then it doesn't take long to sink in and the decision then is a simple one: stay and sell a little bit of your soul, or keep your principles and beliefs intact and head for the next politically correct horizon.

I know which one I chose.

.

"I told the doctor I broke my leg in two places. He told me to quit going to those places". - Henny Youngman

Although Northwestern is still a relatively new university over at Ed City, I wonder whether they would pack up and leave if the Center decided to close up shop here. I suspect they would try to remain and find some other solution to the internships conundrum (perhaps placing students abroad with other news organizations).

Privately, I've always wondered why in the hell they chose to even come here, given the dismal state of freedom of the media here.

Not like this place is a bastion of free thinking and speech...

Fubar: I am with you on which situation would be better. At least if the lines are clearly defined, you know how to gauge your behavior and words accordingly. But if you're deliberately vague about what is and isn't allowed, then people self-censor even more than they would have perhaps been instructed to in the first place.

Kind of a win-win for them...they appear free superficially to the outside world, and they also don't have to wrestle with the big issues that go along with freedom of the press. Perfect.

"Most plain girls are virtuous because of the scarcity of opportunity to be otherwise."

-- Maya Angelou

Alexa,

Look, for instance, at the media restrictions in Dubai. It is clear where the line in the sand is, and that’s why no one crosses it. You CANNOT say this, you CANNOT say that. At least it leaves impartial observers in no doubt as to why certain stories are covered from a certain angle, if they are covered at all. There is no secret about the existence of restrictive laws operating within the media sector.

But here we are told that the press is free, which it isn’t, and that the reporting is honest and unbiased, which it isn’t.

If I’m forced to chose between the two situations, and neither of them are attractive, I’d sooner be in an environment where you at least know what’s off limits because it’s honest.

You’ll find an article in one of today’s papers about how the Ministry of Health is auditing pharmaceuticals. How can you trust that those carrying out such work are doing it properly when there is government interference in the media sector? Do you believe that there is open an objective inspections taking place on the Qatar Airways fleet to ensure that it complies to national and international civil aviation standards? Are you sure that the 40 storey building that you parked your car under has been built and certified to the correct standards??

I’m very concerned that when one regulatory body is totally hindered from ensuring compliance then how, as residents, can we have faith in any other body?

Has this story even appeared in the local press, or has it been censored to keep it away from the domestic papers? And if, hypothetically, the national censor is censoring stories about the body that should be ensuring freedom, then that really doesn’t bode well for the operations of other supposedly independent bodies.

All in all this is a very concerning development.

You may not believe me, but I do understand why having a free press is laudable, which is why most economically and politically mature countries do.

And just as there are negative implications for maintaining control of the press, there are also benefits to be had for maintaining control over the media.

As I see it, a controlled press largely benefits the ruling elite, and the rest of the population suffers.

The only thing worse, in my opinion, than a controlled press, would be to have a media freedom center that itself is unable to operate freely. As I said above, such a situation would by extension call into question the integerity of all the other institutions within the country that are supposed to safeguard our wellbeing.

I don't believe the ruling elite in the country will ever allow a 'free press' (as someone from the west would describe it) so the best I would hope for is a situation where the various media are at least open and honest about the level of censorship/control that they are subjected to.

Paul - I don't know the guy or his history to be able to comment on that, and it seems you know a lot more about his motivations and underlying reasons for doing what he's doing.

But if what happened is correct, then I understand his frustration. But as we've both said, perhaps he was naive/stupid/whatever to think that promises would be kept.

I don't see much problem with the centre moving else where and renaming, but I agree it's more likely that just he and a few others will leave and the centre will stay quiet on issues concerning Qatar, like Al Jazeera does.

Double posted

Tallg ... how can they take their centre away? It is the DOHA Centre. Menard can pack his bags and leave if he likes, I suppose they will just appoint someone less irritating.

To be honest, when I saw what was happening I thought that he had simply sold out - like one of those troublesome 1970s shop-stewards who used to reappear in a suit as a respected member of the management. I heard that prior to the establishment of the centre, Menard was living a luxury lifestyle at the government's expense and wasn't willing to make any comment on the state of media freedom in Doha, which seemed par for the course.

It was either naive or duplicitous of him to take the role of front-man in a Qatari project designed to burnish its international press freedom laurels (acquired with the establishment of Al Jazeera) expecting that the authorities were then going to change things here to suit him.

If I was sitting on top of QF I would be inclined to regard him as a money-grubbing back-stabber who had taken the Queen's Shilling only to betray the unspoken understanding about what his job was meant to be.

it's just another typical business, so journalist will have something to sell from here. let them do their sales talk.

That's right, Kinimoto. Information likely to harm national security is always off limits. The trouble here is that anything negative, however trivial, is seen as harming Qatar's image. That means that abuses that should be corrected can remain hidden, issues that investors have a right to know about are never reported. In my view, the policy of hiding problems is counter-productive because outsiders naturally assume the worst and believe rumours, assuming them to be truths that have been censored in the official media.

An example of that is that somebody posted here yesterday saying that Qatar had been secretly arresting and hanging people. To the best of my knowledge that is utter nonsense (in any case, executions here are by firing-squad ... I suppose the poster didn't know that). History shows that the Emir is extremely reluctant to execute people, however dreadful their offence. Despite that, because everyone knows that bad stuff is hushed up, I wouldn't be surprised if the hanging allegation gains wings and blogs its way into the general anti-Muslim, anti-Arab consciousness that is evident in many internet forums.

But the DCMFs main concern isn't Qatar and the freedom of press in Qatar, it's the welfare of journalists worldwide; http://www.dohacentre.org/EN/edito.php

For whatever reason, they chose to base themselves in Doha. But as the article says, it does their credibility no good when the country they're based in doesn't practice what they're preaching;

However, the centre is frustrated with the sluggishness of the authorities, and will leave if Qatar does not pass an improved press law, says Mr Ménard.

“There’s no way ... we can criticise other countries in the region while letting Qatar lag behind on press freedom matters,” he says.

“We would have no credibility, and I can’t accept that.”

You could argue that the were naive in the first place to believe the governments promises.

Some of the other posters suggested threatening to leave - I disagree - I say stand and fight for what you believe in - the freedom you so vehemently advocate ... but fight smart.

*****************************************

Don't want no drama,

No, no drama, no, no, no, no drama

As I understand it, as part of the agreement to set up in Doha the DCMF were made certain promises by the government regarding press laws and freedom and the such. They are now going back on these promises, which is why DCMF are p!ssed.

Aah.. flipped through..

genesis said "You might not like what will be the outcome of a free press here. Most Highly educated Qataris &intellectual are islamists, The rest are Nationalists. With the freedom of press, the only voices coming out of the country will be Anti west or Anti-Semite."

- Quite right.

*****************************************

Don't want no drama,

No, no drama, no, no, no, no drama

No time. Only read the article and not the above posts - but my brief comments - pls define "freedom". Total freedom is anarchy.

The question is whether or not the DCMF has the maturity to be self-regulating and responsible. It takes time to build up a relationship, including business ones. Surely the DCMF knows that the Asian culture is relationship based. People can pretend to be mature, self regulating and responsible, professional and having the substance necessary to move things forward and build up the country - but only time till tell if they really are genuine. There has to be consistency in words and actions to build that trust. And by the way, I'm sure the DCMF knows that it takes a long while to build up a reputation and 1 major mistake (or several small ones) to mess it all up.

My PoV - The Govt is prudent in that they adhere to "prevention is better than cure" and they are ensuring that they assess the DCMF carefully and accurately because it's better than shutting the stable doors after the horse has bolted. If anything detrimental happens later, the damage may be irreversible or at least, extremely difficult and costly, etc. to rectify.

*****************************************

Don't want no drama,

No, no drama, no, no, no, no drama

whether a country is geographically small or huge, this Freedom of press should be elaborated.

The progress starts when journalist will write things that even though unpleasant but will make people eyes open on certain issues.

But with respect to governmental information some articles should otherwise be protected from disclosure for the national interest. Simply responsible information dissemination.

"I don't go back on my words, that's my way of ninja"

Fubar have you ever thought that the reason the stories are so bad is because the reporters aren't allowed to write about real issues?

That's pretty insulting Fubar but since you clearly lack the intellectual capacity to understand the significance of press freedom, I suppose it doesn't really matter.

Genesis,

I never suggested I want press freedom in Qatar.

It's a tiny country where nothing happens. And as you say, give the press freedom and we'll all rue the consequences.

I don't actually mind that there are all of about 2 pages of Qatar news in the Qatar dailies. What little they do publish is total crap anyway, either because it's so trivial or because it's so dishonest.

Worrying about press freedom in a country so small as Qatar (geographically and politically) is like worrying about the freedom of operation for shoe sellers in Namibia. It might make for interesting conversation, but it really doesn't affect anyone.

This is the same country that can publish an article with the headline:

"Bridge plan is on track"

And after only a few sentences include the statement:

"The construction... was originally supposed to begin in May of 2008 ... I hope work will be able to start at the end of this year,” he added.

So, clearly not on track.

The journalists here are, on the whole, too stupid to grasp any issue where press freedom is likely to be important.

Ummjake - we officially have press freedom. The Emir announced it 14 years ago. Five years ago Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor al-Thani was in the West blaming Qatar's journalists for not using the absolute freedom they have been granted by the Emir. And in the last few months at least one journalist has been dragged off to the police station for writing something the police didn't like.

Even the FT fell for the old propaganda, with that line about Qatar indicating it would allow journalists to form a union. That means a union exclusively for journalists with Qatari nationality ... i.e. a very small percentage. The "Union" would inevitably be state controlled (since it needs government approval to exist) and would probably be used both to pamper and to control Qatari journalists.

The reality is that foreign journalists are controlled by the fear of losing their jobs while Qatari journalists risk losing their passports and finding that none of the editors want to publish their work again.

realistically I don't think they can shift 180 degrees that fast and be consistent about it. I bet they could quickly pass some sort of Emiri decree about press freedom, but it wouldn't be implemented properly...so in the end, journalists would still be struggling with the same issues.

So maybe the Centre DOES need to leave, to send a message, to publicly embarrass the country a bit. As much as I love living here, I've always had a bit of a love-hate relationships with this place, the way they get pretty much whatever they want simply by throwing money at it. It irritates me. For once, I'd like to see Qatar get slapped down and shown that money doesn't buy everything, that you can't just put up a pretty facade without real substance behind it and expect everyone to still "oooh and ahhhh" about endlessly.

"Most plain girls are virtuous because of the scarcity of opportunity to be otherwise."

-- Maya Angelou

It is not the freedom of speech we are worried about here. It is the freedom after speech!

You might not like what will be the outcome of a free press here. Most Highly educated Qataris &intellectual are islamists, The rest are Nationalists. With the freedom of press, the only voices coming out of the country will be Anti west or Anti-Semite. Don’t tell me your vision of freedom of press here , is limited to labour situation or family day ;)

Fubar, you're probably right. I, for one, thank God will not have to "shut up and put up" with the consequences for much longer.

I see a light at the end of the tunnel. ;)

I hope they leave.

Having a center for media freedom in a country with no media freedom invites all levels of criticism and harms the credibility of all of the country’s institutions. If the media freedom center can’t create an environment willing to accept media freedom, then why should we trust that the Qatar Financial Center Regulatory Authority can actually regulate the financial markets, or that the Human Rights Committee is in a position to protect anyone’s rights?

Qatar should just face up to the obvious reality and accept that it doesn’t want (or in the eyes of some, need) press freedom. The ruling elite don’t want political, economic or ethical scrutiny of the country. They want to be left to do what they like, and the rest of us should just shut up and put up with the consequences.

...

According to a local public forum, recently Qatari Columnist “Nora Al Khater” had her article withdrawn from a local daily and was published the same day online . Just a day after that, the editor in Chief of the newspaper wrote an article of how some writers are stirring uproar & false accusation against government entities

I hope they don't decide to leave, but who would blame them?

The more this is talked about on Ql and/or other mediams, the longer this serious topic will stay alive and perhaps, in time, can be changed.

Being stifled because the topic they are reporting about falls under the "harming the economy" umbrella can only last so long.

Their view of "progressive" is NOT progressive enough. They continue to think one can have their cake and eat it too. But, this type of thinking will eventually be their downfall.

I think that says Mr Ménard and the centre should pack their bags and leave.. Rather than work from the inside to improve matters, they are now antagonizing the authorities and making things worse.

had always fought for it's rights in democratic countries and often won without sweat. They are only hard up in counties like this. they also have to remember that countries such as this will not easily give in to them without a good fight.

they are a threat to them, naturally they'll get tensed.