Voices of Lunacy at Voice of the Cape

Here’s another hostile (in that unliberal sort of way) transcript from the hate mongerers at Voice of the Cape – dated 10/04/2005. It’s from a service at the St. Athens Mosque in Athlone.

The service was organized as a reaction to the recent prayer session that right wing Jews organized to take place on the temple Mount. I agree that the prayer session was unnecessarily provocative, but consider what these extremist Jews actually did…they prayed at the temple mount. Nothing else. Remember, although the temple Mount (Haram Al Sharif) is the third Holiest Islamic site, it is the Holiest Jewish site in the world. The Islamic reaction at the St Athens mosque was typically exaggerated and sensationalist – they named the evening “Masjiet Al Aqsa under attack”, deceiving all children and naïve followers into believing that Israel was actually attacking their beloved Haram Al Sharif.

Here are some excerpts from some of the speeches delivered that evening. It's an amazing thought exercise to actually consider if these guys really believe what they are saying, and the consequences thereof if they do.

PRESIDENT OF THE MUSLIM JUDICIAL COUNCIL – SHEIKH EBRAHIM GABRIEL The other question I want to ask – what is wrong with you? What don’t you stand up for those people who are oppressed. Are there in the world people more oppressed than the people of Palestine? But the United Nations – they find it very easy and very comfortable when it comes to the Palestinian issue – to keep quiet and silent, but when it comes to the issue of Rwanda, the issue of Darfur, the issue of Zimbabwe and all of them, then they want to make a noise, but the issue of Palestine, they are silent. Why? Because the people that want to destroy Masjiet Al Aqsa, they want to destroy Palestine, they are in control of most of these governments - the Zionists of the world. That’s why it is more comfortable for them to keep silent on the Palestinian issue. In Jerusalem, the stones talk – we don’t want conference anymore. They are saying to United Nations – they are saying to the Arab countries – we don’t want conference anymore. And I selected my words – the Arab government – because they are the problem, not the Muslims in these countries – the government, they are the problem. The Muslims in these parts of the world – they are ready to stand up. To move these governments that are supporting the Zionists and are supporting the Americans.

Next Molena Igsaan Hendricks, the first Deputy President of the Muslim Judicial Council, peddles the propaganda by confirming that Masjiet Al Aqsa is under threat and that the Zionists are now fighting to destroy Masjiet Al Aqsa. As if the Palestinians would be able to stop Israel if she really wanted to destroy it.

He starts by speaking about the Jewish Board of Deputies informing them that their battle against the hate speech spewed out by the Muslim radio stations will end in defeat. He goes on…

On record, we place that we do not hate the Jews. On record, we place that Zionism is our enemy and will remain our enemy until the land is going to be liberated. Zionism is the biggest enemy, not only of the Palestinians, not only of the Muslims, Zionism is the biggest enemy of humanity in this century of time. We also want to tell the Broadcasting Co-operation and The Jewish Board of Deputies – you are going to lose this battle – if you win it here – in the court of the Almighty, you have lost it.

The naked propaganda used to indoctrinate the masses into their cult of intolerance and hatred knows no boundaries.

My dearest brothers and friends, it is precisely why we want you to look at the screen this evening. Knowingly, that our time on radio is limited. The picture that you see here, the attacks on Masjiet Al Aqsa, since occupation, our clear question tonight is, “when you see this picture here, between the two people, an elderly lady having completed her prayers and this man here, that occupies, this man here that is part of an occupying force, an army force – I am asking you between the two people – who is a terrorist. This is a terrorist – standing with a sub-machine gun, an AK47, occupying Masjiet Al Aqsa. (In fact, the Islamic Council or Waqf has total administrative responsibility for the Masjiet Al Aqsa-Ed). Islam is not strange to human rights. Islam is here (HAVE) the Muslims ever turned a synagogue into a public toilet. The Israelis are the only people who have turned the mosque into a police station and, Dr Goldstein, if ever you have the opportunity to visit the Southern Negev desert, you go to the city known by us in Arabic, known by you in your Jewish language as Veshiva. You go and visit Veshiva and you will see how the Israelis turned our Masjiet into a public toilet and at nighttime, at nighttime, you Israeli brothers use the Mosque for homosexual practices. You show us where the Muslims ever turned the church and a synagogue into a discotheque. (Okay, during the day the obscure Masjiet in the Negev is used as a huge toilet, and then, at nighttime, when the wolves are howling in the Negev, we use the Masjiet for homosexual practices - got that? That is dastardly evil of the Israelis! Imagine what they do to the Al Aqsa Mosque!- Ed.) I am asking all sensible intellectual people tonight – if the Muslims cry for a Mosque that has been turned into a public toilet – I am asking – is it hate speech? Is it hate speech? We say that if the Zionists want to free the war of Armageddon through the four corners of the world, then you must attack Masjiet Al Aqsa. If you want to see the Armageddon war, through the four corners of the world, we always believe they have the wailing wall. They must begin to explain to us from where does the wailing wall come. They must tell us why they keep the Masjiet that is there. They must explain to us why they started the excavations beneath Masjiet Al Aqsa and when the Jewish archeologists proved to the State of Israel that there is no archeological trace of the temple of Solomon, they persist, they persist.

The rest of the speech is cluttered with repetitive incitement to hatred. The powerful and absolutely absurd allegations are repeated and repeated for maximum propaganda effect. Some of the short staccato style paragraphs were repeated up to three times consecutively. Not one logical argument can be pulled from the speech. Why use logic when your people will so willingly believe the outrageous and unproven lies that they need in order to maintain their belief in their truth.

Comments

[abu ghaib]

Hate speech ruling against VOC – Jewish Board of Deputies misses target

From Abu Ghaib

A HEADLINE in the South African Jewish Report (September 30) trumpets that the Board of Deputies “won” a “hate-speech” hearing against Voice of the Cape, a Cape Town based Muslim community radio station with a daily audience of about 200,000 listeners.

A similar report appeared on the international web-site of the Co-ordinating Forum for Countering Anti-Semitism in which it was stated that the SAJBD had won a “precedent-setting” suit against VOC.

This happened after the SAJBD had lodged a complaint with the Independent Communications Authority (ICASA) about the contents of a religious programme aired on 10 September 2004.

In this programme a senior al-Azhar student studying in Cairo had stated that there was no difference between Judaism and Zionism. During the broadcast, Muhammad Colby had frequently (and clumsily) referred to the “Protocols of Zion”, a chestnut of a document that outlines a “blueprint” for world Jewish domination.

Colby’s outlandish deviation from his radio topic, in which he accused Jews of unspecified collective rape and murder, would probably have never been taken seriously by anyone with a modicum of intelligence had a report on the programme not appeared in the Mail and Guardian. Who informed the M & G, and why, is another question.

Nevertheless, VOC management did respond with alacrity, immediately issuing an apology and stating that Colby’s views were not representative of the station. This apology was carried by the M & G, widely broadcast on VOC’s bulletins and posted on its web-site. Colby, however, remained unrepentant.

In spite of VOC’s proactive response (long before the SAJBD’s “reaction”), the SAJBD refused to accept VOC’s apology. It claimed that it was inadequately worded and lodged an official complaint with ICASA that was forwarded to the Broadcasting Monitoring Complaints Committee.

In this respect, it is revealing that the SAJBD chose to cite Section 5 of ICASA’s Code of Conduct for South African broadcasters in its complaint against VOC. Section 5 entrenches the right to freedom of speech, but withdraws protection for those who indulge in “propaganda for war” or those who stir up violence or advocate hatred “that is based on race, gender or religion”.

It is interesting, if not instructive, that the SAJBD spurned Section 36, which deals with programmes covering similar matters. This clause allows the aggrieved party to state its case, or to refute the views expressed. With VOC’s accommodative stance, the SAJBD could so easily have followed this less costly –and more conciliatory – route by taking to the airwaves.

Why VOC admitted “guilt” to Section 5 is another curious matter. But as a station official commented privately: “Rather than becoming distracted by the SAJBD’s semantic nitpicking, we felt it prudent to show the better behaviour, to apologise if we were wrong, and to move on. We certainly do not see this as a sign of weakness.”

But as the Cape Town community newspaper, Muslim Views, argues in its October issue: “Was the radio programme really about hate speech as the SAJBD contends? Was Colby actually inciting people to hatred and to war? Or did the programme just deal with a controversial issue?”

There are many who would lean towards a controversial issue. And whilst a BMCC hearing did rule against VOC on the basis of its “guilty” plea, its chairman did make a pointed statement. Bemused as to why the SAJBD was so adamant in pursuing prosecution, he is reported to have asked the SAJBD’s legal representative whether he had come for his “pound of flesh”.

Other observers have noted that the SAJBD’s truculent paranoia indicates just how out of touch it is with the complexities of the Middle East, and the local Muslim community – the overwhelming majority of whom are not hostile to Jews. They argue that Colby’s wayward editorialising needs to be understood in context, something beyond the capacity of the SAJBD.

They say that as a person who has been studying in Cairo for many years, he is more au fait with the “Arab perspective” than the local one. Gross injustice in Palestine, including Nakba denial, has inflamed passions so much in the Arab world that a distinction is no longer made between Judaism and Zionism. This is something that not only the SAJBD needs to understand, but also world Jewry in general.

Furthermore, the “Protocols of Zion” – a well-known Czarist forgery – is seen by many misinformed people as the ultimate Zionist project. In the Arab world where democracy is a desert mirage, people have to fill in the information gaps with rumour and conspiracy.

In that light it is sweetly ironic that VOC, the one South African Muslim radio station endeavouring to span the divide, has to be tarred and feathered with “hate speech” by the SAJBD. Perhaps the SAJBD needs to be reminded that the VOC (which is not the voice of the MJC, the IUC, the MYM or Qiblah) has pursued an active policy of open dialogue on critical matters, even if it has meant rough edges at times.

To this effect, SAJBD members seem to have forgotten that they too have been featured guests on VOC shows! Furthermore, VOC can hardly be accused of imbalance and bias like the other Muslim media institutions the SAJBD so fondly likes to demonise. VOC has, over the years, not only interviewed Dr ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Rantisi of Hamas, but also people like Yuval Steinlitz of Likud as well as the Israeli ambassador.

Very intriguingly, the SAJBD has taken no action against Muhammad Colby, the source of all its ire. In litigation – or matters of libel – only serving notice on the agent, as opposed to the author, is highly unusual – if not legally absurd. It is the equivelant of those in the Zuma trial indicting corruption, but not Zuma himself!

But if the views of a guest have to attribute to a media institution – as the SAJBD seems to believe – then perhaps its lawyers should also consider indicting al-Jazeera, the BBC, CNN, Fox and the SABC for featuring anti-Semitic personalities such as Usama bin Laden, Eugene Terreblanche, the Klu Klux clan and Scrooge MacDuck.

In conclusion, the SAJBD’s short-sighted expediency may well have won itself a few sexy headlines. But that is all. For in reality the slandered party is not the SAJBD, but VOC itself. The station now has to live with an undeserved anti-Semitic slur. As the Muslim Views report stated: “The label of hate speech is easily flung, but not so easily removed.”

The only consolation is this: VOC has discovered that not all Jews in Cape Town are happy with the SAJBD. They have been asking why the SAJBD has been hounding the one Muslim voice that has had the courage to accommodate the very people whom this body claims to so nobly defend.

Abu Ghaib is a pseudonym for a person who used to serve on the Management Structures of Voice of the Cape. He writes here in his personal capacity.

[mike]

I would like to begin my response to your detailed comments by commending you for engaging. I believe that dialogue between Jewish and Muslim South Africans is vital to preventing the Arab-Israeli conflict from spilling over into our streets. I also believe that both peoples must honestly express their views even if at times it is uncomfortable. Nevertheless a line must be drawn at hate speech.

While the distinction between controversial statements and racial/religious incitement is often grey, the nature of the remarks you refer to made on the VOC radio station is clear. Using the notorious anti-Semitic forgery the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to explain Israeli foreign policy is not legitimate debate. Demonising an entire people by accusing them collectively of rape and murder is incitement to racial hatred. The VOC, in fact the entire South African Muslim community should have publicly distanced themselves from these comments.

Rather than openly condemning them as racist and anti-Semitic, you have unfortunately attempted to justify these remarks. The lack of democracy and freedom in the Arab world does not excuse using Jews as scapegoats. ‘Nakbar denial’ does not justify falsely accusing Jews of desecrating the Temple Mount. It is unfortunate that the oppressed masses in the Arab world have chosen to take out their frustration on Jews and Israel rather than their own leaders who are in fact responsible for their plight.

In addition, you condemn the Jewish Board for pursuing legal action against VOC. Your warped logic is telling. The Jewish community are the victims of an anti-Semitic outburst on your station. The Jewish board as the official reprehensive of that community are pursuing legitimate means to ensure that such events do not happen again. Your comparison of their actions to those of Shylock in the Merchant of Venice serves to further reinforce my concern that many in the Muslim community in South Africa harbour deep anti-Semitic sentiments. The Jewish Board was not as you put it demanding their pound of flesh, rather attempting to protect Jewish lives by limiting the amount of hatred and incitement to violence that is a common feature of your radio station.

The Merchant of Venice is perhaps an appropriate prism through which to analyse the rhetoric of much of the Muslim world in general and your radio station in particular. Like the Christian’s of Shylock’s Venice, you refuse to acknowledge Jewish victimhood. The prevalence of Holocaust denial in the Muslim world is a symptom of this same phenomenon. Then when Jews attempt to legitimately pursue justice for themselves, you decry their lack of mercy and label them as aggressors. As Shylock explains ‘If you prick us do we not bleed; if you poison us do we not die, if you wrong us do we not revenge?’

At a recent talk of the Seeking Refuge exhibit at the Goethe institute, the German ambassador to South Africa explained that anti-Semitism/the holocaust was not only a great catastrophe for the Jews but also for the Germans. The negative consequences of anti-Semitism/racism will forever scare Germany. The Arab/Muslim world has already almost entire been ethnically cleansed of Jews. I am sure, the cultural and economic consequence of that have already been tremendous. Islamic terrorism, hatred’s most extreme manifestation, once only directed at Jews has now turned on innocent Muslims as well. Continued anti-Jewish hate speech will only serve to further poison your societies.

Muslim societies will only be restored to their former glory when, courageous Muslims stand up to confront this evil. I hope that you might be such a person.

(These views are my own and in no way represent those of the Jewish Board or any other Jewish organisation)

[abu ghaib]

dear Mike

Thanks for your response. I'm not here to split hairs. You have your views, I have mine. Let those who read decide and make up their minds - we're both right with the possibility of being wrong. But just a correction and point of clarification: Neither I, nor Voice of the Cape ever made the "pound of flesh" comment. It was made by the Chairman of the hearing.

Please, please, don't accuse me (or VOC)of denying Jewish victimhood through the prism of Shakespeare's Shylock. Do not judge us by the uneducated utterances of a few. The point is that the Palestinians also suffered the Nakba. They weren't gassed,of course, but they were dispossesed, displaced and forced off their land. They also have a right to victimhood, and it's highly unfair to deny them that. Remember too, that holocaust denial and the anti-Semitism that sweeps the Muslim world is partly a result of the despotic governments that rule there. When you're in a corner, who better to blame than a conspiracy? The other question is that the US and Britain (supporters of Israel) have ironically openly patronised these (anti-Semitic) despots, dictators and fascists for their own oily ends. The other part of the anti-Semitic equation is a consequence of Zionist (and I'm very careful to separate Zionism from Judaism)injustices in Israel.
I believe that Zionism's hugely secular fathers negatively politicised Judaism, and it's critical to note that the Middle East - once the least anti-Semitic of places - turned "anti-Jewish" only after the advent of Zionism.
At the end of it all, I believe that Jews and Arabs are still victims. But, that's another debate.
Thanks for listening!
Abu Ghaib

[abu ghaib]

dear Mike

Thanks for your response. I'm not here to split hairs. You have your views, I have mine. Let those who read decide and make up their minds - we're both right with the possibility of being wrong. But just a correction and point of clarification: Neither I, nor Voice of the Cape ever made the "pound of flesh" comment. It was made by the Chairman of the hearing.

Please, please, don't accuse me (or VOC)of denying Jewish victimhood through the prism of Shakespeare's Shylock. Do not judge us by the uneducated utterances of a few. The point is that the Palestinians also suffered the Nakba. They weren't gassed,of course, but they were dispossesed, displaced and forced off their land. They also have a right to victimhood, and it's highly unfair to deny them that. Remember too, that holocaust denial and the anti-Semitism that sweeps the Muslim world is partly a result of the despotic governments that rule there. When you're in a corner, who better to blame than a conspiracy? The other question is that the US and Britain (supporters of Israel) have ironically openly patronised these (anti-Semitic) despots, dictators and fascists for their own oily ends. The other part of the anti-Semitic equation is a consequence of Zionist (and I'm very careful to separate Zionism from Judaism)injustices in Israel.
I believe that Zionism's hugely secular fathers negatively politicised Judaism, and it's critical to note that the Middle East - once the least anti-Semitic of places - turned "anti-Jewish" only after the advent of Zionism.
At the end of it all, I believe that Jews and Arabs are still victims. But, that's another debate.
Thanks for listening!
Abu Ghaib

[Steve]

Abu Ghaib,
I hope you dont mind but I am moving this debate to a thread of its own for people to read because this is a really old thread. I will post your article on the main page followed by Mikes response, and then I will transfer you last comment as the first comment in that thread.

Regards
IAS team

how do u hear it???