The freedom of expression in the West is just a myth?

The offences, which were directed to the honorable Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in the European and Western newspapers, have shown the ugly face of the Western politicians against what is called "the Freedom of expression."

On the other hand, cartoons exposed media men who republished the Denmark caricature in a manifest support and cooperation for sin and aggression.

Moreover, the news was reported about politicians and western bodies and institutions' honoring the Denmark caricaturist shows the volume of envy and hatred which their hearts conceal against Islam and its Prophet (peace be upon him).

Honoring and giving presents to that caricaturist after the clamor —which took place following the publish of these caricatures— show their plot, despise, and contempt to Muslims through ceremonies which Satellite channels broadcast without any fear, shyness, or respect to the feelings of Muslims including the moderate Muslim who are boasting of their moderation.

The ugly face of the Western politicians shows up clearly with regard to the freedom of expression by limiting and not respecting the right of media in declaring opinions or revealing facts in many cases whenever they feel:

A- That their interests are threatened.

B- That the freedom of expression may waste their benefits.

C- That the opinion of the press prevents the achievement of tactics and strategic goals for those politicians or the countries and groups which they represent.

Western politicians claim that the freedom of expression is a sacred doctrine and an indispensable human and natural right which is a false claim that contradicts reality.

There are many examples to the falsity of that claim, of which we shall mention the following, especially but not exclusively.

Let us begin with the famous example about the Holocaust which is one of the taboos that the freedom of expression cannot discuss even among the Western politicians.

Just doubting the details of Holocaust is considered a punishable crime by law to the extent that Holocaust has become a red line that cannot be bypassed by media and politicians, but rather academics.

Western academic may exert some efforts to understand any phenomenon that can be studied, as they can doubt anything even in their existence or creation, or doubting the presence of the Earth on which they walk.

However, they cannot doubt the Holocaust or doubt its occurrence.

The horizons of research and knowledge before the Western academics are limitless, thus a scientist may reach the fact that the earth is cubic or helical!

A biologist may reach the fact that man is originated from a rare kind of insects which still live on Mars!

A chemist may do a research shows that water is a compound element but not from the atoms of oxygen and hydrogen, but from the atoms of olive oil and camel milk!

What is more strange is geographers or historians may claim that Europe is a legendary continent, Germany specifically is legendary, and Hitler is an illusory personality.

However, it is impossible for any researcher, no matter the university certificates he has got and no matter the degree of his scientific knowledge which lead him in his discoveries and academic researches —even if they are scientific, objective, and precise— to deny the Holocaust.

Roger Garaudy was a distinct French philosopher and one of the prominent left theorists in Europe.

Although Cold War was on the edge in the sixties and in the seventies, he even gained the respect of the liberal, and newspapers and magazines were exerting efforts to have a dialog with him and the publishing houses were competing and racing to print his books and writings.

Nevertheless, after he had embraced Islam and wrote his book "Founding myths for the state of Israel," politicians opposed him, media abandoned him, thinkers let him down, and courts sued him, so he was accused and convicted.

He was not supported by the advocate of the freedom of expression as they do with the Denmark newspapers today.

Moreover, they no longer republish his books or some of his ideas in European newspapers as they do with the Denmark cartoons. Politicians did not hide as they do today, but they considered Garaudy and his book anti-Semitic.

In another case, in Great Britain, the state sued newspapermen who had published a secret document about the dialog which took place between Bush and Blair about bombing Al Jazeera headquarter in Doha.

I shall not speak about the validity of the news, but suing media men is effective in these countries which claim freedom as part of the freedom of expression, but in an oppressive step, the General British Prosecutor prevented the dissemination of anything related to the bombardment of Al Jazeera in pursuit of the supreme national interest.

If we cross the Atlantic toward USA, we are stunned by the same conditions in its worst shape. Of the interesting examples to the Western myths in dealing with the freedom of expression is what is known in the USA as "Scott Libby," assistant Vice President Dick Cheney who leaked a name of his CIA agent to the press in revenge of her diplomatic husband who denied the claim of Iraq's purchase to nuclear material from Africa.

Furthermore, the same regime which leaked the information to the press issued one-year imprison for a newspaper that published this information after they had refused to disclose the source of their information.

This is the freedom of speech of America: They punish the press, whereas Bush and Cheney who leaked the information continued giving lessons in the idealism about the American regime which protects the freedom of speech.

Indeed, the doctrine of the freedom of expression in the West and in America is just a selective tactic because the American administration, which claims respecting the right of expression, steps it whenever it opposes and does not serve its interests. The White House resorts to tens of tricks to stop this freedom using low means such as bribery and threats.

An American female journalist once mentioned a long list of topics banned for the media to disclose or discuss, then listed these topics in a book that was issued two years ago in France entitled the black list.

In a dialog with a French channel, she thanked the French who printed her book, and she disclosed all institutions, laws, and interventions that took place to prevent her book from being published in USA.

Indeed, the freedom of expression in the West is a pragmatic value that is used when useful and forsaken if they are not useful, but the rule, which the West cannot violate, is that the freedom of expression is always banned if it threatens the supreme Western interests or referred, even from distant, to the Jewish and Israeli faults.

In addition, the freedom of expression is always supported and protected if it is used to abuse Islam and Muslims. Sufficient is Allah for me and the best of Trustees!