Anoniblog's Tips for Dissident Bloggers

From the Anoniblog Wiki:

Across the globe, countries that discourage free speech have followed their citizens into the blogosphere. According to one count, in the last two years at least 30 bloggers (and there are no doubt more) have been interrogated, arrested, tortured and sentenced to long prison terms for the "crime" of speaking critically about their governments. Regardless of your culture, your country, your politics or religion, we believe you deserve to speak your mind without falling afoul of state power. Unfortunately, what you deserve and what you get are not always the same thing. So, for those of you who wish to speak out on your blogs, but who do not wish to risk imprisonment or worse for doing so, we have prepared guides that will help you to blog more safely by blogging more anonymously.

But please note: Blogging can never be completely anonymous. With enough time, resources and political will, a group or government can discover who you are. We cannot guarantee that even if you follow the instructions on these guides to the letter that you will run no risk. You always take a chance when you speak your mind to people who cannot tolerate dissent. But we hope that these guides will enable you to minimize those risks, or at least be more aware of them.

Please think of what we've done here as a starting point. We encourage you to expand, update and edit the existing guides. If your country, area or language is not represented, we hope you will take advantage of the resources we have provided and build your own anonymous blogging guides. Above all, as you help to develop this resource, we wish you to stay safe and free and speaking to the world as your conscience dictates.

(ht The Religious Policeman)

John R. Bradley on Saudi Arabia

From an inteview with the author of Saudi Arabia Exposed:

Q. What are the key themes and central messages of your book? What is your underlying thesis?

My thesis is that Saudi Arabia is an empire, and to understand what Saudi Arabia is you have to go back to the 1920s and early 1930s, the formative years just before the kingdom was established in 1932. What you find is the country that would become Saudi Arabia was then made up of very distinct regions: the Hijaz in the West, which was liberal and diverse; the Eastern Province, which is majority Shiite; the Asir region, where the people worshipped the local ruler as a saint; and the northern regions like Al Jouf, where the locals had historic tribal ties to Iraq and Syria.

All these regions were conquered by the Al Saud dynasty and the Wahabi zealots they employed as foot soldiers. Al Saud hegemony was imposed, often with the sword. There were no fewer than 26 major rebellions. Hundreds of thousands were slaughtered. What I discovered when I travelled to these regions was that resistance to Wahabism especially has remained very strong — that Hijazis have a pluralistic and liberal tradition which they are very much aware of, that Asiris have not accepted the Al-Saud-Wahabi hegemony; and that in fact there are still men and boys who still wear flowers in their hair in the mountains down there: hardly Wahabi behaviour.

The Eastern Province is still majority Shiite, and they are persecuted. In the north there has been a minor rebellion in Al Jouf, which represents tribal and other groups trying to take advantage of a perhaps fatally weakened Saudi regime in the wake of 9/11 and the ensuing domestic violence to reassert territorial claims.

I see the Saudi people as not wanting to overthrow the Al Saud regime, but very much aware of their diverse history, which is denied them in the name of an alien ideology. They want to reclaim that history, just as people who lived under the Soviet Empire — in Poland, East Germany, or even Russia itself — were waiting for the moment to cast off the ideology that oppressed them: Communism.

The Religious Policeman on the Hajj Tragedy

Here.

Anne Althouse on the Alito Hearings

I'll defer to the professional expertise of the law professor and blogger:

Ah, thank God, it's finally over! I waited so long for Supreme Court appointments, and I was so excited about finally getting to some hearings. But, wow, the drudgery of following these things!

To Russia, With Love...

Earlier this week, I had a chance to hear Dr. Margaret Paxson present a book talk at Washington's Woodrow Wilson Center about her study of life in a Russian village, entitled Solovyovo. I had met Dr. Paxson in Moscow, where she was selecting Russian academics to come to America. We had an interesting lunch discussion, where she expressed some skepticism of the prevalent view in the West that the 1990s reign of the oligarchs had been a necessary stage in the transition from Communism to Capitalism. It was a perspective that I had heard from Russians, but not often from Americans. So, when the invitation to her book talk arrived in my email box, I made sure to attend.

The event was quite interesting, because Dr. Paxson's talk was illustrated with photos of the village taken by a Washington Post photographer that looked like something from the 19th Century--men sharpening hand-scythes, women harvesting hay with wooden rakes, horses, wooden houses, piles of potatoes. The snapshots reminded me of descriptions found in Gogol's Dead Souls or Wallace's Russia on the Eve of Revolution: 1905. And also of Sholom Aleichem's Anatevka, but without his Russian Jews.

Dr. Paxson read a chapter from the book, and her intonation and style seemed very Russian--poetic, elegaic, romantic, emotional. The many Russians in the room loved every word. It was a poem to village life, the heart and soul of Russia. Although there was a little bit of academic stuff in the presentation and discussion, what Paxson has obviously done is document her love for the Russian peasantry--an eternal theme of the Russian Slavophil movement. Paxson even said she found cosmopolitan and internationalist Moscow "depressing".

It was a very Russian event, and clearly Dr. Paxson loves rural Russia very deeply. Which in these days of Russia-bashing, was a delightful and surprising thing to hear in a Washington think-tank.

Still More on Abu Hamza

Channel 4 News reports:

Abu Hamza preached that killing non-Muslims was justified even if there was no reason for it, the Old Bailey has heard.

"Killing an adulterer, even if he is a Muslin is OK. Killing a Kaffir (unbeliever) who is fighting you is OK.

"Killing a Kaffir for any reason you can say it is OK even if there is no reason for it," he told an audience.

A video of Hamza's talk given in September 1999 and entitled "Adherence to Islam in the Western World" was played to jurors trying him on race-hate allegations.

In it he says Islamic beliefs should be spread with the help of the sword.

ICG's Kid-Glove Coddling of Saudi Arabia

The International Crisis Group has been one of the most outspoken advocates of tough sanctions, boycotts, and international investigations of the government of Uzbekistan. So I took a look at their website to see what they are up to in Saudi Arabia. Not too much, it seems. But I did find this recent report on the oppression of Shiites. Curiously, ICG is not advocating the same approach as they have put forward for dealing with Uzbekistan. Don't challenge on the Saudi family head-on, ICG advises. Instead, they say: "But foreign pressure directly targeting the issue, especially in light of growing suspicions that the U.S. is hostile to Islam and championing Shiites regionally, could backfire."

In fact, the direct confrontation with Uzbekistan recommended by ICG did backfire, leading to the closing of the US air base in Karshi-Khanabad. And failure to confront the Saudis directly, as I was convinced by Dr. Alyami yesterday, will achieve precisely nothing.

Perhaps that's what ICG really wants?

AEI Hosts Arab Dissidents and Reformers

This morning I attended a fascinating series of panels at the American Enterprise Institute, called
Dissent and Reform in the Arab World: Dissidents and Reformers from the Arab World Speak Out. It was hosted by AEI's Danielle Pletka and Michael Rubin, and featured Egyptian Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Tunisian Neila Charchour Hachicha, Libyan Mohamel Eljahmi, Yemenites Ali Saif Hassan and Hafez Al-Bukari (a famous Uzbek name, I wondered about his family origins, perhaps Uzbeks in Saudi Arabia?), Kuwaiti Rola Dashti, and Iraqi Kanan Makiya.

Strangely, there was no representative from Saudi Arabia on the panel--though my new acquaitance, Dr. Ali Alyami was in the audience, and asked a question.

If I had to characterize the speakers, I'd say Pletka and Rubin gave good introductions, and Kanan Makiya some excellent closing remarks about the difference between dissidents and reformers. Most outstanding speakers were Rola Dashti, who declared:

Yes, with our will, determination, perseverance and support of friends like you we won our first battle against the ideology of radical Islamists, our dream came true and things started to change...But winning the battle is not enough, we need to win the war against these radical Islamists who not only oppress women, but also embrace extremism as a mode of thinking, enclosure as a mode of life, and terrorism as a mode to conflict resolution...

And Nelia Charchour Hachicha, who pointed out:

Therefore, under long-lasting autorcarcies free elections do not offer a 'democratic' solution since the electoral tool becomes a demagogical tool...Now, pacifying first the Moslem societies to allow free elections seems to me the right way to obtain real democratic elections. But! Under the imperative condition that we first get an open political context to build a free independent civil society.

The most disturbing presentation came from Saad Eddin Ibrahim, who had been jailed by Hosni Mubarak and freed only due to American pressure. He basically appeared as an advocate for the Muslim Brotherhood, arguing that the Muslim Brothers could become the Arab world's equivalent of European Christian Democrats during the Cold War. Neither of the Arab women panelists were convinced, and neither was I. He seemed to be, at best, a sincerely misguided liberal, or at worst a liar and a con man.

For during the Cold War, Christian Democrats shared an anti-Communist ideological agenda with Western liberals. But today, the Muslim Brotherhood shares an anti-Western ideological agenda with Islamist terrorists. The correct analogy would be to European Communist parties during the Cold War. American strategy--correctly, IMHO--sought to exclude them from governments, not to empower them, because they were on the side of America's adversaries. The same policy would be wise to follow with the Muslim Brothers. To answer President Bush's famous question, they are "against us." Helping them to win elections--as some member of the audience from the National Endowment for Democracy stated the US government has been doing--is suicidal as well as dumb.

In the end, the event well and truly produced a great deal of both heat and light, and the AEI is to be commended for actually hosting a vigorous and exciting debate. A good next step, if AEI is serious about reform and dissidence in the Arab world, might be to add a panel on the question of democracy and human rights in Saudi Arabia, and invite Dr. Alyami to participate...

More on the Abu Hamza Trial

From The London Time's Sean O'Neill:

TWO very different Abu Hamzas appeared at the Old Bailey yesterday as the trial of the former imam of Finsbury Park mosque was shown video recordings of the radical cleric preaching.

Abu Hamza al-Masri sat in silence in the dock watching a much more animated and younger version of himself. The on-screen Abu Hamza was passionate, gesticulating with the stumps of his amputated arms as he emphasised the plight of Muslims around the world, the duty to fight the unbeliever and the evils of democracy.

This Abu Hamza emphasised the need for young Muslim men to train for jihad and to identify targets including the law courts, banks and brothels — all of them symbols of corrupt “kuffar countries” like Britain.

Living in such a country was, the angry figure in the flickering video said, little better than visiting a lavatory. Clearly visible on the screen was Abu Hamza’s hook. He does not wear the hook in court and this was the first time the jurors had seen it.

Abu Hamza, 47, denies all the charges on a 15-count indictment made up of nine offences of soliciting to murder, four of inciting racial hatred, one of possessing offensive recordings and one of possessing a terrorist manual, the Encyclopedia of the Afghani Jihad. The key evidence in the prosecution case against him is contained in video and audio tapes of sermons and lectures delivered by Abu Hamza between 1997 and 2000. The first of these to be aired was recorded seven years ago at a public meeting in Whitechapel, East London.

Abu Hamza’s lecture began slowly, condemning Muslims for enjoying the comforts of life in Britain — cookers, fridges, television and takeaway chicken — while their brothers and sisters suffered around the world. But as he warmed to his theme — the establishment of the Khilafah, or Islamic state — his voice reverberated in the wood-panelled courtroom.

Abu Hamza spoke in rapid-fire broken English. It was stream of consciousness, delivered over a period of more than two hours. He rambled and ranted, dictated and demanded, issued orders and captivated his listeners. Occasionally, there were flashes of humour; he mocked the former UN Secretary-General with a joke from The Fast Show, calling him “Boutros, Boutros, Boutros Ghali ”. The sound quality was poor but the judge, jurors and lawyers had a typed transcript. The prosecution alleges that the meaning of Abu Hamza’s words is unambiguous and amounts to encouraging his followers to commit murder.

Human Rights Watch Reports on Saudi Arabia

I was struck by how feeble current Human Rights Watch reports on Saudi Arabia seem, when compared to their extensive campaign against Uzbekistan. No calls for international investigations, no calls to ban Saudi officials from entry to the EU or USA, no calls for boycotts, no demands to break military alliances, and so on.

Yet Saudi Arabia is the main funder of Islamist terror, in addition to being home to a terrorist regime that oppresses non-Wahabi Muslims (I learned yesterday that even Sufi Muslims in the Hejaz must practice their traditional faith in secrecy), allows slavery, oppresses women, and so on.

By any reasonable standard Uzbekistan is freer than Saudi Arabia. So why the double standard at Human Rights Watch? How exactly does the organization select its campaign targets? Is there any transparency to the process? Why not more pressure on Saudi Arabia, right now?

The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia

Lunched today with Saudi dissident Dr. Ali Alyami, who asked tough questions of Condoleeza Rice at the Heritage Foundation a little while ago. He was passionate and impressive (reminded me a little of my anti-Castro filmmaker friend Agustin Blazquez). Dr. Alyami referred me to the website of his organization The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia. He had so much to say, I encouraged him to write a book about how to bring democracy and human rights to Saudi Arabia. If he ever does, for what its worth, I'd plug it on this blog...

Abu Hamza Trial Continues

The New York Times ran this dull Alan Cowell story, haven't seen the paper yet to find out what page. My guess is that it's not page one, even though Hamza's followers were part of the plot to destroy the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11--and the US is seeking extradition to try him for crimes here in America. I do know the Washington Post buried Kevin Sullivan's account of the trial on the bottom of page A 18.

The British press corps is on top of the story, though. Here's a link to the BBC account of today's events, Channel 4 News , Reuters , the Daily Telegraph , the Guardian , the Times of London , the Financial Times, the Sun and the Daily Mail.

Abu Hamza Trial Begins in London

Here's The Guardian's account:

The Muslim cleric Abu Hamza encouraged his followers to murder "non-believers", the Old Bailey heard today at the start of his trial.

The preacher singled out Jews, proclaiming in one of his sermons that "Hitler was sent into the world" because of their "treachery, blasphemy and filth", the jury was told. Mr Hamza also claimed that Jews controlled the west and must be removed from the Earth, the court heard.

Opening the prosecution case, David Perry told the jury they would hear tapes and watch video of the 47-year-old cleric "preaching hatred".

Mr Perry said that Mr Hamza told his followers that that "as part of the religious duty to fight in the cause of Allah, it was part of the religious duty to kill".

Mr Hamza, 47, from west London, faces a total of 15 race hate charges, including nine charges under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 alleging he solicited others at public meetings to murder Jews and other non-Muslims. He denies all the charges.

Mr Perry said that Mr Hamza was a well-known preacher or speaker in the Muslim community who frequently gave talks at meetings and delivered sermons at the Finsbury Park mosque in north London before it closed in 2003.

The barrister said the "prosecution's case, in a sentence, was that that the defendant ... was preaching murder and hatred in these talks".

Mr Perry said Mr Hamza possessed a book called the Encyclopaedia of Afghani Jihad, which ran to 10 volumes and described how to make explosives and also "explained assassination methods and ... how a terrorist unit, or a military unit, can most effectively operate".

Mr Perry said: "What the prosecution say about that encyclopaedia is that it was a manual for terrorism. It was a manual that would assist and be designed to assist any person who is likely to be engaged in preparing or actually carrying out a terrorist act."

Mr Hamza faces a charge relating to the encyclopaedia under section 58 of the Terrorism Act, which accuses him of possession of a document, which contained information "of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".

He also faces four charges under the Public Order Act 1986 of "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial hatred".

A further charge alleges Mr Hamza was in possession of video and audio recordings, which he intended to distribute to stir up racial hatred. It was some of those cassettes that formed the basis of the prosecution's case, Mr Perry said.

The lawyer said: "You will hear the tapes and we will hear that the defendant, Sheikh Abu Hamza, encouraged his listeners, whether they were an audience at a private meeting or a congregation at the mosque, to believe that it was part of a religious duty to fight in the cause of Allah, God, and as part of the religious duty to fight in the cause of Allah, it was part of the religious duty to kill."

It will be interesting to see how the New York Times and Washington Post cover this case...

The Last Hurrah

Here's another good film for your Netflix queue, John Ford's 1958 classic The Last Hurrah. I had seen it years ago, and remembered liking Spencer Tracy. But I hadn't remembered how funny and touching it was. Maybe because I am older--and have seen a little bit more. I really enjoyed the whole Irish immigrant angle, which I had forgotten, especially when Spencer Tracy barges into the restricted "Plymouth Club" to confront a group of Yankee bluebloods having lunch in their private dining room. All sorts of great acting, and supporting players Lionel Barrymore, Pat O'Brian, John Carradine. A laugh and a tear. And lines to remember, like: "You know what America's greatest spectator sport is? Politics."

I would have liked to have had this film when I taught American culture in Russia.

The Unofficial Chopin Homepage

I found this tribute to Chopin while following up on Jerzy Antczak's film version of the composer's life. It has lots of interesting links, plus MIDI versions of his music.

How to Write a Novel in a Year

Louise Doughty tells you how to do it, in this article from London's Telegraph.

For those of us who come from decidedly non-literary backgrounds, there is something wonderful about being a writer - all the shallow stuff we are supposed to despise; the café talk, the book launches, the scanning of literary pages feeling guiltily gratified when a friend gets a bad review. Forget for a moment the loneliness, paranoia and financial insecurity, Being a Writer is great fun.

But there is a catch. You have to write. This is something that would-be writers sometimes appear not to have grasped , , ,

Doughty also has a place to post your writing, for others to read your work-in-progress. (ht This 'n That)

The Alito Confirmation--What's It All About?

Seems like some sort of strange charade, people going through the motions of an inexplicable marathon ritual. Unless there are some dramatic developments, people may ask what all the fuss was about. I'm not following it very closely right now--but Heather MacDonald is, and published an interesting oped about Alito's significance, in the Wall Street Journal today.

A Russian (and Baltic) New Year's Scrapbook

You can see a lot of nice pictures of Estonia and Russia at New Year's over on Scraps of Moscow.

360 Degrees of the Great Wall of China

I'm really getting into discovering 360-degree panoramas on the internet. Here's one of the Great Wall of China.

From Our Hell Hath No Fury Department

Did Viktor Yushchenko think things through before he scorned Yuliya Tymoshenko?

KIEV, December 10 (RIA Novosti) - Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko said Tuesday she approved of the decision by the Supreme Rada, Ukraine's parliament, to dismiss Yuriy Yekhanurov's government.

"This means that the next prime minister and the next government will be elected by the Ukrainian people, and not a backstage regime," she said.

According to news reports, Tymoshenko is now leading the opposition to her former "Orange Revolution" comrade, Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko. Tymoshenko has apparently made peace with Ukraine's pro-Russian faction, in advance of upcoming elections.