On 9 May 2011, Cageprisoners released a piece by Fahad Ansari on a fictional killing of US President Barack Obama. The idea of the piece was to highlight the immorality of extrajudicial killings to those who justify and celebrate the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. The article was intended to provoke a reaction among readers of how the world might feel if in the future, other governments adopted the Obama doctrine of extrajudicial killings for what they deem to be justifiable.
As Noam Chomsky recently wrote in his article,
“We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.”
While many have read the Cageprisoners article in the spirit it was written, there are some who have chosen to ignore the satire.
Cageprisoners is a human rights NGO dedicated to due process and rule of law. We unequivocally condemn extrajudicial killings, regardless of who they are against. Indeed, the purpose of this piece was to highlight that very fact.
The article went further to court controversy by suggesting that the fictional burial of Barack Obama be done in a way that would be distasteful to those of the Christian faith. Again, the purpose was to highlight the sense of outrage in the Muslim world, that Muslims were being told that the manner in which Osama Bin Laden’ body was disposed of was somehow dignified, acceptable and in accordance with Islamic teachings and practices.
It was clear that this was a satirical piece highlighting the fact that the episode raised many questions which were pertinent to the application of the rule of law and international norms and principles. It was not in any way as some have alleged a wish or notice of intention. This is a distorted reading of the article and reflective of the Islamophobic lens through which Muslim writers are seen. The limited opportunity to engage in a rational and reasoned debate without being accused of supporting terrorism caused us to sanction the use of satire to highlight the issues. It was a difficult decision and there was always a danger that the piece would be deliberately misconstrued.
We have no doubt that an objective reading of the piece shows that we do not condone extra-judicial killing. We regret that some have chosen to portray the article in any other way. It seems that freedom of expression and satire are the preserves of a few.
RSS Feed
Please wait...