And by the way, your poll stinks too. You're being dishonest by suggesting that the problem for journalists with the new laws is that they won't be able to write about some intel ops. That's a very very narrow view.

Accusations of bias

Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for The Guardian newspaper at the time, wrote in a public email debate with Carmon in 2003, that his problem with MEMRI was that it "poses as a research institute when it's basically a propaganda operation".[6] Earlier, Whitaker had charged that MEMRI's role was to "further the political agenda of Israel." and that MEMRI's website does not mention Carmon's employment for Israeli intelligence, or Meyrav Wurmser's political stance, which he described as an "extreme brand of Zionism".[4] Carmon responded to this by stating that his employment history is not a secret and was not political, as he served under opposing administrations of the Israeli government and that perhaps the issue was that he was Israeli: "If your complaint is that I am Israeli, then please say so." Carmon also questioned Whitaker's own biases, wondering if Whitaker's is biased in favor of Arabs—as his website on the Middle East is named "Al-Bab" ("The Gateway" in Arabic)—stating: "I wonder how you would judge an editor whose website was called "Ha-Sha-ar" ("The Gateway" in Hebrew)?[6]

Norman Finkelstein has described MEMRI as "a main arm of Israeli propaganda".In 2006, Finkelstein accused MEMRI of editing a television interview he gave in Lebanon in order to falsely impute that he was a Holocaust denier. In an interview with the newspaper In Focus in 2007, he said MEMRI uses "the same sort of propaganda techniques as the Nazis" and "take[s] things out of context in order to do personal and political harm to people they don't like".[42]

Alleged translation inaccuracy
See also: Tomorrow's Pioneers § Translation controversy

The accuracy of MEMRI's translations are considered "usually accurate" though occasionally disputed and highly selective in what it chooses to translate and in which context it puts things,[55] as in the case of MEMRI's translation of a 2004 Osama bin Laden video, which MEMRI defended.[6][47][56][57][58]

Following the 7 July 2005 London bombings, Al Jazeera invited Hani al-Sebai, an Islamist living in Britain, to take part in a discussion on the event. For one segment of the discussion in regard to the victims, MEMRI provided the following translation of al-Sebai's words:

    the term civilians does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I’m familiar with religious law. There is no such term as civilians in the modern Western sense. People are either at war or not.[59]

Al-Sebai subsequently claimed that MEMRI had mistranslated his interview, and that among other errors, he had actually said:

    there is no term in Islamic jurisprudence called civilians. Dr Karmi is here sitting with us, and he's very familiar with the jurisprudence. There are fighters and non-fighters. Islam is against the killing of innocents. The innocent man cannot be killed according to Islam.

By leaving out the condemnation of the "killing of innocents" entirely, Mohammed El Oifi writing in Le Monde diplomatique argued that this translation left the implication that civilians (the innocent) are considered a legitimate target.[46] Several British newspapers subsequently used MEMRI's translation to run headlines such as "Islamic radical has praised the suicide bomb attacks on the capital"[60] prompting al-Sebai to demand an apology and take legal action. In his view, MEMRI's translation was also "an incitement to have me arrested by the British authorities".[61]

Halim Barakat described MEMRI as a "a propaganda organization dedicated to representing Arabs and Muslims as anti-semites". Barakat claims an essay he wrote for the Al-Hayat Daily of London titled The Wild Beast that Zionism Created: Self-Destruction, was mistranslated by MEMRI and retitled as Jews Have Lost Their Humanity. Barakat further stated "Every time I wrote Zionism, MEMRI replaced the word by Jew or Judaism. They want to give the impression that I'm not criticizing Israeli policy, but that what I'm saying is anti-Semitic."[42][45][46] According to Barakat, he was subject to widespread condemnation from faculty and his office was "flooded with hatemail".[62][63] Fellow Georgetown faculty member Aviel Roshwald accused Barakat in an article he published of promoting a "demonization of Israel and of Jews".[64] Supported by Georgetown colleagues, Barakat denied the claim,[65] which Roshwald had based on MEMRI's translation of Barakat's essay.[64]

In 2007, CNN correspondent Atika Shubert and Arabic translators accused MEMRI of mistranslating portions of a Palestinian children's television programme.

    Media watchdog MEMRI translates one caller as saying – quote – 'We will annihilate the Jews'," said Shubert. "But, according to several Arabic speakers used by CNN, the caller actually says 'The Jews are killing us.'[66][67]

CNN's Glenn Beck later invited Yigal Carmon onto his program to comment on the alleged mistranslation. Carmon criticized CNN's translators understanding of Arabic stating: "Even someone who doesn't know Arabic would listen to the tape and would hear the word 'Jews' is at the end, and also it means it is something to be done to the Jews, not by the Jews. And she (Octavia Nasr) insisted, no the word is in the beginning. I said: 'Octavia, you just don't get it. It is at the end.'" Brian Whitaker, a Middle East editor for the Guardian newspaper (UK) later pointed out that the word order in Arabic is not the same as in English: "the verb comes first and so a sentence in Arabic which literally says 'Are shooting at us the Jews' means 'The Jews are shooting at us.'"[55]

Naomi Sakr, a professor of Media Policy at the University of Westminster has charged that specific MEMRI mistranslations, occurring during times of international tension, have generated hostility towards Arab journalists.[68]

Brian Whitaker wrote in a blog for The Guardian newspaper that in the translation of the video, showing Farfour eliciting political comments from a young girl named Sanabel, the MEMRI transcript misrepresents the segment. Farfour asks Sanabel what she will do and, after a pause says "I'll shoot", MEMRI attributed the phrase said by Farfour, ("I'll shoot"), as the girl's reply while ignoring her actual reply ("I'm going to draw a picture").[69] Whitaker and others commented that a statement uttered by the same child, ("We're going to [or want to] resist"), had been given an unduly aggressive interpretation by MEMRI as ("We want to fight"). Also, where MEMRI translated the girl as saying the highly controversial remark ("We will annihilate the Jews"), Whitaker and others, including Arabic speakers used by CNN, insist that based on careful listening to the low quality video clip, the girl is saying "Bitokhoona al-yahood", variously interpreted as, "The Jews [will] shoot us"[69] or "The Jews are killing us."[70]

You claimed that the Muslim community is holding hands with, and on the same page as, the rest of our community on the issue of freedom of speech.

The right to depict and mock Muhammed is entirely relevant to that, as is the refusal of the Muslim community to have any debate on the issue or to speak out in defense of that right. If you still think this is irrelevant

Muslims are either hostile to this right, often violently so, or silently watching their fellow Muslims undermine it by whatever means are available.

Germany is the only one I know of.

and is celebrated as "unlawful" by our own government (without any significant opposition)

Quote:

This is not like your claim that Muslims stand up for the right to depict and mock Muhammed. There are Australians who actually spoke out against it, including the elected government.

The contrast could not be more striking Gandalf. You claim something on behalf of our Muslim community that you cannot back up with a single example, while at the same time claiming that the elected government tried to make a change to the laws that not a single person supported, despite being in an argument with someone who supports it and despite sections of the mainstream media vocally supporting it.

The combination of complete silence from the 'good' Muslim community on the right to depict and mock Muhammed, and aggressive opposition to it from the 'bad' Muslims shows that the Muslim community does not value that right.

Sounds far fetched to me. You don't get into government by being that stupid.

I have. Me being on the opposite side to the majority does not make me an extremist, as you claim. That is just plain stupid. Using that logic could paint 49% of the population as extremists with a single question.

Likewise, the Muslim community being among the majority on 18c only shows that they are with the majority on one single issue, and certainly not on the issue of freedom of speech in general.

The right to depict and mock Muhammed is a far more significant issue and one in which the Muslim community is against the vast majority.

I asked you a while back if there was anything we are legally not allowed to say in Australia. We were obviously unaware of the holocaust denial thing at the time, because you agreed with me that there was nothing we were not allowed to say.

Goodness, Soren is constantly judging muslims by their lack of protests against the extremists - we should get him in here to blast the non-muslims for not taking to the streets in defense of prophet-mocking. What do you say?

I'm referring to your poll. Aren't you genuinely concerned about the eroding of our rights and don't you question it?

And you haven't been able to demonstrate otherwise. Note also, the key word mainstream.

And what you continue to refuse to acknowledge, or understand, is that virtually no one is speaking out in defense of that right.

Asked about the Muhammad cartoons, and the overwhelming sentiment amongst the mainstream was a deep disgust at them, and a belief that they should not have been published in the first place. Thats what the surveys said across the western world. A grudging acceptance of people's right to make the cartoons (only when asked) came a very poor second to this sentiment.

If you were looking at this objectively and honestly - as I believe you were in 2007 - you would have no problems acknowledging that there is no real difference between the mainstream muslim and mainstream non-muslim community on this matter. Of course muslims don't jump up and down demanding people have the right to mock their prophet - but neither do the non-muslims.

The non-muslims - when asked - will grudgingly acknowledge a right to mock islam, but it is simply dishonest to say they are making any sort of stand in defense of it that would demonstrate a discernible difference between their values and the mainstream muslim values on this matter.

Where are the "right to mock the Prophet" protests?

No, reality check please. Mainstream society is not jumping up and down doing the "stand up for prophet mocking" dance that you demand of the muslims, because overwhelmingly society is disgusted by the concept