Interpol accused after journalist arrested over Muhammad tweet — Saudi Arabia used Interpol’s system to get journalist arrested in Malaysia for insulting the Prophet Muhammad on Twitter
Interpol has been accused of abusing its powers after Saudi Arabia used the organisation’s red notice system to get a journalist arrested in Malaysia for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.
Police in Kuala Lumpur said Hamza Kashgari, 23, was detained at the airport “following a request made to us by Interpol” the international police cooperation agency, on behalf of the Saudi authorities.
Kashgari, a newspaper columnist, fled Saudi Arabia after posting a tweet on the prophet’s birthday that sparked more than 30,000 responses and several death threats. The posting, which was later deleted, read: “I have loved things about you and I have hated things about you and there is a lot I don’t understand about you … I will not pray for you.”
More than 13,000 people joined a Facebook page titled “The Saudi People Demand the Execution of Hamza Kashgari”.
Clerics in Saudi Arabia called for him to be charged with apostasy, a religious offence punishable by death. Reports suggest that the Malaysian authorities intend to return him to his native country.
Kashgari’s detention has triggered criticism by human rights groups of Malaysia’s decision to arrest the journalist and of Interpol’s cooperation in the process.
Jago Russell, the chief executive of the British charity Fair Trials International, which has campaigned against the blanket enforcement of Interpol red notices, said: “Interpol should be playing no part in Saudi Arabia’s pursuit of Hamza Kashgari, however unwise his comments on Twitter.
“If an Interpol red notice is the reason for his arrest and detention it would be a serious abuse of this powerful international body that is supposed to respect basic human rights (including to peaceful free speech) and to be barred from any involvement in religious or political cases.
He called on Interpol to stand by its obligations to fundamental human rights and “to comply with its obligation not to play any part in this case, which is clearly of a religious nature”.
Interpol, which has 190 member countries, has a series of coloured notice systems that police forces around the world use to pass on requests for help. Contacted at its headquarters in Lyon, France, the organisation did not immediately reply to requests for comment on the Kashgari case.
In response to past criticisms of the red notice system, it has said: “There are safeguards in place. The subject of a red notice can challenge it through an independent body, the commission for the control of Interpol’s files (CCF).”
Last year Interpol was accused by Fair Trials International of allowing the system to be abused for political purposes when it issued a red notice for the arrest of the Oxford-based leader of an Asian separatist movement, Benny Wenda, who has been granted asylum and has lived in the UK since 2003.
Fun Facts: Interpol was controlled by the Nazis between 1938-1945. Interpol presidents during that period were all SS generals: Otto Steinhäusl (1879-died of tuberculosis 1940), Reinhard Heydrich (1904-assassinated by Czech agents 1942), Arthur Nebe (1894-executed after the Hitler assassination plot 1945), and Ernst Kaltenbrunner (1903-executed for war crimes 1946).
Gee, what else could be expect from an organization with an inconvenient Nazi past?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWait a minute. You mean you could "insult" Mohamed, Kevin, here in the United States, and Saudi Arabia could use INTERPOL to have you arrested here and shipped over there?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI do believe that is the goal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat really concerns me is that Obama signed an Executive Order a couple years ago that - I believe - gave Interpol some kind of immunity while operating on US soil. I don't remember precisely what kind of immunity it was, but in light of this story, is any immunity warranted? I'm not so sure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are spot on Scott. INTERPOL was granted free reign in the US by Zero. In fact, all of their activities are cover by the DOJ and considered secret, if memory serves, and cannot be subpoenaed by congress!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, I remember this as well, Scott. I was opposed to it then and remain opposed to the U.S. sacrificing any aspect of its sovereignty to an international power.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am also concerned with a headline that caught my eye in a Dick Morris email the other day - Obama's Sneaky Treaties.
"President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are entering negotiations over -- or seeking ratification of -- five treaties that could radically limit our national sovereignty and the reach of our democratic institutions. Particularly scary is that the treaties, once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts."
I am probably most concerned about this one:
"• International Criminal Court -- Clinton has reversed George W. Bush's policy and entered into negotiations over U.S. participation in the court. Specifically, the leftists who are sponsoring the court wish to create a new crime of "aggression," which is essentially going to war without the approval of the United Nations. If we submit to the court's jurisdiction, our presidents and Cabinet officials could be prosecuted criminally for going to war without U.N. approval. This would, of course, give Russia and China a veto over our military actions. Clinton says she will stop our military's hands from being tied, but we all must realize that once we accept the International Criminal Court, we go down a slippery slope. The court could even prosecute Americans who have been cleared by our own judicial system."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo Mohammed, the so-called Prophet of Islam:
I have not loved things about you and I have hated things about you and there is a lot I don’t understand about you … I will not pray for you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseamen
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou have done what we all should do, Leveut.
I have not loved things about you and I have hated things about you and there is a lot I don’t understand about you … I will not pray for you, Mohammad (pee be upon you)
With my little addition!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo Mohammed, the True Prophet of Islam:
I have always loved things about you and I have never hated things about you and there is a lot more I should learn about you … I will always pray for you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMouneer. What evidence do you have that supports your proposition that Mohammed was a Prophet of God?
Respectfully,
David
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse