Let’s discuss a concrete issue that is not one-sided but rather two-sided, and that does not focus solely on one aspect of the picture, but also considers the other side, which sheds light on the realism of our so-called liberal democracies. It is a fact that censorship has existed in our country to varying degrees, just like in every other country throughout history.
America is often regarded as the champion of freedom, but can anyone tell me how much freedom there was to present the “Soviet position” in the American media during the Cold War? Today, just look at how the western media covers the situation in Ukraine. The whole world knows that making Ukraine a NATO member was actually a plan to give NATO access to the Russian border. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter states that if a country’s security is threatened, such a country can attack the country from which the potential threat emanates. Russia has attacked Ukraine under this article, but can anyone name a western media outlet that has even mentioned it?
In the world of propaganda, the term “Iron Curtain” was commonly used in the Soviet Union. However, it is worth asking whether a similar curtain exists in the liberal Western media. Has the Western media been running a one-sided campaign against opponents of liberalism? In America, there is a law that prevents the release of information about the CIA’s misdeeds for up to four decades. Additionally, the law prevents the release of information about the assassination of John F. Kennedy for seventy years. While this law may seem like a way to protect national security, it can also be seen as a form of censorship. This raises the question: Does this law not stifle the truth and prevent free speech? Furthermore, this law also allows Kennedy’s real killers to go free and live their lives without consequence. It is not just the Kennedy assassination that raises questions about the role of the media and the government. We can also look at the case of Donald Trump. Despite winning the election, the American establishment and media targeted him from the start. He had not even taken the oath of office before impeachment threats were made against him. These examples raise important questions about the role of power, truth, and free speech in modern society.
Did the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay have the opportunity to present their legal position before the world while being detained outside of the United States? Are they being held outside of the American jurisdiction solely to prevent them from exercising their freedom of expression or being granted release by American courts? If this is not considered oppression and censorship, then what is it? If the United States engages in such practices, it is deemed “liberty,” while if another country does the same, it is labeled a crime. Every country has its own interpretation of democracy, molded by its environment, culture, and traditions. Some adopt a presidential system, while others opt for a parliamentary system. In some countries, the president holds the reins of power, while in others, the prime minister does. Even in many democratic countries, monarchies have been overthrown, but they still hold symbolic significance. For instance, just two days ago, King Charles was crowned in the United Kingdom.
Monarchy is not only still present in some European countries, but it is also being sustained with significant financial support. Iran should develop its own form of democracy that is tailored to its cultural, intellectual, and societal needs. This would involve holding regular elections to select a president and council, with the elected president serving as the leader while also holding the title of “spiritual leader.” However, if the head of state were to be overthrown, this democracy could be criminalized despite popular support, and one-sided propaganda could be used to discredit it. When the West engages in propaganda, it is often labeled as “freedom of expression,” but is there any space for Iran’s perspective in the Western media’s coverage? If someone is not allowed to present their point of view, then isn’t that a form of censorship? Similarly, if Pakistan were to become an “Islamic Republic” in keeping with its cultural and intellectual milieu, some people would react negatively. They might campaign to change the constitution that was approved by Parliament and use force to oppose the implementation of Sharia law, all while claiming to be champions of freedom and justice.
Will someone ask the West how they can talk about the supremacy of law on one hand, and yet claim that they cannot interfere in Aafia’s court case, while at the same time telling Pakistan’s Prime Minister that if Aasia is punished, it will not be good for Pakistan, and that they will take care of everything, including trade agreements? Is this the liberal democracy that claims to guarantee “freedom”? The Western media continues to criticize Hafiz Saeed, who couldn’t win even a single seat in the elections. However, in India, it’s deemed perfectly fine for religious fanatics and killers of Gujarat to come to power, and yet the Western media doesn’t seem to raise any storm about this. How is it that a religious fanatic was allowed to contest elections, and how did he become Prime Minister? When an incident of gang-rape occurs in Pakistan, the Western media appears to cover it for 20 years, yet the entire massacre of Gujarat fails to get similar coverage. Is this not censorship?
Some of the big pundits of our English newspapers champion freedom of expression, but do they allow space for religious thought in their newspapers? If they don’t, isn’t that censorship? We’re simply asking why the same standard isn’t applied to everyone. When a government agency stops you from spreading misleading propaganda, you protest with black armbands. But when Altaf Hussain monopolizes your screens for three hours with the force of a stick, you lose your courage. Why? We don’t support censorship, but we believe that standards should be consistent. Hypocrisy may be acceptable in a liberal democracy, but it’s not acceptable in the name of freedom of expression. The problem isn’t that you’re telling the truth; it’s that you have a hidden agenda.
