Tuesday, September 23, 2008


Dear Jane Duncan

The Malaysian government have arrested and imprisoned a blogger for "insulting Islam".

Does The Freedom of Expression Institute believe that bloggers should be arrested for "insulting Islam" ? If you don't, please ensure that The FXI supports the campaigns to release Raja Petra Kamarudin.




ps Why haven't you bothered to respond to my previous, attached, letter? Do you really believe that your ridiculous FXI statements are beyond reproach?

Dear Jane Duncan,

Why are you as executive director of The Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) now pontificating about whether Zapiro might have defamed Jacob Zuma? Is that your job?? Do you represent Jacob Zuma?

Are you an attorney specializing in libel or are you the executive director of The FXI ?

You seem confused! As I have stated many times before, you have completely forgotten who you are!




Jane Duncan, the executive director of the Freedom of Expression Institute in Johannesburg, said on Tuesday she had initially thought the cartoon to be "quite risky”.

Duncan also believes that Zuma may have a case against Zapiro.

“Yes, Zuma can sue Zapiro for defamation because it could evoke an association with the rape trial and depicting him as a rapist while he was not found guilty," she said. "A cartoon is a creative form of expression and it can be read in different ways. So I think the cartoonist should be given the benefit of the doubt."

She added: “A cartoonist is a lot freer than a journalist”.

Friday, September 12, 2008


Dear Jane Duncan,

Why are you as executive director of The Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) now pontificating about whether Zapiro might have defamed Jacob Zuma? Is that your job?? Do you represent Jacob Zuma?

Are you an attorney specializing in libel or are you the executive director of The FXI ?

You seem confused! As I have stated many times before, you have completely forgotten who you are!


Monday, June 9, 2008


Dear Messrs Trapido, Friedman, Sacks, Jeenah and Harber,

You all have "Mail and Guardian" Thought Leader blogs.

You should ask the following question...

Why has the comments facility been removed from The Freedom Of Expression Institute website?

What are the implications for freedom of expression in South Africa?


Friday, June 6, 2008


Dear Jane Duncan,

In your lecture at the graduation ceremony of the Faculty of Business, Management Sciences and Law, Walter Sisulu University on the 22 May 2008, you quoted Chomsky:

 ‘The responsibility of the writer as a moral agent is to try and bring the truth about matters of human significance to an audience that can do something about them. This is part of what it means to be a moral agent rather than a monster’ and you went on to say "Don’t allow your intellectual engagement to stop once you leave this University; make it your public duty to be heard."   

Excellent advice!

However, let us assume that one of these graduates becomes a "writer" and decides it is his or her "public duty" to be heard on The Freedom of Expression Institute website. How would such a "writer" be heard if The FXI continued to prevent any comments from appearing on the site?

Perhaps, ironically enough, The FXI has transformed itself from a "moral agent" into a "monster"? An interesting topic for another lecture?


Thursday, June 5, 2008


Dear Jane Duncan,

I have just logged on to The Freedom of Expression Institute website to read your fascinating report on Ronno Einstein's "intelligence" shenanigans.I wanted to leave a comment but it appears that this facility has now been withdrawn by The FXI. Is it a technical error or just another misguided attempt by the FXI to censor visitors to your website?


Friday, April 4, 2008


Dear Na'eem Jeenah,

I am extremely worried (you probably are as well!) that Al-Jazeerah international is facing serious problems. Will Al-Jazeerah's International's sugar-coated propaganda now be soured??

In the light of your thought provoking THOUGHT LEADER blog about Mo Bear, I thought that you might be interested in the following...

"And then there are cross-cultural ideological problems. It is said by one source that executives on the main Arabic al-Jazeera network are trying to exert more control over the English-language channel, which is mainly staffed by Western journalists.

One notable bone of contention allegedly came in the reporting of the arrest in Sudan last year of the British teacher Gillian Gibbons, for suggesting that a teddy bear be named Muhammad. There are claims that some at the top of al-Jazeera English wanted the station to take a “more Islamic slant”."



ps; Perhaps The Freedom of Expression Institute should now produce a handbook, using your hugely deserved grant from the George Soros "Open Society", on "Cross-cultural ideological problems and the global media"?

Sunday, March 30, 2008


Dear Na'eem Jeenah and Jane Duncan,

I refer you to UN Sec Gen Ban Ki-moon's reaction to "Fitna":

"I condemn, in the strongest terms, the airing of Geert Wilders’ offensively anti-Islamic film. There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence. The right of free expression is not at stake here. I acknowledge the efforts of the Government of the Netherlands to stop the broadcast of this film, and appeal for calm to those understandably offended by it. Freedom must always be accompanied by social responsibility."

Do you both agree with him? Must freedom always be accompanied by social responsibility? Will The Freedom of Expression Institute uphold the freedom to broadcast "Fitna" in South Africa?



Dear Na'eem Jeenah,

In your THOUGHT LEADER profile, you boldly write that you are an "academic".

However, your WIkipedia entry states: "Jeenah currently works for the Freedom of Expression Institute in Johannesburg, South Africa. He has also taught Political Studies at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg."


Would it, therefore, be more accurate to state, assuming of course that you actually had tenure, that that you were an "academic"?

There is still no mention in your THOUGHT LEADER profile that you are spokesperson for The Palestine Solidarity Committee. Do you feel uncomfortable with this role or do you think that some people might conclude that it compromises your position at The Freedom of Expression Institute?

The Mail and Guardian believes that you can write whatever profile you like and this, of course, indicates that Ferial is not too bothered about accuracy. Surprise, surprise?


Ps: Are you as "academic" as Dr Zapiro ? If so, what is your "academic" specialization?

Friday, March 28, 2008


Emailed to The Freedom of Expression Institute...

Dear Na'eem Jeenah,

Your THOUGHT LEADER blog profile states that you are an "academic" so you must be especially delighted that Zapiro has been awarded an honorary doctorate by Rhodes University. I think it would be fair to conclude that you and Dr Zapiro are now both "academics"!

I have noticed , however, for some strange reason, that Dr Zapiro's cartoons do not depict Ahmadinejad's Iranian shenanigans. I am sure that this is just an oversight on Dr Zapiro's behalf. Perhaps you could kindly bring it to his attention when you are both next in the common-room, smoking pipes and academically discussing international affairs? For even more academic contributions, you could always invite Profs Harber and Friedman as they are also leading lights in South Africa's intellectual community!

I have read that "human rights" are at the top of your lists, so please debate the merits of the attached extract....


"Currently, Iran's rulers are carrying out their most ferocious crackdown on young people - especially women - in recent years. In January alone, the regime executed at least 23 prisoners, murdered a dissident student in the north-western city of Sanandaj, executed another wounded prisoner lying on a stretcher in the northern city of Khoy, amputated the limbs of five prisoners in the south-eastern city of Zahedan, and sentenced two teenagers to be thrown off a cliff in a sack in the southern city of Shiraz, a city famous for its poets, jasmine, and rose gardens."


Thursday, March 27, 2008


Dear Na'eem Jeenah ,

Tom Gross, the media analyst writes: "While many in the Islamic world and in the West have strongly condemned cartoons deemed offensive to Muslims, such as those that appeared in a Danish paper caricaturing Mohammed, there is near-silence among western media and NGOs about anti-Semitic cartoons that are spreading across the globe."

Gross includes, within the antisemitic category, Zapiros's cartoon of Olmert cutting up body parts.

Is The FXI/PSC, a prominent NGO, concerned about these double standards that have infected the South AfrIcan press? It seems that you are extremely worried about the Danish cartoons but you seem to support the appearance of cartoons that represent Israelis as Nazis. Is it because you are not only the director of the Freedom of Expression Institute but also spokesperson for The Palestine Solidarity Committee?

Alan Dershowitz in his book "The Case for Peace" writes:
"Notice that Israel is never compared to Stalin's Soviet Union, to Mussolini's Italy, to Franco's Spain, to Castro's Cuba, to Pinnochet's Chile, or even to Hirohito's Japan. It is always and only compared to Hiter's Nazi Germany. I have often wondered what could motivate any person of presumed decency to compare Israel's treatment of Palestinians to what the Nazis did to the Jews during the Holocaust. Israel's goal is to protect it's civillians from Palestinian terrorism, whereas the Nazi goal was to genocidally destroy every Jewish baby, child, woman and man so as to eliminate the Jewish race. The analogy is obscene and yet it is repeated daily on college campuses, by mainstream European political activists, and even by writers and intellectuals. It's target audience is the current generation of college students too young to remember the Holocaust and too caught up in the passions of the day to bother to research the history. When a lie is repeated often enough, it risks becoming conventional wisdom. Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is anti-Semitism, pure and simple. There is no other explanation, especially in the light of the reality that there is no actual similarity between Hitler's systematic genocide of the Jews and Israel's efforts to defend itself from genocidal threats against it's Jewish population".

I look forward to your response.


This is not about freedom of speech
Na'eem Jeenah, Charles Amjad-Ali and Salim Vally: COMMENT
10 February 2006 06:00
That the real issue surrounding the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad is hate speech and incitement to violence, rather than freedom of expression, is clear when the intent behind their publication is understood.

The cartoons were meant to be inflammatory, showing disrespect and lack of moral maturity. The problem is not whether the Prophet should be pictured. It is that they portray him as an al-Qaeda image of violence; they portray Islam a violent religion. Aesthetically valueless, they were intended to incite right-wing racists to violence against “the terrorist within”.

The notion of “the enemy within” was used in Nazi Germany to demonise Jews and it became part of the propaganda arsenal that supported the Holocaust.

And cartoons too were a weapon used to demonise Jews, just as the radio was used in Rwanda to demonise Tutsis and to assist in that genocide.

An instructive exercise would be a comparison between the hate-filled Danish cartoons and the brilliant social commentary and caricatures, even of religious practice -- such as the Catholic fatwa against condom use -- by South Africa’s Zapiro.

We are not advocating that criticism of religion is taboo or religious topics are sacrosanct; religions themselves develop and advance through criticism. And, often, internal criticism is harsher than that by outsiders.

The 12 cartoons were published by Jyllands-Posten following its invitation to 40 cartoonists to parody Muhammad in order, as is clear from the invitation, to provoke Muslims.

They become truly dangerous in the context within which they were published: in a Europe that manifests increasing levels of Islamophobia and xenophobia, especially against Muslims, and where Muslims are demonised and scapegoated for increasing social misery. Further, they were published in Denmark, which has been named by the European Union Commission on Human Rights as the most racist country in Europe. It has witnessed a large number of attacks against Muslims, some resulting in the killings of Muslim immigrants. And, they were published by a newspaper with historical ties to German and Italian fascism and which called for a fascist dictatorship in Denmark. Jyllands-Posten is also anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim. Within such a context, these cartoons are clearly hate speech. Their publication is an ontological attack against the foundations of Islam.

How might Christians respond if Jesus was drawn wearing a crown of nuclear bombs instead of thorns? Or as a Roman soldier shoving his spear into the sides of Palestinians hanging on crosses? Or what would the Jewish reaction be to a cartoon of a Jew in the 1930s dreaming up a scheme to help relocate European Jews to Palestine and imagining the Holocaust as the way to do it.

Or of Moses as the pilot of an Apache helicopter firing on Palestinian homes.

When the debate erupted, we were quickly reminded that the West is a secular society with ideals of tolerance and open debate, even if such debate offends. But freedom of expression cannot be a carte blanche right to be used by racists and xenophobes to perpetrate violence. We can’t piss in Trafalgar Square or openly drink beer in the streets of New York or walk the malls of Johannesburg naked. If we can be punished for impinging on public space, should we not also be subject to limitations for hate speech against religious or cultural groups? We agree with Robert Fisk that this is not an issue of secularism vs Islam or of a clash of civilisations but is, rather, the childishness of civilisations.

The double standard goes beyond that. Since Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in many European countries, should Islamophobia and the assault on Muslim religious symbols not also be regulated? Jyllands-Posten refused to publish caricatures of Jesus in 2003 because they would “offend” its readers. Why then is its invitation to caricature Muhammad protected by free speech provisions?

In the current debate, the greater immaturity is not by the Muslim protestors but by those Westerners who refuse to see the bigotry, prejudice and Islamophobia and, in doing nothing, encourage hatred and violence.

Within the context of a Europe with escalating Islamophobia and racism, the responsibility is on us all -- Muslims and non-Muslims, atheists, secularists and believers -- to speak out.

Or we might have to live with the legacy of our silence as we, today, have to live with the legacy of genocides against Jews in Europe and Tutsis in Africa.

An additional issue raised by the current furore is of the dominance of liberal democratic notions of rights. Rights are only, according to such notions, individual. There is no space to consider the violation of the dignity of a community or the right, as a community, not to have one’s religious or cultural symbols denigrated, or the right of an entire people not to have its history under colonialism whitewashed. The notion of collective or communal rights is one that requires serious consideration in a young democracy like South Africa.

Disempowered Muslim communities in Europe and other parts of the world have expressed their right to free expression in the only manner they have available -- by taking to the streets in legitimate articulations of outrage and celebrations of democracy.

But some responses have been shortsighted, even immoral, as if to say: “If you insist on calling us terrorists, we will behave like terrorists.” The burning of embassies, the loss of life in Afghanistan for the sake of some stupid, albeit offensive, drawings and the placards that threaten bombs have not been in keeping with Islamic or Western democratic norms of protest and expression. Muslims’ right to dignity should be protected in their protests too. And their legitimate revulsion for attacks against religious symbols should also be expressed when we witness incidents such as the Taliban’s destruction of the Bamayan Buddhist statues.

Legitimate protest should not be allowed to be hijacked by dictatorial regimes whose primary agenda for jumping on the popular bandwagon is to deflect attention from their repression and denial of rights. Nor by the United States’s neo-cons who pontificate about the Danish cartoons when it was their theology of civilisational clashes, the new American century, Pax Americana and us-and-them polarisation that created the global conditions for such denigration to take place.

In South Africa, threats to the Mail & Guardian editor, phone calls to her mother and threats against property have been part of this phenomenon. There is a distinction between gratuitous reproduction of the cartoons as hate speech and the use of one cartoon by the M&G for didactic and illustrative purposes. Living in a rights-based society requires people to acknowledge and respect the rights of others as much as they require similar recognition for their rights.

Na’eem Jeenah is president of the Muslim Youth Movement, Professor Charles Amjad-Ali is a Christian theologian and Salim Vally is the former chairperson of the Freedom of Expression Institute

Tuesday, March 25, 2008


Dear Jane Duncan and Na'eem Jeenah,

Is there freedom of expression in South Africa?


"I think that my point stands... the SA press does not satirize Islamic fundamentalism. It is an extremely important point, and with regard to this discussion about Zap's Israel cartoons, needs to be emphasized.
I have explained some of the reasons for the press failure to satirize Islamic fundamentalism and I believe that it is a craven response to the bullying tactics of the MRN/PSC/RONNO EINSTEIN etc lobby."

Posted by: BLACKLISTED DICTATOR | March 25, 2008 at 10:47

Please ensure that The Freedom of Expression Institute/ Palestine Solidarity Committee responds asap.


Monday, March 24, 2008


Dear Na'eem Jeenah and Jane Duncan,

Does The FXI/PSC agree with Amyan al-Zawahri ? It is important to know where precisely the Freedom of Expression Institute/ Palestine Solidarity Committee stands on this issue...

"Like bin Laden, the al-Qaeda second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri. issued a threat against those countries in which cartoons of Muhammad were published, saying that "They cannot insult our prophet and support Israel and then expect to live in peace in the countries."


So... should the Danes live in peace or should they be bombed into submission?

Btw, are we safe in South Africa?


ps; I have cc'd Prof Anton Harber (Wits School Of Journalism) as I know that he is particularly concerned about freedom of expression. Perhaps he can write a joint paper with Steven Friedman ?

Sunday, March 9, 2008


 Dear Na'eem Jeenah and Jane Duncan,

Can The Freedom of Expression Institute ensure that Prof Hussein Solomon is not allowed to speak in South Africa?

Updated Press Release: SA Muslim community vilified in presentation at counter-terrorism conference

Press Release:
SA Muslim community vilified in presentation at counter-terrorism conference

Media Review Network is outraged at the defamatory statements made by Professor Hussein Solomon during a presentation at the 7th International Conference of the International Institute for Counter Terrorism in Herzliya, Israel on 10 September 2007.

Hussein Solomon’s was speaking in his capacity as director of the Centre for International Political Study (CiPS) at the University of Pretoria.

During this presentation Solomons claimed:

* South African Muslim organizations, mosques and the Muslim media were psychologically preparing local Muslims for terrorism;

* military training is occurring at various South African Muslim high schools;

* Muslims were a potential threat to the 2010 World Cup;

* South African madressahs (religious schools) were a breeding ground for terrorism;

He went on to state that the local Muslim community was “volatile” and would provide safe-houses and money to potential terrorists.

Nowhere in his 25 minute presentation on “radical” Islam in South Africa, did Solomon provide any shred of evidence to substantiate his distortions and wild allegations.

Solomon’s irresponsible claims unjustly sustain the misconception that Islam and SA Muslims are a threat to domestic and world peace. This erroneous perception leads to the unfair profiling of Islamic schools, charities and religious organizations, and creates a climate where all Muslims are feared and despised.   

The content of Prof. Solomon’s presentation vilifies the entire Muslim community of South Africa, and is one of the most rabid forms of Islamophobia ever encountered. That the conference hosts and fellow speakers allowed such baseless allegations to masquerade as an academic presentation reveals the deep-seated anti-Islamic sentiments of this gathering.

Solomon’s participation at this anti-Muslim conference in apartheid Israel alongside known Islamophobes and Muslim-bashers such as Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Binyamin Netanyahu, Reuven Paz and others is an indication of his role in fuelling alarm and suspicion against Muslims in SA.

We believe that Solomons has an obligation to provide indisputable evidence to back-up his incriminating allegations or to retract and apologise. If Solomons persists in making these incredible allegations we demand that Professor Solomon substantiate his contemptible claims, and explain to the Muslim community of this country how he arrived at such ludicrous conclusions.

Issued by:
Suraya Dadoo (Researcher Media Review Network)

TIMESONLINE (From The Times February 4, 2008)
Sean O’Neill, Crime and Security Editor
South Africans may be required to obtain visas to visit Britain under moves to close routes exploited by people-smugglers and terrorists.

Law enforcement agencies have been putting pressure on ministers to overhaul immigration rules that allow South African passport holders to enter Britain without a visa and stay for six months.

The Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) recently smashed a people-smuggling gang that brought more than 6,000 illegal immigrants into Britain on forged or stolen South African passports.

Intelligence services and anti-terrorist police have also shut an al-Qaeda cell, members of which had been travelling to terrorist training camps in Pakistan via southern Africa.

With 450,000 South African nationals entering Britain annually it has proved relatively easy for terrorists and illegal migrants to go undetected.

Sir Stephen Lander, chairman of Soca, has been pressing for a tightened visa regime in the wake of the people-smuggling case, codenamed Operation Coptine. He told MPs on the Home Affairs Select Committee that the case was “likely to lead to the reintroduction of a visa regime”. The Home Office confirmed that it is looking at the situation.

The five-year operation against people-smugglers — which involved agencies in South Africa, the United States and Canada — resulted in the convictions of more than 40 people.

They were members of a gang operating out of Leicester which, over a decade, smuggled people out of villages in Gujarat, India, to South Africa, where they were supplied with false or stolen passports.

The migrants, who paid the gang between £5,000 and £8,000 each, were then brought to Britain where many registered as students or found work. About a quarter of the illegals acquired British passports under different identities for travel to the United States and Canada.

One woman arrived in Britain using a fraudulently obtained South African passport in the name of Swati Mistry. She was subsequently detected trying to fly to Orlando, Florida, from Gatwick airport using a false British passport in the name Fazila Saleh.

Yusuf Mewaswala, 49, the leader of the gang, received a ten-year jail sentence — his third conviction for people-smuggling — but is believed to have made millions of pounds in profit from his operation.

Others convicted included specialist forgers and facilitators, and men and women who were paid £1,000 each to act as couriers accompanying the illegal migrants on transatlantic flights.

Details of the alleged terror cell — which is also understood to have exploited lax controls — linked to South Africa cannot be revealed at present for legal reasons.

Intelligence experts are concerned that al-Qaeda has been using South Africa as a support base for training and fundraising for operations elsewhere. JOHN SOLOMON, Head of Terrorism Research for World-Check, has studied the terrorist presence in South Africa and concluded that there was “a discernible pattern” of activity.

He said: “Prominent global jihadis . . . have used southern Africa as a possible medium through which not only to stage operations, but also to secure refuge, money and recruits.”

A British terror suspect, Haroon Rashid Aswat, was held in Zambia in 2005. Aswat, a former lieutenant of Abu Hamza al-Masri, is believed to have been hiding in southern Africa and may have had links to an al-Qaeda support network. He is in Britain awaiting US extradition proceedings.

The Home Office confirmed that Liam Byrne, the Immigration Minister, was reviewing the visa arrangements for South Africa and a number of other countries outside the European Economic Area. The review is expected to conclude later this year.

MPs are to be asked to give ministers powers to order an inquest to sit without a jury or to appoint a coroner to prevent sensitive information from being disclosed. Provisions in the counter-terrorism Bill would allow the Home Secretary to intervene in a hearing into a sudden or unexplained death in the interests of national security.

The proposals have generated concern among lawyers and some coroners as such powers are not confined to inquests into the deaths of terrorist suspects.


Dear Jane Duncan and Na'eem Jeenah,

I want to make an urgent formal complaint to The Freedom of Expression Institute about the censorship of comments on Na'eem Jeenah's "Thought Leader" blog.

Please let me know how I should proceed. Is there a FXI form that I should fill in or is this email sufficient ?

Further censorship details can, of course, be accessed on my blog : http://fixthefxi.blogspot.com/


ps : it seems that "Sting" is having similar problems.


My previous comment was censored (or not accepted; whatever suits you), which astounds and alarms me, because it violated none of Thought Leader’s rules. I can’t help wondering what I’ve said that is so offensive that it doesn’t warrant inclusion among these remarks.

(This non-inclusion is especially ironic, I am sure you will agree, considering that I’m commenting on a column written by someone who is the “Director of Operations” at the Freedom of Expression Institute of South Africa).

Here it is again, as I can best remember it. (Rats, I should have kept a copy, but I didn’t, because I post comments - albeit anonymously, which is my right - in the belief that I’m entitled to my opionion.)

“Not the sharpest pencil in the box, are you, Na’eem? What is it about the term ‘racist’ that you don’t understand? Or are you arguing, God forbid, for two different sets of standards? One for everone (ie, democracy) and another for ‘black’ people (ie, democracy-Lite) who, poor souls, are too ignorant to handle the real thing?. Your comments are hollow and deeply insulting.”
Sting on March 9th, 2008 at 2:32 am

Your comment is awaiting moderation.


I have also had a problem with the censorship of my comments and would refer you and other readers to my blog which gives details..


It is particularly ironic that I have been censored when both Jeenah /”MidaFo” have had extremely vitriolic comment directed at me published.

One has to wonder whether Thought Leader might be protecting Jeenah.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on March 9th, 2008 at 11:57 am

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
If anybody feels that they have been unfairly censored on Jeenah’s blog by THOUGHT LEADER, please email me… aposner@iburst.co.za

I will take the matter up with Jane Duncan and Na’eem Jeenah at The FXI.
If they do nothing about it ( they probably will ignore my complaint since it is made by Jeenah’s critics), it will be further evidence that they do not really believe in freedom of expression!


BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on March 9th, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Thursday, March 6, 2008


Some questions are being addressed to the Director of the Freedom of Expression Institute on his Thought Leader blog....
Coconuts, racism and SABC politics

You write:
“Those who are powerless cannot be racists.”

How did Hitler get into power ? He started out as a “powerless racist”.
Before you start pontificating, it might be an idea if you read some history books !
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on March 6th, 2008 at 9:13 am

I wonder when, or if, comrade Na’eem is going to revisit his own blog and answer the many well-considered rebuttals of his twisted thesis..?
Or is he the type who likes to begin a spurious argument about “racism” (which cannot exist anyway if “race does not exist”) and then run away rather than confront the inconvenient truth that by his own self-contradictory utterances he himself may be the very embodiment of the racism he strives to expose..?

And before Na’eem tries to exonerate himself by bleating “I cannot be a racist because I dont have any power..!” Given that he has a blog on a major news site - presumably read daily by thousands - on which he can disseminate deceitful white-bashing drivel like the above piece of nonsense, doesnt he possess infinitely more power than a white “racist” - who would certainly not be permitted an M&G mouthpiece or, for that matter, the video-making “gang of four” young white student pranksters..?
invinoveritas on March 6th, 2008 at 5:20 pm

Yes, the emperor/ director of The FXI has no clothes. Well spotted!

Who can believe that Jeenah has the intellectual honesty and ability to address the spurious ramifications of his racist theory ?

Jeenah has his own political agenda and freedom of expression and proper debate are not at the top of his list.
http://fixthefxi.blogspot.com/ on March 6th, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Monday, March 3, 2008


My previous blog was not included as a comment on Na'eem Jeenah's THOUGHT LEADER piece about his brother.

I phoned the Mail and Guardian's THOUGHT LEADER editor and was told that my comment was rejected on the basis that Na'eem is under no obligation to reveal that he is spokesperson for The PSC.

I retorted that the exclusion of my comment was tantamount to censorship. After further persuasion, THOUGHT LEADER"S editor asked me to re-submit my comment and said that it would be included.

If my comment is not included, I will of course, immediately refer the the matter to Na'eem Jeenah at the Freedom of Expression Institute.

(Good news... my comment was published so I won't have to take the censorship issue up with Na'eem Jeenah. However, it will be interesting to see whether he personally addresses the issue on his blog or whether "MidaFo" writes on his behalf.)



Is The Freedom of Expression Institute obsessed with Zionists?

You write on THOUGHT LEADER blog
“Some Zionists who have suddenly decided that the South African struggle is a good example of peaceful resistance from which those barbaric Palestinians should learn. We are lectured by young Zionist students who were not even born when my brother was brutally murdered, telling us what the South African struggle was about and how it was fought. The Palestinians should learn from South Africa, they say; they should struggle and resist non-violently and peacefully.”

Is the above written from your perspective as spokesperson for The Palestine Solidarity Committee ? If it is, why don’t you make your formal allegiance to the cause clearer ?

It seems to me that you are obsessed by “zionists”; you even have to bring them into a very sad story about your brother’s murder.

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on March 3rd, 2008 at 10:56 am

Sunday, March 2, 2008


Dear Jane Duncan,

It seems that Prof Harber has nailed his colours to The FXI's mast. Of course, he has, also nailed his colours to Ronno Einstein's mast so one can conclude that the Prof is,at least, politically consistent. In this regard, Harber has perhaps taken a leaf out of Stephen Friedman's book ?

Prof Harber and Prof Friedman have taught me never to disregard the tawdry web of political allegiances in post apartheid South Africa.


RE: Na'eem Jeenah's ( Director of the Freedom of Expression Institute) THOUGHT LEADER blog :" Lash those name-givers"

Congratulations to NaƩem on an excellent post.
For those who insist that religious intolerance is a Muslim preserve, please note that the state of Texas a few days ago forced an educationist to resign from public service because she circulated an e-mail informing her colleagues of a public lecture on Darwin’s theory of evolution. We can also be confident that the Rabbis who tried to get a pizza parlour outside Tel Aviv closed down because women were allowed in are dreaming up new assaults on freedom as we speak.
Those of us who believe that religion and democracy are compatible have a tough task - posts like Na’ eems help to keep the fight alive.

Steven Friedman on December 6th, 2007 at 10:17 am

Dear Na'eem,

Why didn't you publicly castigate Stephen Friedman for misspelling your first name ?

You were, after all, acerbic when Robert MacDonald wrote "Jeemah" in his letter to you.

Have you double standards?


Saturday, March 1, 2008



Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Why are you so condescending??
You write:
“Firstly, Mr Macdonald, the name is Jeenah, not Jeemah. Fortunately, I am not one to be offended by the misspelling or mispronunciation of my name; it happens all the time. Besides, noting that that was not the only spelling error in your comment makes me feel better.”

Na’eem, do you want me to correct all your grammatical errors ? Your blog is littered with them and indicates that you are not an “academic” .

Please set the record straight and tell us why you (Director of The Freedom of Expression Institute) continue to tout yourself as an “academic”.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on March 1st, 2008 at 1:09 pm

The above was copied to various people, including Prof Harber. He replied:

On 01 Mar 2008, at 1:54 PM, Anton Harber wrote:

I have asked before and will ask again. Please defrain from including me in these emails. I have not interest in this petty, small-minded exchange which seems to serve no useful purpose and is often offensive.

Anton Harber

In response to the above email, I replied:

Dear Professor Harber,

Whilst you are a highly respected academic at Wits School of Journalism, Na'eem Jeenah is not even a lousy academic at The Freedom of Expression Institute. In fact, there seems to be no evidence in the public domain to suggest that he is an academic of any kind whatsoever.

The truth is that Na'eem Jeenah is an Islamic activist. This includes being spokesperson for The Palestine Solidarity Committee.

Jeenah's profile on THOUGHT LEADER is misleading in that it states that he is an "academic" and excludes the fact that he is spokesperson for The PSC. The profile states: "Na'eem Jeenah is the director of operations at the Freedom of Expression Institute. He is also a social activist, an academic and a commentator on a range of issues."

As a "highly respected academic" and a world-renowned journalist, I am extremely surprised that you consider such matters as "petty". I think that they are extremely important.

kind regards
Anthony Posner

Saturday, February 23, 2008


Dear Jane Duncan,

Do you think that it is right that Na'eem Jeenah ( director of The Freedom of Expression Institute) holds so many political portfolios ?

Isn't it possible that his various allegiances might conflict withn his work at The FXI ?

Aren't you concerned that The FXI's reputation might be tarnished as a result of his "other" agendas ?


Thursday, February 21, 2008


Dear Jane,

Let us assume that you were sacked as exec director of the Freedom of Expression Institute and were forced to spend the rest of your life, as a freedom of expression "activist" in either Tehran or Tel Aviv... which city would you choose ?

viva etc
blacklisted etc

Monday, January 21, 2008


Date: 21 January 2008 4:20:11 PM
To: geoffs@icon.co.za, karma@telkomsa.net, jpollak@law.harvard.edu, almost.supernatural@gmail.com, jduncan@fxi.org.za, wgkopp@gmail.com
Cc: wendy@beyachad.co.za, editoronline@mg.co.za, kgovender@ukzn.ac.za, Thomas.Wheeler@wits.ac.za, david@beyachad.co.za, jorgeR@Advantage.am, anton@harber.co.za, ferialhp@mg.co.za, hugh@raichlinattorneys.co.za, naeem@fxi.org.za, letters@citizen.co.za, jeftic.tanya@gmail.com

Dear All,


Since I exposed Na'eem Jeenah's "addiction" to freedom of expression on The Mail and Guardian's THOUGHT LEADER blog in Dec 2007, the director of The Freedom of Expression Institute has remained silent. He has not responded to my allegations and he has not written a further word.

Do you think that he has the intellectual courage to enter into further debate ? Or is he now attending "Freedom of Expression Anonymous" ?


The Blacklisted Dictator.