Politically incorrect

But if the journalist is employed with the State, the situation is somewhat different: the State media house might give the impression that it is independent, but practically it is not, no matter how much we argue that it should be independent and treated that way.

True, there is the special case of the UK’s taxpayer-funded but independent BBC. But also consider the State-owned Chinese news agency CCTV where staff report, but under close control.

The removal of Fazeer Mohammed from a morning talk show on a State TV outlet two weeks ago has triggered strong discussion of the rights of the media. But one aspect of the issue has not been properly addressed.

Mohammed has questioned the timing of his transfer from the morning programme, noting that it came after he had an interview with the Foreign Affairs Minister Suraj Rambachan. According to transcripts of that interview two weeks ago, Mohammed fell for a clear trap set by Rambachan. In the middle of Mohammed asking pressing questions on the foreign policy of Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, Rambachan flipped the script: he started to ask Mohammed questions. A reporter normally asks questions. She does not answer them, especially if the questions are being asked by a guest on her own talk show. Mohammed should have put a stop to being questioned and taken back control of the interview.

Rambachan asked Mohammed if he had a problem with women. Mohammed, a Muslim who ascribes to certain more extreme Islamic beliefs, said he had a problem with women in leadership roles “religiously”. Why did he allow himself to be cornered?

There is freedom of religion in this country. But in another, more liberal society, Mohammed’s admission, on live television, broadcast by a taxpayer-funded station, would have been regarded as an embarrassment. He may have a right to private religious beliefs, but his admission was politically incorrect. And a truly liberal organisation might have sent him packing for this reason alone, even given his right to subscribe to politically incorrect beliefs (which incidentally are not shared by all Muslims).

In fact, you can take it further and argue that you cannot justify manifestly unacceptable tenets under the guise of religion, no matter how ancient.

We live in a world where just this week Michelle Obama, the wife of US President Barack Obama, found herself in hot water because she dared to shake hands with an Indonesian minister who was standing in a reception line for her and her husband in Jakarta. After shaking hands with Michelle Obama, Information Minister Tifatul Sembiring protested that he felt constrained to do so, against his own personal extreme Islamic tenets, even though YouTube videos show him enthusiastically shaking her hands with his two hands clasped over hers, smiling. This incident brings home the absurdity of Sembiring’s extreme stance.

In my view it is wrong to subscribe to a view that women should be treated unequally to men, religiously or otherwise. Such views are not unique to Islam though. And this is the deeper matter lurking beneath this issue, apart from the allegation of abusive political interference.

Email: abagoo@newsday.co.tt