1 OBEKTIV

The most interesting thing in this cocktail of absurdi-ties is the way in which “the criminals” have performedtheir subversive activities - via Internet websites. The raidagainst two such cyber media was the result of a longstakeout by the security services (everyone could imag-ine their exhausting efforts expressed in sitting in front ofcomputer monitors), peaking with a 72-hour detentionand indictment under Art. 108 and 109 of the PenalCode1, and accompanied by a lot of noise in the me-dia. There were the usual comments and the even moreusual questions: who was financing them, who was be-hind them, wasn’t it Al-Qaeda, what was their relation tothe “dangerous Islamist” Ahmad Musa, who had trainedthem, etc. Answers to the effect that the Union of Mus-lims in Bulgaria did not really function for lack of funding(the organization was financed entirely by membershipdues, two-thirds of which were spent on office rent),that the purpose of the organization was to counterextremism, that no money had flowed into it fromabroad, that they had no contact with Musa, were metwith obvious mistrust by the reporters, which becameevident from the numerous “clarifying” questions at theUMB press conference on February 25.

As could have been expected, experts were foundimmediately to explain to the public what was reallyhappening. The militant journalist Magdalena Tashevaof Monitor daily immediately saw “a terrorist cell in Bul-garia” and declared that if “the Islamists in yet anotherterrorist cell in Bulgaria - that of the former Mufti AliHayredin - were discovered in another European coun-

YET ANOTHER“ISLAMIC THREAT”SCARE

On February 20, there was yet anothermedia “bomb”: the security services had

caught four Islamists led by the formerSofia Mufti, Ali Hayredin. This “dangerous

group” proclaimed “radical Islam, theideology if Jihadism (?) and Wahhabism”,

had “connections with banned Islamicorganizations and mostly with AhmadMusa, a Jordanian expelled from the

country six years ago. This “criminal orga-nization”, which was “hiding” behind a

suspicious NGO - the Union of Muslims inBulgaria - chaired by the same Hayredin

had done other horrendous things, too.Some 30 people had converted from

Christianity to Islam and during the searchof the organization’s offices the police

found - guess what! - leaflets. And theseleaflets called for a blood-freezing crime -

to refrain from voting!

try, they would be scrubbing the floors at GuantanamoBay by now”. She bitterly concluded, however, that “thefact that Bulgaria is functioning as regional headquar-ters of Islamic terror, thanks to the political protection ofthe Movement for Rights and Freedoms, the BulgarianSocialist Party, the Union of Democratic Forces and theNational Movement Simeon the Second is known to theworld” (Monitor, February 23, 2007), but nothing wouldcome out of it. And how could anything come out of itwhen the whole ruling coalition is involved in this con-spiracy!

The start of the epic battle against “radical Islam”resurrected the slightly forgotten old-time fighter againstthe “cults”, Diana Petrova. About ten years ago, shewrote prolifically against the “cults”, mostly on the pagesof Trud daily. However, after 1998, the “cults” disap-peared from the public focus (in fact, acting on direc-tive from above, the security services ceased to dealwith them, at least in public) and the author’s inspirationdissipated. But now, her creative enthusiasm returnedwith renewed force and she wrote an article entitled“Virtual jihad on bg websites”, published in Sega daily onFebruary 22. The article describes the content of thewebsites, already inaccessible2 by the ordinary visitor,and is an exercise on the “Jihad” topic. “For more thana month, you could read an article by Sheikh ibn Baason jihad, published on this website. The jihad againstunbelievers and hypocrites comes in four forms: fromthe heart, language, wealth and oneself. The jihadagainst unbelievers is more than a physical struggle, just

1 For proclaiming fascist or another anti-democratic ideology, orviolent change of the constitutional order, and for forming orleading a group that aims to commit a crime against the Repub-lic.

2 In this case, we will benevolently assume that the author hadsimply tracked the websites while they were active, rather thanthat information that cannot be obtained anymore has beenprovided to her from a source within the security services.

OBEKTIV 2

as the jihad against hypocrites is more than the use ofwords and ideas.” And then: “Allah has ordered Jihadfor all Muslims and they should fight Allah’s enemies untiltheir brethren achieve victory. They are sinners if theydo not do that, but if enough people take up to do this,the others are relieved from their obligation” (Sega, Feb-ruary 23, 2007). The main thing here is the interpretation:jihad is a holy war waged against the enemy. And whois the enemy? That would be us, the Christians, the civi-lized, the bearers of progress. In the backdrop of thisfearsome picture any explanations that the real, canoni-cal meaning of “Jihad” is fighting the evil within oneself,for greater faith in Allah or that this is the path to self-perfection in faith would sound naïve and would beregarded as obfuscation.

However, in this ongoing story, we can see a verydangerous outcome and an even more dangerousattempt to sidetrack fundamental civil rights. The result isthat through the arrest, and most of all, through the noisecreated around it in the media, the seeds of doubt havebeen sown in the souls of many potential UMB followers.As a rule, they do not have computers and even if theydid, the websites are already closed, so they would notbe able to check if the former Mufti and his friends arereally a “threat to the established constitutional order”3 .But since they claim “on television” that Hayredin, thewebsites and the UMB have something to do with Is-lamic terrorism, then, the sensible thing to do would beto stay away from him because many would think thatthere is no smoke without a fire. In this way, intentionallyor not, he is discredited in the eyes of many. The trick issimple and effective. There will be a lawsuit but it will beso prolonged that by its end everyone will have forgot-ten what it was all about. The court would probably dis-miss all charges. But this won’t generate media atten-tion and thousands will keep thinking that “there is some-thing rotten there”. Such is the logic behind mass pro-paganda.

What is especially dangerous is that nobody - simplynobody - is asking how come that the security servicesare terminating websites? Where are we, in Europe orNorth Korea? No one ever asked what these websiteswere after all and could they be “raided” just like that?

Let’s imagine that a coup happened tomorrow anda military junta came to power. The first thing that gangsof this type would try to do is to suspend freedom ofexpression. Physically, it would look like this: soldiers burstinto the editorial offices of 24 Hours, Trud daily and thelarge TV channels, and switch off the printing or TV broad-cast equipment by force. It cannot happen in any otherway. But “raiding” a website is so easy; you just need to

perform several computer operations and it is done.There is no difference, however, between military raidsand computer operations. Both are an extreme form ofcensorship aimed at stifling freedom of expression. But ifstopping the printing of a newspaper is imaginable onlyunder exceptional circumstances, the termination ofother media, such as Internet websites, is regarded assomething almost natural, as a website is not consid-ered to be what it is - a media, a means of public infor-mation. As such, websites are protected by at least threearticles of the Constitution, as well as by Art. 10 of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights. Under Art. 39of our Constitution “everyone has the right to expressopinions and to disseminate them by speech - written orverbal, by sound, image or in any other way”, while un-der Art. 41 “everyone has the right to seek, obtain anddisseminate information”. It is true that these rights can-not be exercised “against the rights and good reputa-tion of other citizens, as well as against national security,public order, health and morals“. Nevertheless, the factthat opinions and information fall within the scope ofthe restrictions under the two constitutional provisions issomething that must be proven in a public trial. This isalso stipulated in Art. 40, according to which “(1) Thepress and the other mass media shall be free and shallnot be subject to censorship. (2) The termination andconfiscation of a printed publication or of another infor-mation carrier shall be permitted only on the grounds ofa judicial act, when the good morals have beenbreached or when it contains appeals for a violentchange of the constitutionally established order, crimesor violence against the individual. Should confiscationnot be effected within 24 hours, the termination shallcease to be effective.”

I asked Mr. Hayredin whether he was shown aprosecutor’s order for the “raid” on the two websitesand his answer was negative. It is unclear whether suchan order exists. Most probably not, because it could beappealed and the computers that had been used todisseminate information, i.e. to perform the informationfunction of the websites, are simply “material evidence”and as such, were seized and may remain in the secu-rity service storage rooms for an indefinite period of time.In other words, the termination of the two websites is anact of arbitrary censorship enforced without a decisionby a competent body in a country that proclaims in itsConstitution that “the press and other mass media shallbe free and shall not be subject to censorship”. This is anespecially severe breach of freedom of expression andfreedom of religion.

At a time when electronic mass media are increasinglyreplacing traditional ones, the actions of the security ser-vices and the respective prosecutors are an exceptionalprecedent for Bulgaria and should be discussed aloud rightnow. When they start “raiding” electronic newspapers,given that everyone will be able to print out a copy, as isthe obvious trend in the development of the media, it willbe too late. Emil Cohen

3 I cannot fail to mention that one of the main “proofs” for thisthreat is the presence of Ali Hayredin’s so-called “spiritual wife”,Aniola Dimova. She was supposedly the proof that these peopleonly recognized the Sharia, which allows a man to have up to 4wives, and therefore, they were attacking the civil marriage andhence the constitutional order. This really need not be com-mented.