I have counted more than 30 satellite channels, all airing indecent material. All of them are easily accessible either through special subscription cards sold everywhere or by acquiring special equipment. Israelis are reported to be preparing to launch a new Arabic-speaking pornographic satellite station which will transmit 24 hours a day. Its contents will not be confined only to indecent material but will also include promoting and marketing services relating to the vilest literature.

Arabs and Muslims now find themselves confronted with a serious challenge as all the rules of the game have changed. Western societies, too, faced these assaults as early as the 1980s and many of them began asking questions about how to deal with the stations airing pornography. They ended up enacting legislation and outlining restrictions that, when judged by Western values, were considered necessary to protect their societies from the threats.

I once wrote an article about young Russian girls in neighboring countries who make themselves available for illicit sex. I was hoping to see the subject receive serious discussion in our media because in the end, it is Saudis who are the main customers of the Russian girls. Instead, I received a flood of mail from people denouncing any attempt to raise the issue in the press. Ignoring the problem, or refusing to discuss it, doesn’t mean it does not exist. On the contrary, such an approach can only worsen the situation.

Arab and Muslim officials continue to maintain silence over the material coming from cyberspace. We have yet to see a single government-sponsored study or conference dedicated to this issue. It is as if what is being aired is an act of collusion. Otherwise, how can we explain the actions of an Arab station airing a video by an American singer that was banned in the singer’s own country as being indecent?

The situation is truly sad; we are now allowing the kind of material into our homes that until recently was forbidden. Our level of tolerance has risen so that we now accept what runs contrary to our values and morals.

To be more precise, I would say we did not give anything up voluntarily but were forced to offer all those concessions. This did not happen because we are the weak party but because of our inability to handle the situation. What we usually do is build utopian schemes for ourselves, hoping this will protect us from the storm. We then discover that we have not only tolerated the threat but also learned how to live with danger without trying to avert it in the first place. It is from this point that we find ourselves offering one concession after another.