UPDATE: A coworker sent me an awesome pic from Reuters that lays out everything to date (9/14/12). Added it below.
For the last week, North Africa and the Middle East have been illuminated by light of burning American flags. From Egypt to Sudan, Tunisia to Afghanistan, demonstrations have raged over a "blasphemous" film made about the Prophet. If you are confused by all the news stories pouring in, here's a timeline of the original series of events, including the murder of our Ambassador to Libya. Also, here it is in picture form.
The film in question is "The innocence of Muslims", an amateur movie produced in America. It portrays the Prophet as a womanizer, child molester, charlatan, rapist, violent man. Possibly also as a cyborg. I don't know, I didn't actually watch it. Clips of the video & trailer went viral across the Islamic world.
Showing the usual amount of restraint and rational thought present in these situations, peaceful protests sprung up outside various embassies to express their outrage at this film. If by peaceful protests you mean full scale riots, complete with burning flags, storming the walls of various compounds, and a coordinated attack (which of course had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the unrelated anniversary of 9/11. Right.) on a consulate in Libya which resulted in the killing of the American Ambassador.
I'm not going to get into whether the attacks were planned or not (they were), or whether the Administration should have better protected its foreign installations (it should), or whether Romney was out of line when he called Obama out on it (he wasn't), or any of that. In my next post I'll say what I believe ought to be done about all this stuff going on. In this one, I want to address the idea that the film is a "hate crime".
An article appeared in the Huffington Post by one Mr. Abbas Barzegar. Mr. Barzegar correctly noted that a widespread Muslim mindless, violent & savage response to a negative stereotype that depicts them as mindless, violent savages is pretty ironic. Unfortunately, after that his grasp of irony dips to that of Alanis Morissette.
The reason that neither the FBI nor the SoD, nor the President, nor anyone else could stop a Quran burning or a movie being produced is that it does not matter if you agree with what the person is doing or saying so long as they are not directly harming someone else by doing it. It does not matter if what he is saying is ignorant, hateful, and vitriolic. It does not matter! It is his right to say it.
Rights exist to protect the minority from the majority. That means that the right that allows Mr. Barzegar to criticize his government is the same right that allows neo-Nazis to march peacefully in Jewish communities and ignorant filmmakers to make poor cinema about religious figures. You cannot have one without the other.
Of course, I can already see the straw men marching on the horizon, so I'll go ahead and cut them off: Restrictions on speech, such as shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater, are not equivalent to restrictions on "hate speech". In the former, if a crowd of reasonable people are in a theater, an expected, reasonable response would be fleeing the imaginary fire, which could cause death. If the same person shouts "I hate Jews!" or "Muslims are stupid for realz!", no one is harmed by the words. A reasonable response to this would result in no violence.
Speech is not a crime, Mr. Barzegar, even if it is hateful.
For the last week, North Africa and the Middle East have been illuminated by light of burning American flags. From Egypt to Sudan, Tunisia to Afghanistan, demonstrations have raged over a "blasphemous" film made about the Prophet. If you are confused by all the news stories pouring in, here's a timeline of the original series of events, including the murder of our Ambassador to Libya. Also, here it is in picture form.
The film in question is "The innocence of Muslims", an amateur movie produced in America. It portrays the Prophet as a womanizer, child molester, charlatan, rapist, violent man. Possibly also as a cyborg. I don't know, I didn't actually watch it. Clips of the video & trailer went viral across the Islamic world.
Showing the usual amount of restraint and rational thought present in these situations, peaceful protests sprung up outside various embassies to express their outrage at this film. If by peaceful protests you mean full scale riots, complete with burning flags, storming the walls of various compounds, and a coordinated attack (which of course had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the unrelated anniversary of 9/11. Right.) on a consulate in Libya which resulted in the killing of the American Ambassador.
I'm not going to get into whether the attacks were planned or not (they were), or whether the Administration should have better protected its foreign installations (it should), or whether Romney was out of line when he called Obama out on it (he wasn't), or any of that. In my next post I'll say what I believe ought to be done about all this stuff going on. In this one, I want to address the idea that the film is a "hate crime".
An article appeared in the Huffington Post by one Mr. Abbas Barzegar. Mr. Barzegar correctly noted that a widespread Muslim mindless, violent & savage response to a negative stereotype that depicts them as mindless, violent savages is pretty ironic. Unfortunately, after that his grasp of irony dips to that of Alanis Morissette.
"Anyone who has a inkling of familiarity with the Muslim world knows that sacrilege and blasphemy are not understood as acts of free speech, political expression, or artistic creativity. No, they are bright red lines that promise public panic and guarantee violence. Couple that reality with two centuries of colonial and neo-imperial European domination of the greater Middle East and you have the perfect storm for an international communications disaster. So, as history repeats itself, the only thing ludicrous is the incessant stubbornness of both the West's commitment to "free speech" and the Muslim world's rush to violence, the irony of which is lost upon them both....one look at Sam Bacile's film will demonstrate that its vitriolic message elevates it to the status of a hate crime.
Consider this: how is it possible that not the FBI nor Secretary of Defense Robert Gates could stop Pastor Terry Jones from putting the Quran on Trial and burning it when it was well known that the act would cause violence around the world and harm the security of the US personnel abroad?"Isn't it a big pain when stupid things like "rights" and "laws" get in the way of enforcing your own sensibilities on an unwilling populace? Mr. Barzegar's reasoning goes like this: Person "A" says something that Person "B" does not like. Person "B" decides to act on his dislike by murdering person "A", or his family. Person "A" had it coming, because he shouldn't have said something so mean.
The reason that neither the FBI nor the SoD, nor the President, nor anyone else could stop a Quran burning or a movie being produced is that it does not matter if you agree with what the person is doing or saying so long as they are not directly harming someone else by doing it. It does not matter if what he is saying is ignorant, hateful, and vitriolic. It does not matter! It is his right to say it.
Rights exist to protect the minority from the majority. That means that the right that allows Mr. Barzegar to criticize his government is the same right that allows neo-Nazis to march peacefully in Jewish communities and ignorant filmmakers to make poor cinema about religious figures. You cannot have one without the other.
Of course, I can already see the straw men marching on the horizon, so I'll go ahead and cut them off: Restrictions on speech, such as shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater, are not equivalent to restrictions on "hate speech". In the former, if a crowd of reasonable people are in a theater, an expected, reasonable response would be fleeing the imaginary fire, which could cause death. If the same person shouts "I hate Jews!" or "Muslims are stupid for realz!", no one is harmed by the words. A reasonable response to this would result in no violence.
Speech is not a crime, Mr. Barzegar, even if it is hateful.
No comments:
Post a Comment