Last
week’s events have shown us that religious and cultural sensitivity should be
our foremost concern when selecting a way of approaching our world. Our motto
for today should be “Think before you write/talk/film/draw/publish.”
The First Amendment of the U.S. Bill of
Rights justly prohibits any governmental limitation of freedoms of speech or
the press. However, freedom of speech should have its limitations – if not by the
government, then by people themselves. In both recent and historic instances, this
freedom has been cynically exploited in order to arouse regional and global rioting.
Did the producer of the film Innocence of Muslims expect to cause of the
death of innocent people? I believe not. Should he have taken this under
consideration? Yes. Nevertheless, like many others who lack religious and cultural
sensitivity, and who see Muslims as people with no sense of humor – he didn’t
care, and people lost their lives due to his indifference.
This indifference, and worse, the malicious
joy of too many people seeing the Muslims’ rage against the American film and
the French cartoons make me sad. Have we lost our compassion? What have we become?
What is the point of making these films and publishing these cartoons? I find
it impossible to understand. If we want to earn the respect of others, let us
start by respecting them. Enough is enough.
Indifference to religious and cultural
sensitivity goes beyond silly pictures or amateur movies and might cultivate fertile
ground for new terrorists. With the right words, this apathy might be wrongly used
by a militant Imam or a terrorist recruiter to influence a young man or a woman.
Because that is the strongest weapon of all – words. True, one might say that a
terrorist would become a terrorist regardless of a silly movie or cartoons, but
we must not add fuel to the fire.
Another outcome is the political gain for
Muslim leaders that results from these riots, whether or not the leaders endorse
such behavior. Professor Jytte Klausen of Brandeis University argues
that today, Egypt's president, Mohammed Morsi, and his government, are playing the
same role that his predecessor Hosni Mubarak played in the past: provoking
protest to consolidate power. In their public condemnation of the deathly
attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood “urge[d] restraint
as people peacefully protest and express their anger.” As Professor Klausen
puts it, even while condemning the attacks, the Brotherhood called for mass
protests at mosques across Egypt on Friday prayers, virtually guaranteeing that
the unrest will spread, as a means of gaining and consolidating power.
I agree with Professor Klausen. President
Morsi made a mistake. However, he is still making his first moves as a president and
learning how to maneuver between the powder-keg called the Middle East, his fragile relations with the U.S., and his domestic political needs. On the other hand, we should not hand any leader ammunition for making easy political gains.
For further reading:
Jytte
Klausen, “Egypt Fans the Flames - Why Morsi Exploited the Muhammad Film -- and
Why that Was a Bad Move,” Foreign Affairs, September 13, 2012
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138118/jytte-klausen/egypt-fans-the-flames
While I appreciate what you're saying here, I disagree about the need for sensitivity. It is true that all forms of free speech should take into account what the net effect would be upon those whom one targets. However, to bow before anyone is to bow nonetheless. The fact that cartoons and garbage movies are so unbelievably offensive as to evoke violence, murder and assassination within the Arab Muslim world is where the root of the problem lay. A stupid film, and "Innocence of Muslims" was certainly stupid, could have been made about any other religion, ethnicity, or nationality and likely not have "caused" riots and killing. Governments of the Middle East routinely invoke the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and other blood libels. Often, such diatribes are taken to be honest and truthful accounting by the local populace. No one riots. The film that denigrates Islam is likely viewed by Muslims as being wildly inaccurate. If so, then there is no need to riot. To suggest that a film has causal power over the violence that erupts 7,000 miles away is to grant sustainability to the argument that certain classes of people are protected against criticism, lest we fear their disapproval. To walk on eggshells the underpinning requisite logic is that the terror of what is to come should temper one's free expression. This alone grants power to terror.
ReplyDelete