babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
"Muslim Rage"
September 19, 2012 - 1:23pm
"MUSLIM RAGE," screams Newsweek's new cover story about last week's violent anti-American protests. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the well-known anti-Islam activist, is here to tell "us" (The_West) how to "end it." And it's true, isn't it? All Muslims are constantly raging about everything. So to pay tribute to Ali's article — which describes the protesters as "the mainstream of contemporary Islam" — and the subtle, smart cover that accompanies it, we've collected 13 striking, powerful images of MUSLIM RAGE.What are Muslims so mad about? Twitter ("Want to discuss our latest cover? Let's hear it with the hashtag: #MuslimRage," Newsweek begs us) has some answers:
when my mom got mad at me for putting a pudding cup in the microwave #MuslimRage
— Ayesha A. Siddiqi (@pushinghoops) September 17, 2012
13 Powerful Images of Muslim Rage
Here is another piece in somewhat the same vein.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/18/islamophobia-left-and-right/
Twice today so far and also I got logged out while I was logged in because the system didn't like something. It did let me log back in.
The Innocence of White People
@ onlinediscountanvils
Good article, and a good reminder of the perspective of things.
It does leave out a central part of this situation though. In the first place, not everyone is reacting with rage and violence. In the second, there are some valid political and social reasons why people might be angry, and even resort to violence. There is some evidence that the events in Libya and Egypt were not entirely motivated by religion.
The fact remains that religious difference, and even religious insult do not justify violence. I think the portrayal of Muslims as uncontrollable is nothing but racism, and I think the arguments that the threat of this mythical uncontrollable rage justifies curbing free speech is dangerous territory.
There are many people who are happy to exploit that myth - this film maker, who knew he was going to get a reaction, is one of them. But given that there have been people killed for criticizing religion, I think it is not always that clear who is acting from an imperialist and racist perspective, and who is standing up for freedom of speech and secularism.
I read an online poll in one of the British newspapers yesterday asking if the Charlie Hebdo cartoons were free speech or provocation. One of the respondents wrote "free speech - but I had to think about it".
It bears remembering that we have religious intolerance in our society - those who attack abortion clinics, marriage equality, and even the foundations of science and education - and it is a serious issue. So while I think it is important to look at the greater effect imperialism has, it doesn't change the fact that intolerance is still a major part of this problem - one that plenty of people on all sides are willing to exploit.
I'm intolerant of hate speech and think people who spout it should be charged. I think the article above on Innocence of the White People got it right so I will repost some of it.
Religion might be considered as one of the few avenues available for people to express their anger. If anger were openly expressed in strictly political terms, a dangerous proposition just about everywhere these days, the outpouring of frustration might necessarily implicate the political leadership. Religion becomes an acceptable zone from the mutual perspective of power and the masses, from whom power is acquired from, into which all manner of expression is free to release itself within the confines of established parameters. Religion serves power as a release valve, accelerant and pacifier, depending on the circumstances.
@ k
Do we include Salman Rushdie as one of those bullies?
How about people who point out things about religion in order to counter some people's prejudices, and oppressive actions? I'm sure some people find it truly offensive that the Jesus story includes him blessing a gay couple, but it is there, and there is nothing hateful about pointing it out.
Look, I'd say I agree with much of your feelings about hate speech, but it is NOT that black and white, and not everything involved in this debate is hate speech. More importantly, when some people start calling for censorship because of the threat of violence, and for criminalizing blasphemy (not accusing you, but I have read that argument) it is a very dangerous precedent, and one which is led by fear, not understanding.
And to clarify, I did not say that I thought the article got it wrong in any way - only that there are things central to this situation which it does not address.
And @ Slumberjack
I'd say that's true. So long as we frame this as a bunch of wild Irishmen fightning amongst themselves over their supertitions we don't have to look at what the British are doing.
Actually this movie did not say that Mohamed blessed a gay couple it appears to be saying he sodomized both of them before deflowering a nine year old girl in a drunken orgy. This film is clearly over every line I can imagine and thus needs to be condemned.
That you would compare the two tells me why I don't like that type of "objectivity."
I think the film should be condemned too, k.
And that is exactly what everyone has done. I also think it was made specifically to insult Muslim people, and that they, not islamophobes, are the target audience. Whether it should be illegal is another question. In my opinion, no, and the only part of it that makes me waver on the question of it inciting hatred against them is the first part which is set in modern-day Egypt.
As for insulting someone's prophet, sorry but I have no interest in bending our law to cover that. I don't think either of us want to follow that precedent to its logical conclusion. There are enough people here in Canada who are working on that already.
Seems there are others who also want the film shut down.
The excuse: the presumed threat of Muslim rage.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/judge-innocence-of-muslims...
How are we in any way served by feeding this?
Blasphemy of any religion should never be illegal. That includes videos of Jesus engaging in sodomy.
Like hasn't Bill Mahar, Southpark, Monty Python etc. already been there, done that? If your religion cannot handle criticism, mocking, blasphemy etc., then I don't know what to say to you.
I reserve the right for artists to say whatever the hell they want about Mohammed, Jesus, etc. If these protests would not have been blamed on this stupid movie, no one ever would have heard of it because it is poorly made, dumb, offensive and oh yes, stupid.
And as others have pointed out, he lied to the actors. BUT, mocking, making fun of religion and making stuff up about a religion should not be a crime.
I do not believe these protests are really about this movie anyways - there are many, many more examples of so-called blasphemy against Islam throughout our culture and art. We went into Libya and many other zones in the ME and made a big fucking mess! We should stay the hell out of other countries' business - that is the answer. The answer is not to extinguish free speech or sign onto some ridiculous international law banning blasphemy! The correct response is "That is stupid, offensive movie and no one should give the guy internet hits. Now, let's agree to stop bombing other countries"
Part 2: The Innocence of Muslims - by Layla Anwar
http://arabwomanblues.blogspot.it/2012/09/part-ii-innocence-of-muslims.html
"...I hope you have realized by now that it is not about a 13 mn. video trailer in itself, but what this trailer represents in the grand schem of things..."
There is a free speech argument that is very powerful when a person wants to say something because of some motivation in communicating that: art, sharing of ideas etc. However, when a person uses words just to hurt-- when there is no other purpose in their words other than to provoke, they have perverted the point. That should be condemned. Freedom of expression should not be perverted into a weapon used exclusively to provoke others. I am not saying that all reactions are justified but let's not hurt each other in the name of freedom of expression. This film everyone was talking about did not have offending people as a byproduct -- that was the exclusive point of it-- the sole purpose.
The Free Speech Diary - by Esam Al - Amin
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/21/the-free-speech-diary/
"Congress passes 'The Global Anti-Islam Review Act'..."
West Braces for Clash of Cultures - by Ismail Salami
http://presstv.com/detail/2012/09/20/262654/west-braces-for-clash-of-cul...
"...Protest is a form of freedom of expression which is denied Muslims in France but is given lascivious free rein in the anti-Islam moves in the country.."
From your article:
"The challenge is how to widen Western slander and libel laws to also protect the reputation and legacy of historical venerated figures and symbols from outrageous insults and despicable fabrications of their lives."
Oh really? Somebody had better warn these guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln:_Vampire_Hunter_%28film%29
Though maybe it is appropriate, if we are talking about mythical beings and people rising from the dead to defend their reputations in court. Although I'd be interested to hear what kind of case they'd make for damages, seeing as one has to actually demonstrate that harm has been done to the aggrieved party.
Of course in the good old days they'd just torture them to death and burn them. That's what happened to the last person condemned for blasphemy in Europe. He got drunk one night and knocked a crucifix off a bridge. Just for good measure they burned Voltaire's "Philosophical Dictionary" along with him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_de_la_Barre
And didn't the White house condemn Innocence of Muslims? Of course I know there are cases in which legitimate criticism of Israel is confused with anti-semitism, but even in the real legislation, many of the things cited are legal and available.
The 'Pro-Israel' Network Behind the Innocence Video - by Justin Raimondo
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/09/18/the-pro-israel-network-beh...
"...In order to understand the real motives and goals of the motives of Innocence, it is necessary to take a good look at the people who have, so far, been identified as the film's authors and promoters.."
There's also this thread: http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/libyan-and-egypt...
...in case people want to post stuff that isn't relevant to the anti-racism forum.
Free speech is the biggest sham ever perpetrated on the American people. It ain't on the level. It's a gold brick.
@ CF
Sure, but how are governments supposed to reflect that in concrete terms? Start banning things? Restore the blasphemy laws? I remember when Canada first brought in hate literature laws in the 80s the RCMP walked in the U of Calgary reference section (where NOTHING was allowed to be taken out) and confiscated a bunch of historical Nazi material until the press noticed, and they realised that perhaps it was not the wisest move.
And of course, there is Canada Border Services setting themselves up as the arbiter of morality (at least the non-straight kind) in the Little Sisters case.
Criminalizing the wilful incitement of hatred is one thing, but somehow I don't think banning is the most effective or instructive way of challenging difficult material and ideas.
And in this case we have something even worse - both sides in this crisis using the racist "uncontrollable rage" line as an excuse. Even PressTV was referring to the "redline" like it was RIchard Nixon's old madman strategy.
This is the caricature trotted out by the far right whenever they feel their precious "free speech" rights are being challenged. I consider it a joke. What do you think?
Here's my position: I think the "no offence meant" defence is an increasingly common trope poisoning our political discourse. It is the constitutive logic of Michael Scott, homophobic athletes, Fox News and Geert Wilders. It is the paradigmatic neoliberal stance: individualistic, anti-social, violent and banal. Speech is never free -- it comes at a cost. Those who feel that their speech should be free usually make others pay it, good intentions notwithstanding. Those who can't seem to get their speech heard, free or not, don't have the capital to speak.
The problem with this gentleman's film is not a question of free speech. The underlying meaning and violence of his words is upheld, repeated and perpetrated by a warmongering state and racist media. That's the "free speech" we need to stop: the one that says daily that non-white peoples are not deserving of comfort, dignity or life; that non-Christian peoples (and their atheist bretheren) deserve torture, humiliation and misery. Until we stop that speech, buzzing pests like this film will continue to draw fire for the murderous words of our rulers.
I know you know that CF, and I ask it rhetorically. I think I see much of the same conflict you do. And it is not simple.
Of course the "no offense" line is nonsense. I think the film maker very much intended offense. But I don't think the target was Muslim-haters.
I agree with much of your analysis. But I would say that the problem is most definitely NOT free speech. It is the racism and imperialism that you correctly point at. Unfortunately, free speech is their excuse, and real free speech is often the victim of collateral damage in situations like this (and you can read evidence of that in some of the solutions that have been proposed) . I'm not making a far-right argument, but I do think it is important to counter the legal and criminal solutions some people want.
Now more than ever, it is vital to keep the distinction befween the two clear.
That's most Sunday sermons
Army Colonel Threatens to Sue Top General for 'Concealing Truth About Islam'
http://rt.com/usa/news/dooley-sue-threat-dempsey-695/
"A US Army colonel who was suspended from a top military college for teaching an anti-Islamic course is threatening to sue America's top general for 'violating academic freedom' and 'caving in to Islam'.."
Gee.... they canned his ass? Why would they do that?
That doesn't sound at all like the rest of the cynical stereotypes that seem to be framing this story.
For that matter, neither does this:
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/22/film-protests-benghazi-idINL5E8...
Thousands Protest Film Outside US Consulate (and vid)
http://www.cp24.com/news/thousands-protest-film-outside-u-s-consulate-1....
"Some 2,000 [PLUS!] people gathered outside the US consulate in Toronto Saturday afternoon to protest a film posted to YouTube that they believe is anti-Islamic. 'Free speech does not give you a right to attack somebody's faith,' said a protester who idenitifed himself as Mohammed..."
the largest anti-US demo by far in this town for some time - far in excess of the anaemic and pathetic 'anti-war' gatherings in recent memory.
'Muslims Provoked, Whipped and Banned' (and vid)
http://presstv.com/detail/2012/09/22/262933/muslims-provoked-whipped-and...
"Outrage is growing across the Muslim world over a US-made movie which insults Prophet Muhammed. Interview with Sukant Chandan, filmmaker and political analyst and others
The Politics of Blasphemy - Islam, Free Speech and Imperialism - by Andrew Levine
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/21/the-politics-of-blasphemy/
"..Insults to Islam - in our time and place - are insults to the victims of imperialist domination and to the indigenous forces struggling against it...'
I actually wonder who Sam Bacile thought he was working for, and not just because of his attempt to pass himself and his backers off as Jews.
I'm just looking at who is getting the most mileage out of this. I think we know where the government of Iran and certain other parties stand on this, but have you found any organization outside of fringe elements who have spoken in favour of Bacile's film? I mean, I'm sure someone has, but I have yet to see it printed or offered as a serious argument - anywhere.
Virtually everyone, including the government of the U.S., has solidly condemned this film.
So while I understand that some people are angry over the film, I have to ask what they WANT. Again, we know that the government of Iran sees this as a legal matter. You have also cited articles calling for blasphemy to be grounds for a lawsuit.
And apparently a Canadian Copt who says he had nothing to do with the film has been charged by Egypt; he says he had nothing to do with it, and that they are targetting him because he is an activist.
I do think there are lines between legitimate criticism of religion, statements designed to demonstrate free speech, and statements designed to provoke or incite hatred. But sometimes not everyone can agree on motive.
From your Andrew Levine article:
(John Stuart)Mill was right.. the state should stay hands off. This is a case for remonstrance and persuasion, not coercion; notwithstanding the reprehensibility of contemporary Islamophobia or the dangers attendant upon its encouragement.
I'd have to say I side with Levine on that point.
Taking a legal route for anything other than incitement of hatred is completely unacceptable, though I am sure there are a number of people like Pat Buchanan, Mike Huckabee, and the Westboro Baptists, who would love to have blasphemy on the books, and themselves in the judges' seat.
Yes, NDPP. But I sense that we have a bit of a moving target here.
Why are the very real problems of racism and imperialism being sidetracked into this blasphemy nonsense. I disagree with Levine for framing his argument around blasphemy rather than the discrimination iand xenophobia which ARE the real problem..
Why are people protesting that film, which is completely ridiculous, was only made to get a reaction, and which has been roundly condemned, rather that calling Newsweek to task for their highly insulting portrayal of Muslims?
Because sorry, while I am onside when it comes to the the latter, and criticizing those racist bus ads, I have no interest in calling for anyone's arrest or execution for making an anti-religious film, however inflamatory, or any kind of ban just to skirt around someone's religious taboos. Saying that free speech doesn't give one the right to attack religion may be an understandable expression of anger, but it is not something I agree with, and there is no causal connection between the two.
Free Speech didn't make that film; hatred did. Do you imagine for a moment that criminalizing blasphemy would have stopped it? I don't. Frankly I see haters rubbing their hands with glee at that prospect.
Bacile made this film to make people furious, and near as I can see many people are helping him reach his goal by doing exactly what he wanted them to do.
the provocation aspect has been treated by several contributors:
West Attempts to Trigger Clash of Civilizations - by Tony Cartalucci
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ca/2012/09/west-attempts-to-trigger-clash-...
"...With Neo-Conservative warmongers behind a recent inflammatory film titled 'The Innocence of Muslims' and their counterparts among radicalized sectarian extremists leading violent protests across the Middle Eas and North Africa, it woujld almost seem as if the publication of insulting cartoons b a French paper, 'Charlie Hebdo,' was part of a greater strategy to create a manufactured conflict between Islam and the West, setting the stage for more overt military operations...The plan - flip the script again..."
West Tries to Trigger Clashes of Civilization - by Thierry Meyssan
http://www.voltairenet.org/Blasphemy-as-a-tactic
For starters, they could stop pushing onto everyone their own violent jihad, aka the global economy, which is nothing other than a faith based collaboration between political structures that can't seem to get by without resorting to violence and perpetuating hatred. Once this is accomplished, the hate mongers would be hard pressed to locate their usual association with what remains, because such a system would disappear were it not for its violent, coercive tendencies. The ideology of the hate mongers would be seen more clearly as the dangerous self-aggrandizing agitations of a few, instead of being blended in and rendered as indistinguishable as it is from the dangerous, self-aggrandizing society we currently exist in. But I think we have to finally understand the co-dependency between hatred and the economy. At any rate this wasn't an attack on a particular mythology, because if it was we might find at least a shred of solidarity in it. As it stands, all sides to this incident are perfectly aligned only with one another.