Drawing the line
I still can’t get my head around the fact that the YouTube broadcast of a cheap, sorry excuse for a short movie, one that was so poorly produced that it made me break out in hives, caused the murder of the US Ambassador to Libya and another 20 people.
The so called video, entitled “The Innocence of Muslims” is such an audio-visual disaster that I would have expected no one, and I do mean no one, to take it seriously, let alone to cause a riot and get people killed over it.
Soon after the murder of the US Ambassador to Libya, Hilary Clinton gave a moving speech. The most indisputable point she made was that no matter how insulted we might feel, no matter who offends us, our family, religion, country or faith, reacting with violence is always wrong and never justified.
Because her speech writers are more eloquent than I’ll ever be, I’m reproducing her exact words hereunder:
“The United States had absolutely nothing to do with this video, we absolutely reject its content and message. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation and, as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of who came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion including of course millions of Muslims…. to me personally this video is disgusting and reprehensible, it appears to have a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage, but… there is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence!”
Admittedly I too sometimes feel that no amount of arguing beats a slap or a kick in the butt, but hand on heart, on this one, I have to agree with Clinton hands down.
In an attempt to calm the waters, Google has since then blocked the video from searches in various North African countries and though I understand the pressure that Google must have been under in order to curb the violence, I’m in two minds about the blocking.
On the one hand I agree that one should do everything in their power to restore peace, but on the other, blocking the video, is an indirect way of giving in to terrorist attacks.
Under YouTube’s terms of service, hate speech is defined as speech against individuals, not against groups, so because the video mocks Islam and not a particular Muslim, it does not breach any conditions of the site and, falls clearly within its guidelines.
So blocking the video sends out the wrong message – that if you violently react to anything that you disagree with then you can get it stopped.
Perhaps this was a one off move based on the severity of the situation, but it could also be the end of free speech as we know it.
Just a couple of days after this incident France had to increase security at their foreign embassies, consulates, cultural centres and schools, because a French satirical magazine published obscene cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Riot police were also deployed around the magazine’s office and the magazine’s website has already been attacked!
The biggest loss from this whole situation is not only the loss of life but also the continued degeneration of how we perceive Muslims. Because of a few thousand hot heads who represent only a minute percentage of the global Muslim population, most Europeans and Americans will continue to validate their stereotypical view of Muslims as being the ‘violent type’ – an untrue and unjust view that betrays the bigger picture.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
16 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Franco Farrugia
Sep 25th 2012, 18:02
Where is the bigger picture, Ms Bezzina? Please, tell me, so that I can look at it.
Robert Borg
Sep 23rd 2012, 16:05
Alison,
Do you really believe the attack on the the US embassy was a direct result of some stupid movie that hardly anyone has seen. ?!!! We now know it was a planned terrorists attack and there were warnings prior to the attack . The Obama Administration failed to provide adequate security for the embassy and Hillary Clinton's speech was pathetic, she was condescending; one would think she was talking to an audience of toddlers. I am tired of our government(US) apologizing for possibly offending these people while these radical Islamists perpetrate atrocities like this. We have a president who is more interested in going on a late night talk show(David Letterman) than meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister at this critical time when Iran is close to acquiring Nukes.
As long we are on the topic of offensive material on you tube or the internet in general I found it entirely offensive to witness a fellow citizen of mine get head his lopped off with a dull knife. What bothers me even more is Hillary Clinton's supposed outrage over this film and how insulting it is to Muslims, but I wonder where her outrage was when an "artist" produced a piece of "art" which was a crucifix in a jar of urine. The hypocricy is maddening.
Eric Soames
Sep 23rd 2012, 21:06
Robert Borg: Not much I disagree with you on, except one could hardly fault Obama for taking advantage of the Letterman appearance during the run up to the election. Taking a couple of hours in an afternoon would hardly blow a potential meeting off. I have to believe [and hope] that there's more going on behind the scenes and more than one man on it. Hilary's speech was very weak but Pearl [which nothing would induce me to watch] and the Mapplethorpe crucifix were well before her time. Bush and Reagan, in fact.
Mr Edward Caruana Galizia
Sep 22nd 2012, 11:43
None of the riots seen on TV are impromptu displays of anger. Actually they are all coordinated and put into action, according to Ayan Hirsi Ali. She would know. She used to be them until she escaped an arranged marriage and fled to Holland.
Eric Soames
Sep 22nd 2012, 06:02
And ... coming to a NYC Subway train near you next Monday - ads denouncing jihad as savage.
Ramon Casha
Sep 21st 2012, 10:39
Well said Alison. Freedom of speech means you let others say things you dislike, so that you in turn will have the freedom to say the things you DO like. That means you are going to get offended by some of the things you will hear. And let's face it, religious texts including the Koran and Bible both have passages that will offend some people - if we did not have freedom of speech, they would be prime candidates for banning.
In all likelihood, their demands for banning or blocking comes as a result of living under brutal dictatorial regimes. They are used to a system of government where the supreme ruler issues an edict and something is suppressed, and expect the same measures to be taken in the west. The worst thing we can do is agree to that.
Colin Formosa
Sep 20th 2012, 22:18
Muslims are unhappy people. They are unhappy in Gaza, they are unhappy in Egypt & Iran & Iraq. They are unhappy in Yeman, Pakistan & Afghanistan. Yet, they are happy in England, Sweden, France, Italy, & the United States. They are happy in every country that is is not Muslim. Who do they blame? Not themselves, not Islam, they blame the country they are happy in, and want to change that country into the place they came from that made them unhappy in the 1st place, Brillant!
Jo Grima
Sep 21st 2012, 15:27
like
Thomas Rubicon
Sep 21st 2012, 17:18
Thumbs up and fully in agreement!
Quoting Ms.Alison Bezzina:
"Because of a few thousand hot heads who represent only a minute percentage of the global Muslim population"..... Really? There are so many of them (hotheads) that they are causing meyhem all over the globe.
Who can blame them - they have nothing else constructive to do.
GL Calleja
Sep 21st 2012, 17:27
" Muslims are unhappy people." Muslims are frustrated people who are bound by their religion and led by the nose by extremists. I too was of the opinion that most Muslims are peaceful people but since the riots and the burning of other people's property I changed my mind. I think Muslims are a gullible people led by fanatics. Muslim people think they are doing the right thing by rioting and destroying properties in order to protest against a movie clip that they say offended the Prophet Mohammed. These murders and rioting have nothing to do with the movie clip but they show the frustration of the Muslim people under the rule of their fanatic leaders. I can almost guarantee that these rioters never even saw this movie clip. They are doing what they are told to do, follow like a bunch of sheep. Look at what is happening in Syria. Most of these people don't have a clue of what Democracy is, otherwise they will not be doing what they are doing.
Etienne Bonanno
Sep 20th 2012, 18:15
Alison, you and other commentators go to great lengths to point out that it is only a small minority of Muslims who condone such violent actions. I question that statement however. Why is it that we never see straightforward condemnations of such actions from Muslim authorities? At most we get some half-hearted mumblings about peace and brotherhood and all that, but the violence continues to happen unabated.
I happened to see on social networks some of what even some Maltese Muslims had to say about the attacks, and most of those I've seen do express the feeling that "it's bad, but they should not have insulted the Prophet" and "if you provoke, we'll retaliate". Mind you, these are Maltese born and bred, people one would have supposed would have had a good grounding in the ideas behind democracy and free speech.
The movie was obviously made expressly to provoke and enrage, but it says much about the Muslim mindset that it takes so little to spark off such an apocalypse. How can Muslims expect infidels to accept their platitudes about peace and good will when so many of them admire these jihadis and agree with their actions, whether openly or secretly? When the Muslim movers and shakers never lift a finger to curb such violence?
David Calleja
Sep 24th 2012, 16:52
I fully agree... couldnt have said it better myself!
Mark Anthony Fenech
Sep 20th 2012, 18:00
Blocking such videos and pictures will have us pandering to their ignorance. Islam still hasn't gone through the same process of maturity as a religion, Mohammed was born some 570 years after Christ so Muslims still have to overcome some of their more violent sects.
If the fire that is Islam continues to burn the way it is burning, then it will collapse on itself in the future because it will prove too much even for itself. It's like a bonfire which uses up all the wood or a fire which has no more air and therefore extinguishes itself.
Eric Soames
Sep 22nd 2012, 05:57
'then it will collapse on itself in the future ...'; from your lips to god's ears, sir.
Mike Abbot
Sep 20th 2012, 17:29
it's also a product of the lack of free speech in these countries. When the concept of free speech does not exist, by definition, speech is not free or rather is sanctioned by those in power, usually the government. Without a grasp of the concept of free speech, people in these countries therefore see things like this video as being sanctioned by the US and consequently do not see it as an action of an individual, but of an entire nation.
Mr Tony Gatt
Sep 21st 2012, 08:46
Freedom has responsibilities as well as rights. I agree this has been an over-reaction by the ignorant against the ignorant (i.e. the movie makers) but it's not a level 'playing field'; for example you cannot make any statement you like against Jews in America, because I have heard there are laws preventing you from doing so.
Given that the movie makers knew there would be an over-reaction I would go so far as to charge them with manslaughter for causing the death of that ambassador- after all incitement to hatred is a crime in itself.
Please choose the reason of your report below: