Moronic abuse vs. responsible use of freedom of expression
Recently, four American diplomats, including the US ambassador to Libya, were killed in Benghazi by a group of morons, protesting a so-called movie insulting the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), produced by a moron in California and supported by another moron in Florida.
While intellectuals, human rights activists, diplomats, politicians and all the other wise men and women are debating how to protect individual freedom of expression, the morons, be they American, European, Middle Eastern, Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Israeli, are exploiting that debate. These morons are causing unnecessary political crises and, most tragically, the deaths of real persons. There is no doubt that Ambassador Chris Stevens, killed in Benghazi, would be the first to defend everyone’s freedom of expression. It is unfortunate that he lost his life simply because a producer had abused that very freedom in quite a moronic way -- as he himself put it, in order to provoke Muslims.
What happened, really? What is the most accurate description of what the fictitious Israeli-American Sam Bacile did? Was it yet another Israeli plot to instigate hatred among Americans against Muslims? Or was it a conspiracy set up by the so-called Israel lobby against the Obama administration in order to portray it as impotent in protecting American diplomats, let alone regular citizens, abroad, especially before the upcoming election in November? Or, enjoying every bit of his or her freedom of expression, should one, be it a public official, journalist, academic or anybody, argue that the provocation intended by the film was a part of a larger plot masterminded by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against President Barack Obama, with whom he could not even get an appointment during the upcoming UN General Assembly? So where is the line, really, between the acceptable exercise of one’s freedom of expression and the illegitimate abuse of that freedom for libel and defamation of an individual, group or religion?
Ideally, no one should even pay attention, let alone take to the streets in protest, when a moron threatens to burn the Quran, or produces a wretched video that insults either Islam or the Prophet. Such provocations should be confined to private spaces, and the provocateurs should not be given publicity. Morally, those perpetrating the actual violence in protest are indeed guiltier and even more moronic than those provoking the former in the first place. And, theoretically, if everyone in the world believed in the unrestricted freedom of expression, and were equally indifferent to the denigration by the others of their beliefs and religions, such unfortunate incidents would probably not take place.
But practically, in this age of digital communication and social media, when someone abuses freedom of expression to instigate hatred and violence in one part of the world, it has the potential to cause the deaths of real persons and destruction of property in the other parts. Moreover, it is almost impossible to stop the morons abroad, once they are out to harm individuals or damage property in alleged protest. Nor is it possible to know where in the world they will do so. It is rather easier and more manageable to contain the morons at home, who are abusing their constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression in order to instigate hatred and violence. In this regard, the challenge is in reaching a balance between the responsible use of freedom of expression and the moronic abuse of it to insult and demonize others.
HRC Res. 16/18 as a guide to freedom of expression
In this regard, UN Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which was adopted in March 2011 in Geneva, provides a guideline for the responsible use of freedom of expression. The resolution, titled “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief,” was adopted by a consensus of the United States, European Union, Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states and member states from other regional groups.
In November of the same year, the UN General Assembly in New York also adopted, by the consensus of 193 nations, a similar resolution derived from Res. 16/18 with the same title. The HRC Res. 16/18 simply suggests that states should take necessary precautions within their national legal systems consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, so that Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, agnostics and individuals subscribing to any sort of belief, or non-belief for that matter, are not exposed to violence and/or discrimination on that basis.
Drawing on OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu’s call for states to take specific action to foster a domestic environment of religious tolerance, peace and respect, and on the eight points he set out at the 15th session of the HRC, this resolution aims to contain the potential damage caused not only by morons abusing their freedom of expression to instigate hatred and violence, but also by the morons reacting to those instigations in a violent manner. It deplores “any advocacy of discrimination or violence on the basis of religion or belief.” Yet it also “strongly” deplores “all acts of violence against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, as well as any such acts directed against their homes, businesses, properties, schools, cultural centers or places of worship.”
That is, it deplores not only the making of the film insulting the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), which at the end of the day demonizes Muslims, but also the violence perpetrated in the name of protesting that film. Moreover, resolution 16/18 condemns “any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means.”
Are you aware of the danger?
This consensus resolution is the outcome of an arduous and lengthy process of negotiation between the OIC member states and other stakeholders, most prominently the United States and the European Union countries. It has been produced precisely to prevent the kind of unfortunate incidents that started in Egypt and Libya and continued in Yemen and Sudan, and are likely to spread to other countries.
Thankfully, both the instigation and the violent protests it entailed have received unanimous condemnation from religious groups, political leaders, civil society organizations and other stakeholders. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described Sam Bacile’s video as “disgusting and reprehensible” and a cynical attempt to offend people for their religious beliefs. Similarly, President Barack Obama reiterated that the US has a profound respect for people of all faiths.
OIC Secretary-General İhsanoğlu said, “While the film was a deplorable act of incitement, resorting to violence resulting in the loss of innocent lives could not be condoned.” He also reminded listeners that the two unfortunate incidents, the defamatory film itself and the violent protests against it, demonstrated “the serious repercussions of abuse of freedom of expression that the OIC had consistently been warning against.”
In a press statement the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) said that it “totally condemns the defamatory and insulting video.” The Islamic Networks Group (ING) and its affiliates across the US condemned in “the strongest possible terms the extremist attacks on US diplomatic compounds in Libya and Egypt.” The Interfaith Center of New York joined the ING in condemning the killing of the American diplomats and the ensuing violence, while noting its conviction that “Rev. Terry Jones and the funders of [the] heinous and venomous video disrespect the memory of those who perished [in the American compound in Benghazi] and grossly warp the true tenets of Christianity and Judaism.”
Another American organization, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), made a statement at a news conference on Capitol Hill condemning the attacks on the US diplomatic missions in Egypt and Libya as well as the killing of the American diplomats. It also stated that ordinary Americans and the US government should not be blamed for the religious hatred expressed in the infamous film. Similarly, Egypt’s Coptic community, as well as California’s, condemned the film for insulting the Prophet Muhammad and have distanced themselves from its producer, who identified himself as Egyptian Coptic Christian.
Moreover, the prominent Turkish Muslim scholar Fethullah Gülen called on all Muslims to avoid extremes. In an interview published on his website (www.herkul.org), Gülen said that while it was one extreme to remain silent in the face of systematic defamation of Islam and the Prophet, another was to resort to violence and kill innocent people in the name of allegedly protesting such defamation. He stressed that there was nothing Islamic about attacking innocent people (like the American diplomats in Benghazi) for something in which they have no involvement. “If Muslims are carrying out these violent acts, it is clear that they are not aware at all of what Islam is about. If they are carried out by others, and there are Muslims supporting these violent acts, then these Muslims are grossly insulting Islam,” he said. Instead, Muslims should express their reactions in a calm and peaceful manner, he emphasized. The only consolation at this point is to see that Muslims and Christians both in the United States and the Middle East have unanimously condemned the wretched film, and united against yet another heinous attempt to sow discord among them. Yet the danger is still live and threatening to cause political turmoil in the months ahead. Even if each and every abuse of freedom of expression does not lead to bloody protests, it is likely to increase stereotypes and mar perceptions of Muslims.
Although they may seem to be most affected these days, Muslims are not the only ones threatened by deliberately constructed stereotypes under the guise of exercising freedom of expression. The defamation of the other seems to have a boomerang-like nature, and is likely to sooner or later haunt the perpetrator of such defamation. Even if this is the case, it is still unacceptable, given that, regardless of their identities, real persons are victims of it. That is, Muslims who are stereotyped today will not be better off tomorrow if Jews, Christians or others are then stereotyped and discriminated against.
The defamation of the other is a stain on the collective conscience of humanity, no matter whom it is directed at. It requires a collective and collaborative action to defeat it. While it is extremely important to name and shame the morons in our societies who deliberately abuse their freedom of expression to defame others, it is also necessary for states and civil society organizations to support initiatives like HRC Resolution 16/18 at the political level in order to encourage worldwide respect for the sanctity of the other.
- Created on .