Anti-U.S. protests over Islam film spread to Australia

Who knew the intolerance of jews and or Christians and their spread of inflammatory statements of intolerance could upset those of other faiths they were trying to upset?
It is clear that while we asa nation hold freedom of religion as a a cornerstone of our democracy, the right wing extremists have no qualms about attacking anything that is not just like themselves. They learned the lessons of the past , (pardon me if the order is not correct) that Jews can persecute Christians, that Christians can persecute Jews, that Muslims can persecute Christians, that Christians can persecute Muslims, that Buddhists, that Buddhists can persecute Muslims etc. and have used those lessons for evil purposes.
Here in the US we say you have right to free speech but we also say you do not have the right to yerll fire in a crowded theatre and cause a panic in which people are injured or die.
I am of the mind that where the intended consequence of an act is to create hate and violence around the world, we should have a legal penalty for that action. We already have sen prosecution for bullying over the internet which led to death. We need to find these evil makers of this film, it's financial backers, and distributors and hold them accountable for their actions. This should be done because it is right. What they have done is a grave breech of the freedom this country has given them and they must sufer adverse consequences in order that this not be repeated over and over bringing harm to our efforts for peace and democracy for all people.
A primary understanding of our freedom is we have a right to freedoms which do not harm freedoms of others. This film is a clear breach and while we respect the right of free speech , everyone has to be responsible for an obvious consequence of that action.

Should those who made episodes mocking Mormons, for instance, be similarly punished?

Or only if Mormons get angrier about it and start killing people?

I'm sure Mormons are used to others finding their beliefs a bit strange. Likewise snake handlers. Likewise the Amish. Likewise some extreme fundy Christians. These beliefs ARE outside of the majority of mainstream Christians. It only reinforces the true believers to be even more faithful to their sect. But they can't deny they ARE different.

South Park is presented as comic hyperbole, not truth. SP does it to everybody and lots of groups get their feathers ruffled. I say South Park is free speech, Rush speech is hate speech, speech capable of inciting murder.

Mormons haven't protested South Park (at least I haven't heard of that). And they don't seem inclined to kill others over it...

The people who made the anti-Muhammad movie knew very well they would inflame extremist Islamic factions. ANd it has had predictable results. In light of what Al Qaeda is capable of, it was totally irresponsible. And hopefully it will backfire, as most Muslims & Christians don't agree with using hate speech OR violence.

You do have to assess each case of defamation these days, what with the internet & all. Stuff is disseminated all too quickly.

Would you be ok with a political/social cartoon lampooning Islam that included a humorous depiction of the prophet? Say something that gently spoofs the situation going on right now?

Edit to add: I know that I've seen cartoon versions of Jesus presented in comical ways.

about the fact that you can't actually depict the prophet Mohammed...he was fuzzed out as I recall. They also had Jesus as a commando in an Iraq raid trying to save Jessica Lynch (during Bush era)...

Spoofing the situation going on right now wouldn't be helpful although I don't mind lampooning & poking fun at sacred cows. But given the deaths of the Americans, the timing would be insensitive to say the least and perhaps further inflame, if it went global. Depends how it was done, but I'd say ridicule would be risky right now.

You have to take into account how different the cultures are.

Would you be OK with that?

And let's say it was done at a time when things had quieted down, months from now.

So I guess if you don't mind getting death threats, then do it.

No I don't think anybody should censor it. But ti might not be smart.

It doesn't hold a candle to the content of "Innocence of Muslims". I have to question if you even saw both pieces if you think it's comparable.

I'm not really speaking against the greater argument, but that was a really bad example, sorry.

That one was pretty denigrating to those followers.

In fact, an actor quit the show due to their mocking of his beliefs.

Better example?

With respect to the Mormon episode, I would argue that if the Muslim prophet had been presented in a cartoon fashion they way the Mormon prophet was in that episode that there would be a reaction similar to what is happening with this Innocence movie.

"I would argue that if the Muslim prophet had been presented in a cartoon fashion they way the Mormon prophet was in that episode that there would be a reaction similar to what is happening with this Innocence movie."

I don't agree with this statement. I elaborated on the content of the innocence video in another response to you. I don't think the outrage would have been nearly as bad if it was only "South Park" level insulting.

South Park tried to include something like that are were prevented from doing so.

What about the reaction to the Danish cartoon? That was a lot gentler that this video, and there was a similar reaction.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is about the chaos of group pannic. This here is about people willfully acting like savage animals. Blaming a film for this violence strikes me as a racist comment. Why should it be expected that Muslims will be violent if you show a lack of respect for their religious beliefs? My beliefs are insulted on a daily basis and I don't hurt or kill anybody. Many Muslims don't respond with violence. Those who do should be viewed asnthe criminals that they are and not have their behaviour normalised.

The kinds of things produced by scores of different "production companies" over the last 15 years glorifying killing of Westerners and chanting how much Allah loves the blood of those who defy him.

If we "Westerners" as a whole killed one ambassador from an Islamic country for each such film, plus 3 others, the death toll would be in the many hundreds.

But we don't see them. Nobody that we want to listen to tells us about them. If we hear about them or their web sites, we turn the other way. We don't revel in our denigration by others, nor do we feel a need to keep our god, if we have one, from being violated and apparently needing a rape kit. You see, this is common practice in some circles. Yet we dare not say we're offended or even admit that we could be offended. (I know I'm offended by their existence. Yet I don't riot or get a riot going to kill people. On DU, my god is widely called a god of hate. The god of those who killed the Americans in Libya is widely called a god of peace. Orwell would blush with shame.)

It's the same with this anti-Muhammed film. It was put on Youtube in July. That's a couple of months ago. It took nearly a week of agitation by Xians pushing this video among Xians in some "Islamic" countries to make it a threat to those who can't abide the idea of freedom of choice in religion any more than they can freedom of speech. They're in charge of both. If they allow it, then it's a freedom. It's like telling the slave he has the afternoon off. It's limited freedom under a dictator. Anyway, it took the agitators a few days to get things ramped up to make sure as many people were accidentally offended, and then a day or two to organize the spontaneous protests. This was an agitprop operation. In Soviet terms, it was a provocation. Great propaganda. Not much truth in it, though. Just a lot of propaganda.

This is irresponsible speech in the same way that yelling "fire" in an empty theatre makes the person responsible for a panic that happens two weeks later, when somebody whispers, "Did you know that somebody yelled 'fire'?"

Once you say that you're at the mercy of another's sensitivities, you're done for. I personally find "anglo" to be an offensive term. My ancestors were killed by Angles and Saxons and now I'm called by their ethnonym. Does my taking offense matter? No? Why not? Am I less than those who killed some Americans simpy because I haven't killed anybody yet? So do you think there should be fines and abrogation of freedom of speech because I'm offended?

No. We're all equal, but some are more equal than others.

then we'd see huh?

because this film flew under the radar until 'someone' translated it into Arabic and reposted it, then all hell broke loose but maybe there is more going on here but never mind that or something.........

The people who made the Mohammed movie intended it as deliberate provocation, with a certainty of rioting and violence. The people who make anti-Christian movies have obviously not had such a response--it's more to fan the hatred among their own (much like our rightwing extremist groups do).

We lose freedom of speech when it is incitement to violence and killing.

You seem to think Freedom of Speech doesn't apply if it pisses someone off. That's the whole point of free speech. It's going to piss people off. Trashing a religion is freedom of speech. It's the Muslims that are creating the hysteria. Do a search and you will find countless videos trashing the Jews and Christians. Are they protesting? Are they invading embassies and murdering diplomats? No.

Im sorry if it leads to violence. But I refuse to sacrifice my rights because some radical religious terrorists on the other side of the planet get angry and violent over a garbage YouTube-quality movie. It's a consequence of a free society.

Someone needs to tell the mid-east to grow some skin. Anytime anyone in the west makes a cartoon or movie that criticizes their Prophet they riot and kill people. That's totally unacceptable behavior in a modern civilization. Im sick and tired people blaming America for it. It's ridiculous.

not to trust or like the US. We are not beyond blame.

You have to understand the culture of people who have been kept under tight control by religion and government for a long time. They have few outlets for expression of anger and consternation.

They are being manipulated. Much as some in America are being manipulated by powerful entities.

Think hard before making it "Us" vs "Them." We probably have more in common with the downtrodden zealots than you'd like to admit. How has freedom of speech been curtailed in America recently?

The Muslims themselves say it IS the insults to their religion that is causing the outrage, and not other, seemingly more valid reasons.

used to fire up outrage. We don't really know who exactly is behind it. Libya says Al Qaeda.

This isn't really about a movie.

As a free speech zealot, I am grateful for the near impossibility of making that happen.

zealot:
noun
one who is intensely or excessively devoted to a cause <zealots on both sides of the issue resorted to name-calling and scare tactics>
Synonyms: crusader, fanatic, ideologue (also idealogue), militant, partisan (also partizan), red hot, true believer, activist, diehard, extremist, fanatic, fiend, maniac, militant, nut, radical, ultra*, young Turk

One of the arguments I've seen is that the people in the various countries where rioting/protesting has taken place in response to this movie are doing so because they do not understand how a movie can be produced without authorization from the country (in this case the US).

One would think in Australia there wouldn't be this confusion.

There are a billion Muslims on the planet; a few thousand are angrily protesting.

There are millions of Muslims in the US. Most are just trying to get along like the rest of us.

Honor killings in the West are notable for their rarity.

From the first response I read, it was as though there'd been nothing bigoted at all in the hidden post.

Living in Australia, I know that anyone who claims Muslims aren't trying to integrate is peddling extreme RW bigoted talking points. Same with the Muslim gang-rape crap, considering that gang rape knows no ethnicity or religious divide, and some of the most brutal (including murder) gang rapes have been carried out by white Australians...

These protestors in Sydney certainly weren't doing their cause any favors in Australia. Violent protests won't be tolerated there for long. (They're kinda cut off from the middle east over there...) I realize logic doesn't enter into it.
It's all about police provocation, so they can magnify this, get some footage of violence against Muslims IMO. The Sydney police were AMAZINGLY restrained!

People who know they are inciting riots should be prosecuted. If America had anti-defamation laws as strong as Britain, they might not get away with this so easily. And maybe Rush Limpballs & rightwing hate mongers could be stopped. Free Speech ends when it turns to Hate Speech IMO.

They make fun of religions too.

Or only religions whose adherents become violent when their religion is offended ought to be protected?

have always been made fun of, for their inconsistencies and for their unusual rituals. They are fair game, if it's done with respect. I thought Bill Maher did Religiosity in the right spirit. If you're a true believer, you can take it. You should be able to see that your religion (in a collective sense) is conducted by mere mortals, who don't always get it right. Pro-lifers who applaud killing abortion providers, for an obvious example. One must also accept that some people do not need religion, and that in itself is a belief that should be respected. Me personally, I believe that religions are a valid way of coping with this weird existence, as long as they are not harming others, or invading their private lives. Snake handlers are welcome to do their thing.

Clearly inciting people to use violence makes all the difference.

See my post 7 above.

And an impossible line to draw. What's respectful to some, will be interpreted as "incitement to violence" by another.

there is a line. You can mock anything as long as it's mocking and not incitement to violence.

Its morally reprehensible, its even "bad" mocking but it doesn't violate legal standards, not by a long shot.

I think it's in that grey area, like Rush Limpdick is. I think it would depend how it was framed. Fanning Muslim hate (like Rush plays on Christian hate) --calculated to flare on 9-11. Done as a smokescreen to give operatives (we don't quite know who) license to whip up violence. Intentional. Like the difference between someone who's an arsonist and someone who drops a lighted cigarette without thinking. Motive.

There's "legal" and there's "moral" --and they don't always line up. Sometimes you have to decide on a case by case basis.

This country was founded on being able to speak your mind.


Just like a woman in a short skirt does not deserve to be assaulted, someone making a trailer about a religion does not deserve violence.

If you commit a crime against someone, you can be held accountable. But they would still be accountable for any crimes they may have committed.

That said, I know most first world nations have laws against religious hate speech, which this video certainly is. The US is not among them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

And the the short skirt comment is not comparable. If it wasn't clear from my first line, I don't excuse any violence over this video, but people keep making really inappropriate comparisons to justify their positions in defending it.

nt

when the English version isn't getting the 'expected' attention?

In fact, they do their very best to get as many people around the world to watch as possible.

that was in that movie?

This movie is a cheap piece of garbage that was posted on YouTube.

or anyone else depict Mohammad doing the sexual stuff they depicted in that movie

But again you have got to be kidding with throwing in Jon Stewart and Bill Maher. The film systematically portrays Muslims(the people follow the Islam, not the religion itself) as thieves, adulterers, rapists, killers, and incestuous pedophiles. There is even a scene where a professor draws up a fake math equation to "prove" Muslims are subhuman. When have Bill Maher or Jon Stewart EVER done anything in even remotely in same realm? To anyone?

These false comparisons are not aiding in constructive discussion. Maybe there are some videos from the Middle East that portray Christian/Jews as such. If so, I have not seen them. But such a thing wouldn't be right either.

I daresay, most haven't seen it. So they would not be aware of those details.

One objection, as his been articulated repeatedly, is that it is forbidden to even portray "the prophet" at all.

Recall that South Park could not even do so in a cartoon fashion as the network blocked it out.

Remember also, the reaction to the Danish cartoonist and Salmon Rushdie's book.

Funny, that you say "maybe there are some videos from the Middle East" that portray Christian/Jews as such, but you have not seen them.

This, of course, happens with regularity. Jews, in particular, are consistently denigrated in media (usually state sponsored) throughout the Middle East.

That is part of why some of the reactions from leading government officials in some of those countries on this subject are so laughable.

It is not as strongly taboo as our media tends to portray it, especially among Shia. Not riot causing anyway, even among Sunni who are more strict. It really depends on how orthodox you might be. It is one of those things the talk shows like to latch on to and overplay, like the "72 virgins" line. With the internet reaching billions, there are bound to be some people in the world who will send back threats every time; threats which of course get reported on the news, every time. But this does not account for the masses of people protesting.

No, I am pretty sure it was all the dehumanizing hate speech that stirred up the riots. Again, the internet reaches billions of people. And with video players on phones I am sure most of the protesters have, in fact, seen it.

First, I do appreciate your respectful disagreement with my arguments. It's always nice to encounter such courtesy in spite of not seeing things quite the same way.

I know we are having two different discussions on two different threads, but to tie everything together, I do not believe that South Park could do an episode treating Islam in the way it treated Mormonism or Scientology without there being a reaction similar to this one.

My view is that they ought to be able to do so, and that the reaction to this vile video should not serve as a deterrent against those who would want to satirize Islam in that way, including depicting the prophet in a silly way as Joseph Smith and Jesus have been depicted.

The question of how to dispel this illusion of a perceived unquestionable belief is a very difficult one. Thickening their skins very slowly thought inquiry and rational discourse may be the best, and perhaps only option.

But very harsh statements and provocative intentions will likely make them pull back more. Making it even harder for them to apply their brain's ability for empathy to those already characterized with "infidel". One must start with the core of their reasoning, conditioned in the homogenous culture. Breaking down this concept of the Quran lacking any logical/factual error. The case is similar for addressing Christians and their concepts of the Bible, except usually less deeply ingrained. Only few Christian cultures existing today are as homogenous as those common in many Muslim countries.

From what I hear, 90% of the rioters haven't even seen the movie. This is the weakest excuse yet to riot and kill-a shit movie no one has ever seen. These "protesters" either need to grow thicker skin and except that it's the 21st century or admit to the REAL motive behind the violence.

As far as I'm concerned, once the gates of a U.S. Consulate are breached, it's game on and time to release the dogs. Literally and figuratively.

it's about the age-old hatreds and animosity between religious fanatics, fanned up out of the ever smoldering embers.

But we have to be better than taking them up on using violence (which is how I interpret releasing dogs). Consulates know that they can be caught in the middle of it. It's a dangerous job in some places. We don't do "an eye for an eye"...

but if someone is beating down the door with intent to murder, I would want them to be able to defend themselves fully. I know a lot of bullshit has been going on, but these Consulates are full of people just doing their job-much of it is assisting citizens of the countries they're in. From what I understand, Ambassador Stevens was well respected by the Libyans and a true professional.

of Saeed al-Shihri, Gaddafi loyalists, Mubarak loyalists, Al-Qaida recruitment. The movie was a convenient excuse for Al-Qaida to stir the shit-the general population of Libya and Egypt doesn't agree with rioting and the murder of innocents.

IMO the maker of the film who is an Egyptian Copt may well be ProMubarak and groups in Libya used the riots as cover but myself I think that Rightwingers in this country did the stirring up and did it with malice a forethought

Interesting how all those who must kill anyone who insults Islam are the ones who prove the criticism valid

...the only people getting killed are demonstrators.

In fact, I think you could demonstrate your principles even more impressively

by bringing a dvd of "The Innocence of Muslims" with you.

Talk is cheap when it's not YOUR life on the line.

The first amendment is the most fundamental element of our liberty and really what our civilization is based on. The vast majority of Americans will support full-scale war to defend that amendment, if it comes to that.

and don't forget that DVD...

but I cringe at his audacious jokes about Bin Ladin, Khadafi, and other deceased terrorists.....they're shown all over the world and besides being harmful to us (and to Letterman) in the long run, it's just plain bad taste......we got'em and that ought to be enough.

We can joke about our own Wall Street crooks all we want - they're ours.

It's all about tolerance. Cultures either embrace it or they embrace intolerance.

Freedom to speak, have a public opinion, to choose an idea or belief, or to challenge all of the preceding, these things are non-negotiable.

Tolerance is one of the most important concepts of a civilized society. It cannot be dictated to by the intolerant.

That sentiment is troubling though, isn't it? And this is in a Western democracy for what that is worth.

Build a fence around it and let them all fight eachother to the death and leave the 95% of us the fuck alone.

Australia is a closed society. They don't understand our concept of free speech. As far as they know this video is official state propaganda put out by the US government.

And given that we have invaded, bombed, and oppressed the aussies for decades how else would you expect them to respond?

The different arguments around all of this are quite fascinating.