I've been absent from the blog for a good long time, sadly the world continues to be replete with dickery regardless.
This post concerns recent protests in Sydney and the US in response to some dicky film that poked fun at Islam. I want to find a middle point between the us and them that has characterised most responses.
Today I'd like to get under the skin of the protests in response to the film 'The Innocence of Muslims' - a massive troll in celluloid form.
Discussing a topic like this is a fine line. The Islamic line wavers between regret from moderates that such protests occurred to a defiant 'this is what you get for pissing us off'. The non-Islamic line tends to vary between a hysterical and bigoted condemnation of every Muslim everywhere, ever, to a meek obeisance that we should not anger or offend anybody, especially Muslims.
I have no especial grievance against Islam, though I detest a fanatic of any stripe. Christian Dominionists, in my mind, are cut from the same cloth as extremists who call for global jihad on non-believers. In much the same way that I would not care to live under sharia law, neither would I care to live under strict Christian fundamentalist law or orthodox interpretations of the Mosaic or Noahide laws. I'm an atheist. The legends of our past may be useful to ponder and consider in the modern light of day, but they are not an unassailable truth to be forced at sword or gunpoint onto everybody else.
With this in mind, when I hear of a film like 'The Innocence of Muslims' the only thought that leaps to mind is that some idiot gang of trolls are baiting those whose knee-jerk tempers are sure to create carnage. The dumb leading the psychotic.
In much the same way reactions were formed to Salman Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses', or the Dutch comic strip that caused so much kerfuffle, anger has been fomented for anger's sake. Little has been done to study the source and see if it is worth the opprobium. This is not to compare the three creative works in any sense as similar in quality, something that would be a great disservice to Rushdie. The knee-jerk reaction has already been prompted, and I cannot imagine that any great number of the shocked and offended have actually seen the film.
Then there is this, as recently revealed by author Neil Gaiman. In short, those performing in the film had no idea what they were making. Will this cause anyone to reconsider making a death-threat against the cast? Sadly, I doubt it. It is not the film itself that has caused such consternation, but the idea of it. I would hazard a wild guess that maybe less than a tenth of the most vocal of protestors have even seen the film, let alone can articulate exactly why it causes offence.
In a western democracy, we have grown to adopt certain conventions that we think define our style of society. Chief among this is the notion of personal liberty. Whether we say that any one nation or nation's government does a good job of protecting this notion is another - much longer - story, regardless we have grown accustomed to notions of free speech, freedom of - and from - religion, and of secular governance. We have long thought that the best protection that can be given to a citizen is the understanding that each citizen is equal to all others. The culture clash between this notion and certain of the more radical elements of Islam (note: not all Muslims as some critics are wont to say, only an aggressive minority) is stark. Some radicals posit a world where you convert to Islam or die an ignoble death, in much the same way that Christian Dominionists posit a world where you're a Christian or else. In this stark vision, any comment or deed that is seen to cast the Prophet in an unflattering light is fit to be punished only by swift and brutal murder.
As uncomfortable as it is to contemplate, the placards of some protestors tell this story in plain detail;
"Behead those who insult Islam."
"Facebook, do you want to risk death for insulting Mohammed?"
"Freedom of speech does not extend to offending Islam."
Belief or death. Fearful obeisance or crazed, brutal murder - those are your choices. Fortunately, many among various Islamic communities have realised that presenting such a stark choice in a western democracy will only backfire - it will cause more hate and resentment for the innocent than it will vindication for the zealous. Good on them I say. A calm and level head, co-operation and harmony are always infinitely better choices than stab!murder!shoot!death!
The zealot does not want peace, harmony or coexistence, and this is where the problem lies. You may be friends with 1, 10 or a hundred moderate, easy-going Muslims, but the same faith that nourishes the moderate is the same faith that nourishes the blood-stained zealot. I would never claim to know which one is correct, or more faithful to their doctrine - it's not my business and it's not my place. Ultimately, I don't really care either. As far as I am concerned, I do not care if you are furious over offence caused to the Prophet, or if you are carrying a gun to an abortion clinic in the name of the carpenter's son, or with a bunch of your drunken mates looking for 'poofters' to bash up, if you look for fellow human beings to beat, torture or kill, I don't care what you believe in, or what your justification is - you are committing an act of evil. No act of goodness, no state of grace was ever built on a mountain of blood, tears and broken bones.
Some douchebags somewhere conned some innocent people to be in a stupid film. They did this to bait a group of people whose temper is always too easily roused. Predictably, the baited party rose to the bait, accompanied by the usual barrage of death-threats. We cannot pretend that either party is virtuous here. Film-makers exploited their cast to throw a barb at people. The most vocal and zealous of their target group reacted with overblown psychotic fury.
If we truly value freedom of speech in a western democracy, we should learn to respect it. This does not mean being silent out of fear of reprisal, but it also does not mean intentionally baiting a group of people for kicks and screwing over others to do so. Likewise, the more religious of our citizens need to learn - your faith is important, but to you, and not to all others around you. Being in a community with multiple beliefs, no beliefs and beliefs to different degrees of fervency, means you will encounter someone, at least once, who either does not understand your faith or regards it as foolish. Somehow, we make this work. With difficulty at times, but we lumber along. But the foundation of this difficult arrangement is we must recognise we do not necessarily know any better than our neighbour, and that we must at least try to get along at a basic level.
If the protests have shown us anything it is that the notion of living in harmony is always going to be difficult to achieve. The maliciously mischievous and the reactionarily brutal will always be standing there to derail our best intentions. It does no good to blame all Muslims, especially those genuinely embarassed or horrified by the protestor's behaviour, but neither does it do good service to say that a mean-spirited con-job like the film in question is a good example of freedom of speech.
So here's the rub - If you want to make a film critical of one faith or another, do it honestly. If you disagree with the content of that film, articulate why, and try to do that without threatening murder or global conquest. Maybe you'll both learn something.
0 comments:
Post a Comment